no, it doesn't
I find your
ideas on this subject very interesting much as I did your claims that AK didn't perform cartwheels in the police station despite direct testimony from AK herself that she did.
Claims you have repeated several times even after this testimony had been posted in direct response. I make this comparison as your earlier 'curiosity' over mendacious arguments brought it to mind.
On
this.
They filed or they didn't.
Asking as you put it or making comments outside the courtroom whether to barmen or journos counts for precisely nothing.
We both know they didn't - so give it up.
Your argument here is on a par with your cartwheel argument referenced above. You are obviously entitled to make them (and many others in a similar vein) but I hold them both (all) in the same esteem.
You
asked me to 'put up' - I hope this will suffice
platonov,
Your present claim "we both know they didn't" with reference to filing a motion is false, and I am beginning to suspect that you are already aware of this. I know no such thing with respect to what motions were filed with respect to the forensic files, nor have I ever claimed anything with what specific motions were filed other than what was documented at Perugia-Shock. In addition it is my understanding that the motion for a mistrial was based partly on this lack of discovery. Your attempt to put words into my mouth is impolite, given the number of times I have stated my position, corrected misunderstandings, and offered citations. So far your only evidence that motions were not filed is to some unspecified Italian speaker. Is it Machiavelli, or isn't it?
Did you read the relevant portions of Raffaele's appeal? If so, did Dr. Pascali lie, or was he denied the data he sought? You have evaded the same questions with respect to Dr. Krane and Mr. dalla Vedova. I hope for short, declarative answers if you want conversation to continue.
My understanding of what Amanda did or did not do is based on her testimony and what Frank Sfarzo reported, and it seems to me that you have misunderstood my position. The testimony of Amanda's with which I am familiar was ambiguous on the issue of just what athletic maneuvers she did and whether she did some of it after a policeman made a comment on her flexibility. The main problem is that both of the people asking questions lumped at least two things together, and Amanda's answers are general. Here is a
link to some testimony.
Thus,
FM: All right. We heard, and you gave testimony on this point, about your
behavior in the Questura, the cartwheel, the gymnastics, the stretching and
so forth.
And,
LG: To the Questura. After the Questura...there followed all these phases,
you were heard, then they took photographs, and you did cartwheels and splits?
Are those things true? How did they happen? And where did they happen?
At one point Amanda said, "I went somewhere a bit outside near the elevator, and I had taken my homework with me, so I started to do my homework, and then I needed to do some 'stretching', so I did some 'stretching', and that's when one policeman said something about my flexibility. A comment." I think that it is possible that a policeman asked her whether she could do the splits or a cartwheel (which is what Frank Sfarzo reported, IIRC).
I discussed the
question in the first Knox thread, and it grew a little
tiresome even then.
You can declare victory all you want, but that doesn't make your position correct. What you have written above is a failure in every respect. You failed to answer my questions or to provide citations. You have repeatedly failed to honestly engage in a discussion of the lack of discovery. I ask you again to withdraw your unproven allegations that I have made mendacious arguments.
