Indeed it is. Whether it's July or September the result will be the same, AK and RS will lose their appeal. What will the faithful do then? As the lovebirds final appeal to the Supreme Court drags on for a few more years most of the faithful will move on to some other cause they find interesting. After all, Amanda won't be so young anymore, she'll be hardened by years in prison, "wacky Amanda" will be replaced by a bitter women pushing 30 and there will always be another cute American girl in trouble for the faithful to latch on to. And in the next case, as in this one, the faithful will continue believe that have complete knowledge of every aspect of the planet, from forensic pathology to international law to criminal psychology....all because they can Google.
'Pass the hash pipe, I'll play the
Doors tapes!'
As we're both 'Lost in a Roman wilderness of pain' in this discussion, perhaps one of us has chosen to alleviate their discomfort by partaking in the usage of non-traditional pain relievers now legal in certain states? It's possible you think that of me, though my state is not one of them, thus let me explain just why I think why things are going especially well for the Good Guys, part of an nearly inevitable process that will lead to their exoneration long before Raffaele is thirty, let alone Amanda.
Have you ever considered the possibility that
even if there was a cabal of licentious males obsessed over the fate of this college-aged chick and her funnyman boyfriend they still might be right? That if there was a 'PR campaign' that actually amounted to more than the parents going on TV and telling their side of the story, that the facts might be on their side and Amanda and Raffaele are innocent? That's at least
possible, right?
After all, how is it that what can be found through google, library cards and in textbooks--truly curious sources compared to just accepting the word of prosecution authorities on various subjects--seem to back the contentions of the
innocentisti? Are they part of this 'shadowy network' too? Why is it that no one has been able to dig up a link, or cite a book or text, that actually backs the contention that a healthy 20 year-old girl eating a small to moderate meal having consumed no or little alcohol could have failed to pass anything into her duodenum for more than five hours? Or that for it even to have been four was at the edge of probability? Why is it that in attempting to refute Itrona's testimony the 'infallible' guy named Giancarlo never bothers to actually address that argument?
I will freely admit that I'm terribly proud of the 'B' (on a curve!) I earned having to take that obnoxious 5 credit biology class in college. Your argument elsewhere on this page suggests you believe I've no business even offering an opinion on that topic, whereas I suspect that if I, whose now spent more time reading on that subject the last six months than I ever did my textbook during that miserable (classroom) experience, can look into it and find not only those links but others that corroborate it, and note no one disputing that can do anything but attempt to obfuscate, that there is something
terribly wrong with the idea that Meredith died anytime after 10:30 and that's it's highly unlikely it was after 9:30.
That's not the only example, it's one of
legion. This whole case is replete with examples where the prosecution's contentions do not survive even basic scrutiny. Also, neither does the story of the police,
especially regarding the interrogation and subsequent arrests of Patrick, Raffaele and Amanda. Now, knowing that I'm actually
not interested in this solely because Amanda's a pretty girl, and it just so happens that I've more knowledge and experience regarding subjects related to this than I do the above, I can get a pretty good idea of what probably occurred: the cops blew the interrogation because due to coincidence, clownish incompetence, confirmation bias--and perhaps even animus--they convinced themselves Amanda was complicit with Patrick in the murder of Meredith Kercher. I certainly don't expect you to take my word for it, but that's where I'm coming from.
Therefore as this plays out all that's needed is exposure to reveal the real story to all. The trial will be a big part of that, of course, they'll be taking that crippled case through court again, running into ambushes at every juncture, but more than that the inconsistencies in the prosecution's story and the lengths at which they've gone to keep people from criticizing them can't help but surface. These have been some
bad little piggies, and bad little piggies become bacon at market. A meltdown from Mignini wasn't required, but it sure does help to speed up this process, as one thing
real journalists are pretty much in accordance with despite other differences is that they shouldn't be thrown in jail for reporting their take on what happened in an event. It tends to piss them off too, and that's not often the best way to get puff pieces out of them.
Perhaps you could consider the possibility that if you're willing to accept the proposition that all these disparate people from all over the world who argue or campaign for Amanda's innocence are obsessed over Amanda's looks, and perhaps even 'coordinated' by some backwater PR firm which is only a disguise for the master manipulators of the media they are, maybe the idea the cops really screwed the pooch and are covering it up is not such a unlikely possibility? Isn't it a more plausible motivation for a group of people who work together on the same 'team' to go beyond the bounds of propriety to cover their asses, which in turn provides even more incentive to think they're doing it for the 'greater good' to put a monstrous murderess behind bars, and as such would go out of their way to help out the 'team?'
Thus as we
wind on down the road I suspect you'll find that more time and exposure will reveal that indeed those damned 'groupies' were right all along regarding just about everything. That each and every step of the process from here on out will just serve to reveal that, and by spitting in the face of the CPJ with another preposterous charge Mignini has revealed himself. Consider that initial reports assume there's substance to the charge, that Frank actually did say something defamatory about Mignini. As you know, that's not the case, which will make this charge even more evidence of the desperation, delusion or both of Mignini.
It's only a matter of time at this point in my view. I'd rather make my case with movies and music being as that's lots more fun, but I've been through all those boring and tedious subjects relating to the luminol footprints and the DNA evidence and I'm pretty damn sure I know what they mean, and how they will eventually effect the case. Your appeal to credentialism elsewhere doesn't take into account all those experts stepping forward drown the clowns and incompetents that caused this travesty with their credentials, and outside the forlorn hope they might all be sexually obsessed or motivated by instinct to help a young lady in peril, there's nothing to refute their analysis. Nor that of all those scientific and other texts in which that couldn't possibly be a factor.
That's why with this trial I suspect the final result will be 'Good Guys win, Bad Guys lose,
and this time justice prevails!' 
