OK. Try and find a basis for his history of prosecuting people based on weird theories beyond what Preston says. if he's got a "history" of it, I take it it's more than one other case? If you have a view about the monster of florence I take it that's taken on trust as to how bad it makes Mignini look, he really is only a footnote in the case after all? Are people saying that Mignini has a history of this because it's true, or because they think it ought to be/might be true/would be convenient if it were true.
The ability to properly
evaluate sources is a primary skill in situations like this. Do you remember
this post? Do you know what it was?
Evidence, of
someone unable or
unwilling to properly vet their source.
Note the date on that last post, she and he joined PMF within a week of the thread opening way back in the Cartwheels stage. Note that she'd been referencing TJMK since the first few days of the thread. There never
was an independent JREF guilt faction that didn't get it's information from those two websites, populated by the same people, the messageboard, and the showboard. They
invited the whole
rabbit hole over here and then 'logic and proportion' fell 'sloppy dead' on these threads. What became important was 'discrediting'
posters and
sources over meaningless
details to
thunderous acclaim.
It was all an illusion. It was merely
importing the theories of PMF and TJMK here, there never
was any time 'JREF' posters made a rational coherent argument for guilt, it was the irrational incoherent theories of two incestuous boards imported here by a few people who went looking for information and found a megaton of it at a source they didn't properly evaluate. They fell for it hook, line and sinker, and to this date still hold to the same discredited theories inventing sillier and crazier theories why they might be right, and that seems to have been entirely ignored by you.
Perhaps noting the bra clasp and the knife argument hasn't been advanced much since 2009 you might consider that over 70k posts here and countless elsewhere in which the argument was made by
innocentisti in the last eight months the independent review was granted, the Italian independent scientists validated the arguments made, and the court accepted them. That means the
innocentisti were right! The ones saying it looked
ominous for Knox and Sollecito were wrong! The ones who tried to 'rehabilitate' Curatolo by visiting him and giving him smack cash and smelling him turned out to be badly deluded--as those arguing innocence said from the
beginning.
You were helpful to me in establishing the credibility of a
source, as I saw you disputing a claim of the interrogation I was dubious of myself, and your efforts assisted me in divining the truth of the matter, and also it appeared you were irritating the owner of the site, but he let it continue as he had nothing to hide.
That is a very good indication of whether a source is interested in factual information or is merely promoting disinformation, as the sites that don't allow dissent oftentimes polarize to the edge of lunacy, or are deliberately trying to deceive as their arguments cannot survive scrutiny. You seem to think this is not easily determined, however I think I've spotted a pattern about one
site.
Since the split in spring, another 40 have been added to the honor roll. You'll have to log onto your account there to see it, for some reason they don't like people being able to link searches to their site. That ought to tell you something, I don't think IIP ever banned anyone for disagreeing, when you have the truth on your side you have nothing to hide, nor any reasons to make excuses and kooky theories to hide the fact your arguments cannot endure illumination.
So perhaps instead of accepting wholesale the smear on Douglas Preston and others and the utterly dishonest attempt to deliberately deceive people about Giuliani Mignini, why don't you just follow this google
search like I did in order to establish the truth of the matter and read from as many sources as possible, instead of just believing what one site says because others just cribbed their arguments and paraphrased their posts? You can even see the
kook in action for yourself, as it would just so happen, having to answer questions about that Preston interrogation. Why don't you see if he looks credible to your own eyes before dismissing those who are contemptuous of him on very dubious grounds? Even better, it looks like the
transcript is available, so you can see if they deliberately cut it to make him look bad or good.
)
