Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[smkovalinksy]

Which makes the woman other than Nara that heard a scream after hearing a couple arguing in Italian more of a witness for Amanda than against her.

Excellent point.

 

[Osterwelle]

Which makes the woman other than Nara that heard a scream after hearing a couple arguing in Italian more of a witness for Amanda than against her.

True, but I can't imagine the prosecution was really that dumb to ever claim the arguing couple was Amanda and Raffaele.

-
Osterwelle

 

[Grinder]

True, but I can't imagine the prosecution was really that dumb to ever claim the arguing couple was Amanda and Raffaele.

-
Osterwelle

Then what couple was arguing in Italian just before the scream?

The prosecution (Mach) needs to explain how this occurred. Meredith probably wasn't that fluent to be arguing in Italian and if it was her then it would have been with Rudy.

The point is that it diminishes the probative value of her testimony regarding Amanda.

 

[LondonJohn]

Which one was this? I went over and checked the past couple of pages and didn't see who originally posted it, though I did see some reference to it including the rather chilling demand of The Machine of one poster: 'Why did you want her to be innocent?'.

Actually, the genesis and evolution of this discussion topic on trainwreck.org provides in and of itself an interesting insight into the intellectual dwarfism of many in that community. It started with a prominent pro-guilt commentator (who has an interesting twitter alias) stating that she started out "wanting (Knox) to be innocent". And then several others weighed in and agreed that they too had initially wished Knox to be innocent.

Now, to me this raises two very interesting points. Firstly, it tends to indicate that these individuals are very keen to announce that their belief in Knox's culpability* was not their initial "gut" reaction, and one can only suppose that this is in order to try to establish some sort of "objective credibility" for their current - utterly illogical and vengeance-fuelled - set of beliefs. And secondly, it's ironic that these individuals can't see just how utterly illogical it is for anyone unconnected with the protagonists to "want" Knox (or Sollecito) to be innocent - or, of course, "want" them to be guilty for that matter. The only people to whom this should ever have been an issue are Knox's/Sollecito's families and friends, and arguably also various figures within Italian law enforcement or the legal/judicial system.

Why the heck would a completely unconnected bystander have any reason to "want" anyone to be guilty or innocent in relation to this case? I feel near-certain that very few pro-acquittal/pro-innocence commentators ever went through such thought processes; certainly speaking for myself, I never "wanted" Knox or Sollecito to be either innocent, not guilty or guilty: why on Earth should I care at that sort of emotional level? I simply looked at the case, hopefully dispassionately and objectively, and I soon came to the inexorable conclusion that a) Knox and Sollecito should absolutely definitely be acquitted, and b) they very likely had nothing to do with the murder. But I had (and have) zero emotional reasoning underpinning those conclusions.

At an emotional level, I feel incredibly sad for Meredith's family and friends, and I also feel extremely sad for Knox, Sollecito and their families/friends for the years of liberty taken away from them, for their emotional and monetary losses, and for their unwelcome exposure to the worst elements of society (media and certain internet commentators). But that has nothing whatsoever to do with how and why I think Knox/Sollecito are definitely not guilty and very probably totally innocent.

* and presumably also Sollecito's culpability, but he's curiously absent from much of their discussion

 

[LondonJohn]

Then what couple was arguing in Italian just before the scream?

The prosecution (Mach) needs to explain how this occurred. Meredith probably wasn't that fluent to be arguing in Italian and if it was her then it would have been with Rudy.

The point is that it diminishes the probative value of her testimony regarding Amanda.

Even the prosecutors appeared to have abandoned the ridiculous 11.40pm ToD by the time of closing arguments in the Hellmann appeal court. Comodi implied (correctly) that the murder took place before 10pm, and this in itself renders the entire canon of "earwitness" testimony completely worthless and invalid. I wonder if they did Nara the courtesy of calling her up to tell her that they were dropping her like a hot potato?

 

[smkovalinksy]

A word to the wise RE PMF: He who has an ear to hear, let him hear

I have come to a decision about PMF. A revelation, if you will.

