Frankly, no. Based solely upon your posts, it seems quite clear that you do believe in she-devils and witches as does a certain segment of the population in Perugia. Otherwise, why would Perugian lawyers raise such nonsense as the entire basis of their submissions at the second trial? They certainly didn't lead any evidence; just innuendo and appeals to emotion and appeals to witchcraft, and appeals to patriotism.
.....
And otherwise, why would you ignore the reality that there was never any compelling evidence against Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito to implicate them in Ms. Kercher's murder, and cling to your pre-determined view that they are guilty, when there is no compelling evidence to support that view?
It’s very simple. This how it works: I see evidence they are guilty. From the evidence that I can see, myself, I conclude, beyond doubt, that the defendants are implicated in the murder.
This is reality to me. I cannot believe someone over the reality that I happen to see, to discover and experience myself.
The same conclusion of guilt is reached by many other people, not only the previous judges and not only the folks of which those on PMF are examples, but in Italy thousands, or maybe millions have a convincement similar to mine. Among my friends (and relatives), people whom I know, I found not one of them thinking the defendants are innocent. And there was a thousand people shouting “vergogna” outside the court house in Perugia. This is not something the people do normally in Perugia nor in other cities. Albeit millions of “guilters” are ignorant about the details about the evidence, after my observation of the case and after building a detailed knowledge of the evidence, in which I was starting from a neutral position, my conclusion is that these crowds are correct: indeed there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
I see this as obvious. It is what I see. You might not believe me. But this will not change it (because I am not Amanda Knox, I am not “convinced” by others about what I see).
This is the basis, the fundament in my position. Based on this logical assumption, that this a basis in what I think, you can assess the rest of my reasonings and insights.
The problem for you seems to be that you do not believe this is simply the structure of my opinion. But I have to note, that also the innocentisti people seem to propose a polar opposed view on the things which are not the evidence but all the rest, such as the police, the justice system, the culture, the moral evaluation of the context. I am facing people who believe the prosecution leaks pictures of bathroom painted in pink to English tabloids in order to influence the judges: no sane Italian would ever produce such an idea. Or that police give out false HIV test results in order to diffuse news about Amanda’s sexual to the press. This is a form of delusion that has no dot of contact with a reality of sort. Or they perceive a person convicted for calunnia who doesn’t pay the court expenses she owes as an innocent. I feel this as a repugnant, foolish and dangerous perversion in perception of reality. I consider the spreading of this vision of things as a direct danger to my safety in the territory I live in. I think that if another of your fellows commits a rape and murder of a girl here you will just defend him or her, and this would tend to establish that any person will be allowed to kill and walk free, if there is the same evidence against him as that against AK and RS, and this claim of a license to kill is just not remotely acceptable to me. And, that in one country there are prople who think to build a sanctuary for murderers where they “believe” other people are evil and corrupt, where idiots come here to insult officers in court, where people believe a foreigner should be considered a serial killer and a burglar without proof, this is not acceptable neither.
Your assertions above about witches and devils are utterly unfounded, to the point that would be too easy to ask you to quote a post where I speak about “witches” and “she-devils”, in order to assert that “based solely on my posts” you infer that I believe in witches and she-devils. This is unfounded. What you say is obviously false and absurd. I am not even a Christian, I cannot believe in devils. I challenge you to quote something written by me on this line.
On the other hand, I do not believe to “honor students” neither.
What you say is like when you stated that Amanda was “prematurely” arrested.
By the way this was egregiously contradicting an assertion by the majority of innocentisti who, apparently, claim that she was instead declared a formal suspect
too late. Look just at the contradictions in your arguments, which I suspect you don’t focus even remotely.
So you believe Knox was arrested
prematurely, while she was arrested days
after she had falsely testified as a witness (lies proven by her e-mail),
after Sollecito testified against her and
after she falsely accused an innocent by releasing further false witness reports in three different statements. You think Amanda was arrested prematurely, but you think that I believe in witches. I don’t see any logic in this, your own statements are so against the obvious reality that I cannot really make a direct comment.
Now on your statement: “…. it seems quite clear that you do believe in she-devils and witches as does a certain segment of the population in Perugia. Otherwise, why would Perugian lawyers raise such nonsense as the entire basis of their submissions at the second trial…”, I point out two errors:
1. First as I said there are no posts where I convey a belief in witches, so this is false
2. Second, it is astounding the logic by which you assume the “Perugia lawyers” are a basis in order to make inference on my beliefs.
The content of your mind seems: Perugia is a medieval place where people believe in witches; the Italians spend their time saving face. Starting from this presumption – or better from this presumptuous ignorance – in fact you can deduce anything. You can interpret anything along this line if your ignorance allows you to make this assumptions.
If you believe the Perugia people believe in witches, well I think a rational person is a person who would base such belief on a direct anthropologic observation of the cultural environment. Cannot be a person who, when in Perugia, does not understand indications for the toilet.
But this is not what people on this forum do: they draw their inference and conclusion from their own interpretation of the speech of a lawyers and its context. Or from a translation of some words extrapolated from a lawyer’s speech, to which they attribute an arbitrary meaning around a fantasy about a cultural context.
You rely on these guesses, but mostly, you seem to rely on lies. The “satanic”, the “witch”, the “Mignini” ans a Preston’s novel character, the CNN reports, the whole of your fantasy.
It is not true that Mignini accused Knox and Sollecito of a “satanic ritual”; it is just
not true. It is not true that he accused Knox of keeping a vibrator in the bathroom.
If you actually want to search about involved people’s characters, actually - this is maybe not reported – you can note that Raffaele Sollecito (and other witnesses) described Knox as a person with cynical values and unattached to reality, “she only cares about pleasure”, “she lives in a different world“ (Sollecito writes); Meredith’s friends say worse things about Knox, not Mignini.
The defence introduced nonsensical lies by calling Aviello and Alessi (Aviello later recanted and released a declaration where he says the "real" confidence Sollecito told him was that he was present on the murder scene, but the killer is Knox). However, despite this you accuse "the prosecution" of bringing in nonsensical lies.
But it’s impossible for me to convey my view of reality and evidence – or better, it is not worth for me to do it on a forum like this one. The meaning of my writing on this forum can only be to give my testimony, the evidence, that a “guilter” convincement, a belief about Justice, is well alive and vital, self-confident and totally determined. I think, I have a position on what is Justice for Meredith and what is about the truth in this case, and because of the nature of my convincement, and also because it is shared by many and by the Kerchers, I feel my duty towards Meredith, justice and truth is to declare it, in the face of your point of view. This is just something I felt like a task in these days, I think it was a duty to claim it (as I was called provoked by people like LJ and their attitude which included the use of my nickname as a reference to spread falsehoods), really more like a duty than an interest; while I am not really that interested in demonstrating things to you on the forum.
