lane99 said:
You indicated it in a reply to a previous question I had asked you. Post 8285, to be exact. Nevertheless, I quite understand if you'd like to retract that postion now
lane99,
#1 I don’t indicate or suggest things. Either
I say something or
I don’t say something.
#2 I never said what you are attributing to me, and you are lying.
I never stated
I would still consider Knox and the boyfriend guilty even if both of them weren't even at the crime scene.
You made this false attribution:
lane99 said:
“ He's suggested he would still consider Knox and the boyfriend guilty even if both of them weren't even at the crime scene while the victim was being attacked".
So I answered, in #9099:
Machiavelli said:
" Where did I say that?
What I said is different: I said would consider them guilty even if it were proved that the attack occurred exactly at 21:10. "
I never stated that I would consider them guilty even if
both were not there when Meredith were attacked. On the other hand, bear in mind, I
never stated the contrary neither: I never thought, for exampl, that it would be required for them to be both present when Meredith is attacked in order to be guilty. But I
did not state that I would consider them guilty even even both were not there when Meredith were attacked.
In that case, I point out this now, they still
could be guilty, in principle. I never stated they would be guilty for sure in that case.
What I said is different. I said
I would consider them guilty even if it were proved that the attack occurred exactly at 21:10.
So, it appears you are purposely attributing false statements to another poster, misquoting as mean of provocation. You lie more than once: you lie when you affirm that I made a retraction, and also you lie again when you attempt to force my hand by falsely attributing me the following position:
”So, I now take it that you do in fact accept that if both were not there when Miss Kercher was attacked, then both can not be guilty of her murder. And we agree on that point”
.
I think this game by yours is dirty, very telling of one's intellectual honesty, and I think it’s you who should retract your false statement attributing to me things I didn't say.
Let’s check, in fact, what I actually said in the post 8285 you cited:
Note: the thread just before 8285 starts with this comment of yours:
Machiavelli (quoted):
. “ Even if it was proven that Meredith was attacked exactly at 21:10 I would still consider Amanda guilty...
Lane99 (comments):
“The plot thickens.
If that was so proven, would you also still consider the boyfriend (Raf) guilty of murder?”
And this is 8285:
Lane99 (quoted):
“The plot thickens.
If that was so proven, would you also still consider the boyfriend (Raf) guilty of murder?”
Machiavelli (comments):
Yes, both.
The concept of "guilty" has here the meaning of who can be assigned the legal responsability of something. Amanda and Raffaele are both equally reponsible as long as they "cover" each other or the murderer
*
So, the principles, and convincements on the case, I expressed in those posts, contain the acknowledgment that:
1. there is in fact a legal principle by which the covering can be equated to complicity, to be guilty it is indeed not necessary to be there when Meredith is attacked, the alteration of the scene can be sufficient by the law to be guilty of the charge of murder as long as the defendants cover up the murderers actions, or if the defendants covers the murderer. This is true in Italian law as a general principle, but
2. this does not come into play in this particular case, because in this particular case there would be never evidence that both defendants were not present when Meredith was attacked. Even if it was possible (in an absurd, in fact physically impossible deduction) to place the ToD exatly at 21:10, there would be no evidence that both defendants were absent from the house. The absence of only one means nothing as long as they lie protecting each other. And actually, to be precise, there won’t be any evidence that not even any one of the defendants was absent, in fact we won’t know where he/she was let’s say at 21:05, meaning a moment short prior to that in which the murderer was already there.
To say Amanda and Raffaele have an alibi, in this case you need
two alibis – not just one - and both should be valid over
a whole period of time, you must not have only
one alibi which is generic (no match to the person) and valid only on a spot of the timeline.
, Massei quotes Ronchi:
that nobody was putting pressure on them to produce needed results.