• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
btw, tapes recordings are always costly in Italy, because the law requires them to have them written down verbatim on request of the parties.
 
Machiavelli believes budget cuts are the reason the interrogation wasn't it recorded'. He buys that explanation. Keep that in mind when you read his other fanciful and just as ridiculous deductions.

Also no one cares if you think a question is a irrelevant so long as you can just give a straight forward answer on anything. But your assessment of the question is duly noted for whatever that's worth.



Did you ever here of the movie Troll 2? I didn't until recently. Aparently it has a large cult following and considered to be one of the worst movies of all time.

a clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyophYBP_w4

Anyway, I watched a documentry last night on the movie called "The Best Worst Movie". It was pretty funny.

Anyway, my point is that the movie (Troll 2) had this Italian director that was featured in the documentry. He refused to admit that the movie was bad and any short comings of the film were blamed squarely on the actors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDblLBLXu0c

I'm not sure if it is an Italian thing (or more of an Italian thing) to be able to easily detach from reality. But the whole time I obseved him I kep thinking to myself, this must be what Machiavelli is like.
 
Pseudo intellectualism at is finest. A lot of the times the speaker forgets the actual point they make or doesn't understand what they're saying so long as what is said "sounds" intelligent----when in fact broken down, its all just pseudo intellectual babble that proves and means almost nothing.

While sometimes true ignorance means a lot...
 
Mach, no matter what you say, this trial has brought shame on Italy. You bring shame on yourself by supporting this fiasco. Only major restructuring of the ILE can help now.
 
Like police diffusing prejudice to influence the judges by releasing pictures in UK tabloids ...

That could never have happened. And Stefanoni could never have lied.

Anyway, so which one is it:

(i) too much confusion to tape
(ii) no money to tape
(iii) did not tape because there was a writing

So many reasons to choose from.
 
...
Also no one cares if you think a question is a irrelevant so long as you can just give a straight forward answer on anything. But your assessment of the question is duly noted for whatever that's worth.

Just add that I am able to answer straightforward on any question, but I won't do it with those who I deem unable to understand the answer. I will treat them like little children and build little lessons for them.
 
Pseudo intellectualism at is finest. A lot of the times the speaker forgets the actual point they make or doesn't understand what they're saying so long as what is said "sounds" intelligent----when in fact broken down, its all just pseudo intellectual babble that proves and means almost nothing.

Concur. I've found the "ignore" button does wonders for my negotiations of this thread, and saves a lot of brain cells that could be spent with far greater return on my investment, elsewhere.
 
That could never have happened. And Stefanoni could never have lied.

Anyway, so which one is it:

(i) too much confusion to tape
(ii) no money to tape
(iii) did not tape because there was a writing

So many reasons to choose from.

You misunderstood (iii): it is not a reason. It is a demonstration that there was not a tape.

Between (i) and (ii) I accept both as valid, as possible also at the same time in combination.
No money to tape everything. Thus, requires preparation (go to some specific room, call for some officers who deals with the recording). But, confused moment, too many things to think about, arrest Patrick, write decrees, analyse Sollecito's testimony, decide things to do, Mignini does not focus on the recording. No much money, and confusion.

However, these are speculations, ex post rationalisation: there has not to be really a reason for not taping.
 
The imagined part is the statement "some authority" had custody of the investigation file.
This is imagined. You imagine some authority has the duty to grant a custody of the investigation file and is accountable for it.

OK. I give up. So where is this investigation file you keep mentioning? Is it maybe just sitting open on Curatalo's bench?
 
However, these are speculations, ex post rationalisation: there has not to be really a reason for not taping.

There does when you taped everything else. ANyway, Mignini thought he should give a reason. Although it was different than reasons that were previously given. Hmmm.
 
Mach, no matter what you say, this trial has brought shame on Italy. You bring shame on yourself by supporting this fiasco. Only major restructuring of the ILE can help now.

You are right. It's a shame. Claudio Pratillo Hellmann's illogical shameful verdict has brought shame on Italy and offendend justice and victims.
 
And BTW Mach, your statement about Italy hosting terrorists to get even with the USA was appalling, and you lost any credibility you may have had.
 
Over what?
Wiretaps of telephone calls are evidence. Police interrogations are not.

That reminds me. What showing do the police have to make to get a wiretap. For example, when they wire tapped Amanda Knox prior to her arrest, did they have to make a showing somewhere that they had probable cause to believe that they would gain evidence from the wiretap?
 
Did you ever here of the movie Troll 2? I didn't until recently. Aparently it has a large cult following and considered to be one of the worst movies of all time.

a clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyophYBP_w4

Anyway, I watched a documentry last night on the movie called "The Best Worst Movie". It was pretty funny.

Anyway, my point is that the movie (Troll 2) had this Italian director that was featured in the documentry. He refused to admit that the movie was bad and any short comings of the film were blamed squarely on the actors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDblLBLXu0c

I'm not sure if it is an Italian thing (or more of an Italian thing) to be able to easily detach from reality. But the whole time I obseved him I kep thinking to myself, this must be what Machiavelli is like.

Italians are great at making "the best" movies in any given category. For example, Cannibal Holocaust. You should read the story of this one--it's hilarious. The authorities were so taken in by one of the scenes in the movie that they arrested the director and put him on trial for murder. He actually had to produce the actress to prove that she was really still alive. LOL.
 
That reminds me. What showing do the police have to make to get a wiretap. For example, when they wire tapped Amanda Knox prior to her arrest, did they have to make a showing somewhere that they had probable cause to believe that they would gain evidence from the wiretap?

Absolutely not. The judiciary wiretaps phone calls of all suspects. They can bring all these conversation in court as declaratory evidence.
But they cannot bring police interrogations. Interrogations are normally useless as evidence.
 
By the way, I talked to an Italian lawyer today who explained why Amanda's sentence for slandering Patrick went to 3 years instead of the original 1. There is actually a justifiable procedural reason for it. The lawyer made the the point clearly and succinctly.

Machiavelli, why don't you explain to us the reason it went from one to three, and I'll tell you if you're right.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom