The text on pages 95-99 of the Massei Report is not what she said verbatim. Why are you so afraid to have the actual witnesses testimonies made available to the public?
Why do you keep claiming this? I challenge you to point to a single post I or anyone else has made here that says they are afraid of anything in the trial transcript. In fact I challenge you to find anything that even with the most creative twisting resembles such a statement.
I'm sure we'd all welcome every single page of the transcript being uploaded to the net tomorrow and magically translated into English the next day.
If anything I think such an event would blow your case utterly out of the water. Why do I think that? That is because I think with access to the actual statements of Ronchi and Cingolani, and access to evidence as to when Massei watched the autopsy video, that it's highly likely we could prove that Massei
knowingly misrepresented their evidence in order to make the 23:30 time of death seem plausible, and knowingly ignored Dr Lalli's testimony.
So as a matter of fact I'd love to have those transcripts. Love it.
Your inane argument is that you actually believe you know what she said in court.
We do know what she said, or at least we know that part of what she said that Massei relied on in reaching a verdict. What specific things in her specific words do you think we need to know about?
Let me guess: You no more have a coherent theory about what
might be hiding in the transcripts than you have a coherent case for Amanda and Raffaele's guilt, or a coherent theory of the crime.
You don't speak Italian, you weren't in the court when she testified, you have no transcript of what she did said but you expect folks to believe you over the court. Sorry, it's not working.
Alt+F4, if my personal definition of "working" was making you admit that your theory was evil nonsense I would give up now, because based on the evidence so far I see no reason whatsoever to believe that any amount of logical argument or references to the peer-reviewed scientific literature could ever make you shift from your private theory about what happened.
However I do feel obliged to point out that you don't speak Italian either, you weren't in the court when anyone testified either, you have no transcript of the bulk of court proceedings either but you
still expect folks to believe your pet theory over that of the court. Isn't that enormously hypocritical?
Like me or not, at least I'm consistent. I think that armed with reason, science and the Motivations one can have an informed opinion about the case. You argue out of one side of your mouth that even with science, reason and the Motivations one cannot have an opinion, then out of the other side of your mouth you claim to believe your own pet theory which not only contradicts that of the court but has no reason, logic or science to back it up.
Please, pick one and stick with it. Either go full relativist and argue nobody can ever know anything, or stick with your pet theory and admit that maybe someone could in theory have an informed opinion on the matter.
