I think you have dropped the discussion whent you acused me of double standard in my addressing Maori as a liar, and claiming a dirty campaign on Comodi and others on the same point.
Though, I have demonstrated that I am right on the point as the point can be proven, wherease statments about "obfuscating reality" are unproven and illogical speculations.
The point is very simple: only one among us is right. These points of view cannot be both true; only one can be right. One has arguments rooted in certainity or precise topics, which could be unfold, the other has not. For example I have read Mignini's conviction motivation report and the Supreme Court ruling concerning Knox's statements, others have not. Just examples concerning sources. Also the value of our judgement is differently rooted: I know Maori is lying, and have no negative judgement even less prejudice about Maori nor I think he is doing anything bad in lying. Instead you think Comodi and Mignini lie without any direct evidence, and this stems from a negative prejudice on them that you already have.
Another example: back some pages you asserted that Amanda and Raffaele were "prematurely arrested" and you made an argument. I pointed out that your statement is false. Knox and Solelcito were not arrested prematurely, but after serious evidence against them emerged. As by the law. You did not correct this point. But this point is proven, and things are made of details. You are asserting a false detail, not me. So on on many other points, like for example the wrong statement of Wikipedia that it was found that Knox's human rights were violated, or the false assertion that the Supreme Court declared the statements inadmissible. I did not prove that definitive sentences can be used in an unrelated trial as pieces of circumstantial evidence, but I encourage you to research yourself as it is easilly provable. However, you asserted that it was false without basis, without verifyng.
There is no double standard: the one who can prove is right. And only one can be right if the arguments are so polarized. All things that I say about Amanda and Sollecito can be proven, and if there is anything about the case that is my speculation , I try to make it clear. The fact that she is a liar and a felony criminal is also officially proven by now. In fact, for everything else that is not argumented i my post is stated clearly as being my conclusion from a previous analysis.
What I think is, you work in your rational analysis on the basis of many wrong asumptions. We can also may have different principles about legitimacy and justice, about how things have to be proven and tho whom. But I suggest you to verify many things that you give for granted and instead can be verified by yourself too.
