As a courtesy to your reasoned rebuttal, which was as is your custom, very well written, but understandably after 65,000+/- in an identical vein, not noticeably 'new'.
(please note this as "acknowledgment")
I understand.
1) Until I hear "the other side of the story" about the C and V Report, I am not considering that at all in 'odds making'.
Obviously it as so far only superficially examined favors the Defense or the Defense would not have prematurely leaked it
You can
read it for yourself to determine whether it favors the defense cosmetically or fundamentally. Another way of divining that might well be by scrutinizing the arguments made against it to see if they're relevant or accurate.
The only other significant event since the last verdict was the ridiculous and extremely self damning 'day of the deceivers'.
This when the defense requested and condoned Jailbird *fully* convicted horrendous child killer and sundry known liars making absolute fools of themselves and showing how utterly sorrowfully desperate the Defense really was in putting on that farce for all to sit through... and see through.
I found that curious as well. I think perhaps you overstate its relevance though, and if you'll look back through these threads you might notice the
innocentisti weren't the ones expecting great things out of those witnesses, in fact for the most part you'll find pictures of little Tommy posted and indignant outrage from their condemners, with defensive explanations of the sordid and byzantine machinations of the Italian Court system in rebuttal. Although I will say that when I learned that Alessi had two corroborators and one was shrouded due to being a prosecution witness in another case, that testimony might not have been worthless, especially when one considers they did so under threat of sanction by the prosecution.
Think of it as a state witness and two corroborators, rather than kiddie-killer and friends as to what it actually
meant to the court, especially the three professional judges, not what can be 'spun' out of it. However it was still entirely unnecessary to establish the non-guilt of Raffaele and Amanda, thus it is indeed something of a quandary. I'd go with some variation of 'byzantine' as an explanation.
Sorry to disappoint, but my 'odds' with the above in mind are almost the same as after the first trial's evidence ended....strongly and without an iota of *reasonable* doubt...guilty as charged.
Thus you are confident they will be convicted again, with a sentence similar to the one imposed by the Massei Court? Call it a 90% or so chance in your mind? I think the opposite, how strange!
Needless to say, in recognition of opposing "odds", I would again characterize a popular mantra here immediately after the C and V leak that "Its Over", "Truth has set them free", "They will be released at any hour" as pretty much little more than ill informed childish cheering rather than reasonable "bookmaking"
A little 'irrational exuberance' is sometimes excusable if it doesn't become a way of life, and remember who was
not affected? I know you peruse his posts regularly, if frustrated in your aims to find a spelling error perhaps contemplating the
meaning of them might provide insight, I've found it has.
2) Since day one I have repeatedly suggested others can and have argued this stuff from a guilty point of much better than I.
(e.g my error about blood in Amanda's room, albeit Dan O makes similar room error today)
Therefore I would not attempt to offer an "explanation" for your fanatically desired not guilty verdict.
This no more than I would proffer an "explanation" why OJ and Casey received this same verdict that you so strongly and steadfastly seek.
I don't think them similar at all. In fact I think you'll find that none of them had a half dozen books published proclaiming or strongly suggesting the innocence of the defendants before due process was even completed, and that the long-awaited refutation of them by the Times journalist whose role reporting this case to date could only be described as 'prosecution's bitch' has been twice delayed and now will allow for plenty of time to be completely re-written.
I think for both those the verdict was a big surprise, this one won't be for those who didn't get their information from the
Rabbit Hole. Did you know the 'historiography' (
) of these threads makes so much more sense when the fact Stilicho joined PMF on December 7th and Fiona circa December 11th of 2009 is taken into consideration? I'm sure you feel that was a wonderful development, I don't bring it up in scorn but to simply note that effect on this discussion.
PS:
1) Since your "benighted" adjective sounds so much like like "be-knighted" it understandably calls to mind what many use to explain some FOAKers' feverish fervor and frequency of activity on behalf of Knox, their "fair maiden" in distress.
That is deep in their hearts, and strongly prompting their defense of Knox some FOAKer Groupies are really just "White Knight" wannabes.
You say that like it's a
bad thing.
Like the world would be a better place if no one gave a damn or tried to help people. I thought Sancho had his head screwed on tighter and was funnier as well, but the story isn't quite the same without
The Man From LaMancha. I've heard there's a prologue out there told by some Inquisition-era Latin, a brilliant fellow who for some reason kept popping up related to epic naval battles, something of a smart ass and maybe a cynic...or was he a subtle satirist? The life and the book tell such
different stories...I think Broadway got it right...and perhaps it's time to see what happened after the curtain closed...
This similar to the phenomenon and the many strange 'pop up protectors' of "Run Bambi Run" Lawrencia Bembenek, the former Playboy Club waitress turned police officer turned famed escaped-convict-on-the-loose.
Heh, I've linked accounts of that a couple times to make another point. I do recall seeing the 'Run Bambi Run' T-shirts around here though. Actually I've no real idea what happened, however it did instruct me that courts between even NATO allies can differ on matters of extradition, even with treaties. Frankly I thought the damned Canucks ought to of coughed her up at once!
2) Interesting, though the complete communications engineered acceptable definition of "benighted" (I unashamedly love such words)
I include it because it does not IMHO in any way describe you or your many arguments and thoughts here favoring innocence.
However, since you brought it up, it may very well describe many of the other *arguments* of others here.
(although most certainly I hasten to add, not in any way of course *arguers* here)
be·night·ed Adjective/biˈnītid/
1. In a state of pitiful or contemptible intellectual or moral ignorance, typically owing to a lack of opportunity.
2. Overtaken by darkness.
I
suspect he understood how I
meant it.
