\\
Inter alia, the right not to be summarily dismissed, demeaned and degraded as "worm food."
Believe it or not, there are some very, very ugly people in this world that need such things spelled out for them.
You reminded me of something:
Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges.
It's a nasty little phrase, attributed to a Roman statesman--Cicero I think--it can be used to justify more or less anything if conditions seem dire enough or the cause just enough. Perhaps at times that does some greater good, but no one ever forgets the excesses, those are with you forever. Being as I've been awfully critical of Italian jurisprudence of late, even to the extent of gleefully hoping the creaking rotting mess goes up in
smoke in the near future for the good of human liberty and the Italians currently abused by it, it would only seem fair to remind some of what the above concept has sometimes led to in our own country, and some famous instances you probably remember reading about in law school.
What's the first thing they remind you about Abe Lincoln when giving you an objective assessment of his conduct as president? He suspended the writ of
habeas corpus. Another fellow you might have learned about at one point was the guy who used the concept to move people around to places they didn't want to go because people were scared, I believe his name was Earl Warren. He's remembered for other things too of course, but he can't take his name off the other and there's still people pissed about it to this day.
Wars have to end sometime though, and then you get to live with the consequences of what you did, and those don't go away. Perhaps instead of looking to justify any behavior generally considered outside the bounds of civilized internet discussion due to an unfortunate phrase that outrages those who sometimes appear to be worshiping at a shrine, we could instead try to figure out what the prosecution might do in the event the bra clasp and 'murder knife' are tossed into the Tiber?
Now, last time you were here you seemed to be arguing that Rudy Guede had a closer relationship to Amanda Knox than previously advanced, and I've seen elsewhere that some think Raffaele Sollecito must have known Rudy as well. As in the event that DNA 'evidence' is thrown out there will be absolutely nothing tying either to the murder site, do you suppose the prosecution might forgo trying to put either in that room? Instead to prove conspiracy to cover up for their 'friend' Rudy Guede for whatever reason? The Italian posting about the Italian System at the IIP site suggested months ago that's what he thought would be the strategy of the new prosecutor, and with no actual evidence of either being at the scene that would seem a rational proposition.
As for the witnesses, which would you think might be kept by the prosecution? If I recall correctly you have an interest in cross examination, what do you suppose might be the fate of a fellow like Curatolo if he were to be put back up on that stand? What kind of questions would you ask him were you a defense lawyer? I'm no lawyer, but I do know something about questioning for other reasons, and I'm thinking some fun could really be had with that guy, especially with more recent revelations. Do you suppose the prosecution would really want to put him back on the stand, and do you think the risk worth it? Even last time he practically gave the defendants an alibi due to his rambling, which caused Mignini to have to extend the time of death about an hour, perhaps you'll recall that lead to an interesting debate here.
How about Quintavalle? He got accepted last time and wasn't singled out for 'special treatment' by Judge Hellmann like Toto was, thus I suppose his testimony might be intact for the current appeal. I would think if the DNA evidence is lost and Curatolo discredited, his claiming he saw Amanda lurking about his bleach the next morning might be of some value. I recall SomeAlibi making the point that early the next day there's a phone call and a music file played that belies the testimony they slept in that day. Perhaps the prosecution will work with this in order to try to prove some sort of clean-up? BTW, I read somewhere that at some point the next day Raffaele's computer assembled a music list called 'clean-up?' Was that true or just someone joking around?
As for the prospect of a clean up, outside the cursory swiping Rudy seemed to do in the murder room, I don't recall any evidence of a clean up at all, though I do recall odd mentions about it from time to time in Massei, but I never bothered to put them all together, though I read here that attempt was being made elsewhere, did anything come of it? Incidentally the current target of your ire has made a similar point from time to time, instead of playing the 'early bird' here maybe you could talk to him about that instead, being as he has read Massei very recently?
I'm just curious what they're going to do in that courtroom, and it doesn't seem to me that many are talking about it. They have wide latitude to press a different case than last time, and in the event the DNA 'evidence' goes missing they're still going to have to make a case, or just dismiss it and let them go home. What kind of case do you think they could make in the event of no ties to the murder room and no witness breaking their alibi on the night of the murder?
