I see you've retreated from "It's impossible that Guede climbed in through the window," to "The court ruled that Guede didn't climb in through the window." That's progress, of a sort. And as for the hilted, that's just one of your usual lame attempts to distort and ridicule the other side's arguments.
No. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, and you continually ignore, we're dealing with what actually happened, rather than just what "the court concluded."
No, let
me help. You. Are. Not. The. Teacher. Here.
IOW, you're admitting that, in your scenario, you'd be arguing something you didn't actually believe, rather than arguing what you ought to be arguing, which is that West has served enough time and ought to be released.
Ah, I see now. You're attempting to insinuate, obliquely, that we don't really believe Knox is innocent, and that we're trying to come up with tortured reasoning to explain why she ought to be let off just because we feel sorry for her. Shame on you.
No, that's absolutely
not what I'm going to do. I'm going to start by considering whether any of your alternatives are plausible. If none of them are, I'm going to say, "None of those are plausible." If any of them are, then we'll talk. (Although it will be a rather short conversation, as West's stepdaughter disappeared while her husband was in prison, and she lied about the disappearance, so she's guilty beyond
any doubt of at least one murder.)
No. Among other things, the rule of law allows for the possibility that police and prosecutors sometimes get it wrong, that courts make mistakes, and that miscarriages of justice occur.
Must . . . resist . . . temptation . . .
It just dawned on me that you chose West for your example because a) she was extremely cruel, b) she was mind-bogglingly promiscuous, and c) you believe there appears to be no plausible doubt about her guilt
*, thus inviting readers to draw an implicit comparison between her and Knox. Shame on you.
No. First, many of the factoids you parrot were never established in court; for example, you keep falsely claiming that Knox's shoe print was found in Kercher's room, when that has
never been established.
Second, despite your continual attempts to pretend otherwise, a "legal fact" is not the same as an actual fact.
"Everyone who disagrees with me is either ignorant or willfully blind."
And yet, every time an appeals court rules in favor of Knox, you claim that they are mistaken, incompetent, and/or corrupt.
Because he could have, for reasons discussed by us and others, and ignored or handwaved away, as usual, by you.
Dammit, Vixen, that's the second one you've broken this week.
Begging the question that the police were competent to determine whether the burglary was staged. Further, despite your stubborn refusal to acknowledge them, we can point to several obvious errors in the investigation (for example, failure to consider Romanelli's testimony that there was glass
under the clothing on the floor).
Of course you do.
Oh, please, spare us the deliberate obtuseness.
They already had Guede dead to rights for murder and rape. How much difference was tacking on a burglary charge going to make?? The point of claiming the burglary was staged was to implicate Knox and Sollecito, by bolstering the prosecution's "inside job" theory.
Appeal to ridicule fallacy. And, BTW, that's an extremely poor example, because Trump's hush-money case
was a political prosecution (which unfortunately probably helped him get reelected, but which will probably also get the prosecutor elected the next Attorney General of New York State), as opposed to the classified-documents/obstruction case, in which the Justice Department had
Trump dead to rights, and could possibly have secured a conviction before the election if they hadn't botched the prosecution.
And, as has been explained to you
ad nauseam, courts sometimes get it wrong, especially in high-profile cases where there's tremendous pressure to solve a case quickly.
Yet you seem to have plenty of opinions about how all the appeals courts that found Knox and Sollecito not guilty got it wrong.
_________________
*West's husband committed two murders before they met, so there is a non-zero chance that she wasn't involved in the murders which she was convicted of participating in with him, although the evidence that she was is quite strong. However, as I mentioned, there is zero doubt that West murdered her stepdaughter while her husband was in prison.
