Everyone currently participating in this thread except for you can see that @Myriad wasn't insinuating that Amanda was being treated like a witch because she's a woman, along with most, and probably all, of the lurkers.
Yes, there are definitely some amazing things here, but I'd better not say what they are.
Somewhere in WTBH, IIRC, Knox makes the statement that Italians will sometimes use the words "locked" and "closed" in a confused way - as many Americans do in English. That is, one may say or assume a closed door is "locked" without testing it, while an open door is of course "unlocked". I don't know if this thought helps resolve the issue, since we can't be sure what the speakers meant at the relevant time.
Why do you keep pretending that every appeals court that overturned the findings of the merits court was corrupt or incompetent?
FTFY
The evidence that the bra clasp was severely mishandled, and that the knife was not the murder weapon, are incontrovertible. And that's without even addressing the issue of possible lab contamination or other errors. Further, as has been explained to you ad nauseam, mixed DNA in blood does not mean mixed blood.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Who were still clearly wrong, as has again been explained to you ad nauseam.
"Evidence must pass the 'I like it' test."
Then you can quote and cite that it was "downloaded in late October". Unless you can do that, it's just another unsupported claim. I'll be waiting.
That is a long way of saying, "I can't answer how Filomena would know when Meredith locked her door, so I'll just make a snarky remark that I think is clever."
Just another snarky way of saying you CAN'T "show me exactly WHERE in this statement Myriad references her sex,"
Hmmm...Since the pair was definitively acquitted, largely based on the C&V report, I'd say the SC preferred the defense's case.
Ah, yes. Trump. We agree on one thing. He is "crooked and dimwitted". But please explain to us exactly how Trump, in March 2015, had the power to influence a Supreme Court of Italy to free the pair? Go on, Vixen, explain that to us. Or, per your usual, are you going to just ignore that question?
Congratulations! You've outdone yourself with this one.
That's some fine rebuttal there!
Vixen, you have a deep misunderstanding of the Knox - Sollecito case under international law. Too bad your expertise doesn't seem to cover that area.
The prosecutor leads and directs the police investigation. An investigation that was found to be full of "glaring errors", "stunning weakness," and "investigative bouts of amnesia".
Good thing I stocked up again.You're not very good at reading minds, Vixen. Maybe you'd have better luck with tarot cards.
No. You keep trying to pretend that I and others are attributing to malice that which can clearly adequately be explained by incompetence.
This is basically the guilter MO at this point.
The false dichotomy is the result of the false assumptions by the guilters (PGP) that the police, prosecutors, and judges acted solely lawfully and competently and the false assumptions by the PIP that the police, prosecutors, and judges acted solely lawfully but incompetently.
You're not very good at reading minds, Vixen. Maybe you'd have better luck with tarot cards.
Everyone can see what you're trying to do here, which is to imply the existence of a false dichotomy. Namely, either the investigation and trial were carried out professionally, competently, and honestly, or else there was a huge police and judicial conspiracy to frame two people who were known to be innocent. You are ignoring the obvious third possibility, which is, as we have been saying all along, that the investigation and trial were conducted incompetently, featuring, inter alia, shoddy police work and forensics, a rush to judgment, tunnel vision, and numerous unwarranted assumptions.
No. You keep trying to pretend that I and others are attributing to malice that which can clearly adequately be explained by incompetence.
Further, even if I were to claim Amanda and Raffaele were intentionally framed, a modestly sized city police force hardly qualifies as a "powerful, secretive organization," such as, e.g., the American CIA, the Russian FSB, the Mafia, or a group of British government ministers conspiring to protect Rishi Sunak's business interests.
In some cases unlawful behavior by the police and judiciary can be adequately explained by incompetence, rather than malice, particularly when they believe, rightly or wrongly, that suspects are guilty. I intended the term "incompetence" to encompass certain illegal acts, including the interrogations, and I should have made that clear in my post.
Although it has no bearing on the fundamental unfairness of the investigation and trial, this does raise the question of whether, at least in some cases, the police were actually aware that they were breaking the law. If they were not, then their illegal actions may qualify as merely incompetent, rather than malicious.
Didn't you mean to say "a witness rather than a suspect" here?
As I've mentioned, @Vixen loves to bang on about how, supposedly, Amanda and Raffaele weren't technically suspects under Italian law, when they clearly were suspects, and thus the ECHR got it wrong when they ruled that Amanda's rights were violated.
It's funny how @Vixen loves to point out what she considers to be errors by all the courts, including the ECHR, that acquitted or otherwise ruled in Amanda and Raffaele's favor, yet she's not the least bit interested in this massive, glaring error by Chieffi.
SpitfireIX, I don't believe you have presented the full implications of your statements.
