Machiavelli
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,844
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.
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.
Like police diffusing prejudice to influence the judges by releasing pictures in UK tabloids ...
...
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.
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.
btw, tapes recordings are always costly in Italy, because the law requires them to have them written down verbatim on request of the parties.
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.
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.
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.
So are 36,000 wiretaps. It's over.
However, these are speculations, ex post rationalisation: there has not to be really a reason for not taping.
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.
Over what?
Wiretaps of telephone calls are evidence. Police interrogations are not.
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.
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.
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?