If JREF wants to hold itself to the highest standards, it should follow Nietzsche's advice: Do not ever engage in conflict with the substandard; instead, lay it respectfully on ice. Every time we remark on their posts, or copy paste some of their drivel - and I have been one of the biggest offenders - it serves only to feed their sense of self-importance and their petty egoism.

I have just read the latest of their rants and insults against us, and I am fully convinced that they are substandard, hate-fueled, little nobodies. I will no longer post here, because Machiavelli is given far too much attention - when he ought to have been respectfully laid on ice ages ago - and they are gloating over his importance here. Henceforth, whosoever wants to refer to that site or honor that poster, do so knowing fully that you are inflating their delusional and rabid self-pride.

History will be the judge of such persons: It has already judged them, and I for one am positive that Meredith Kercher holds no interest for them except as an object of their narcissistic hate. Do not be deceived: She is worthless to them if Guede alone killed her: Their so called love for this stranger, this stranger who never asked for their attention, and is surely thinking "depart from me, accursed ones; I never knew you" - is obscene at its core. Such "love" and "desire to honor" was never anything more than a ruse, a smokescreen behind which their deadly hatred played its game. "From such turn away, because their evil is contagious."


For 20 years I have been a victim of a family member who is a full blown sociopath with psychotic traits. I am finally rid of her, and now I encounter the same dross over there. I feel unclean in the presence of such amoral lunatics. And it has poisoned the well here: Machiavelli, who is a crashing bore and has been given far too much credence here, is now hailed by them as the one asset of this forum. I hope the ties can be broken, for your own sakes. Adieu.

 

[Grinder]

Even the prosecutors appeared to have abandoned the ridiculous 11.40pm ToD by the time of closing arguments in the Hellmann appeal court. Comodi implied (correctly) that the murder took place before 10pm, and this in itself renders the entire canon of "earwitness" testimony completely worthless and invalid. I wonder if they did Nara the courtesy of calling her up to tell her that they were dropping her like a hot potato?

I believe the other woman said it was around 10:30. The second ear witness somehow strengthened Nara's testimony according to PGP but I'd say it weakened it. This is much like Curatolo - yes his recollections could be very flawed but it proves they lied...er no it doesn't.

 

[LondonJohn]

I believe the other woman said it was around 10:30. The second ear witness somehow strengthened Nara's testimony according to PGP but I'd say it weakened it. This is much like Curatolo - yes his recollections could be very flawed but it proves they lied...er no it doesn't.

The other "earwitness" was called Antonella Monacchia. She state that she heard this alleged arguing followed by a loud scream "at some time after 10pm". This allowed the prosecutors to morph the timing into 11.30-11.40pm, in order for Monacchia's story to dovetail with Nara Cappezalli's testimony.

But a pre-10pm ToD renders the accounts of both women as either a) genuine hearing of one or more real arguments/screams that were totally unconnected to the murder; b) honest mistaken recollection or overactive imagination; or c) deliberate dishonesty in inventing a story for personal reasons (publicity, payment, excitement, etc).

 

[LondonJohn]

I have come to a decision about PMF. A revelation, if you will.

If JREF wants to hold itself to the highest standards, it should follow Nietzsche's advice: Do not ever engage in conflict with the substandard; instead, lay it respectfully on ice. Every time we remark on their posts, or copy paste some of their drivel - and I have been one of the biggest offenders - it serves only to feed their sense of self-importance and their petty egoism.

I have just read the latest of their rants and insults against us, and I am fully convinced that they are substandard, hate-fueled, little nobodies. I will no longer post here, because Machiavelli is given far too much attention - when he ought to have been respectfully laid on ice ages ago - and they are gloating over his importance here. Henceforth, whosoever wants to refer to that site or honor that poster, do so knowing fully that you are inflating their delusional and rabid self-pride.

History will be the judge of such persons: It has already judged them, and I for one am positive that Meredith Kercher holds no interest for them except as an object of their narcissistic hate. Do not be deceived: She is worthless to them if Guede alone killed her: Their so called love for this stranger, this stranger who never asked for their attention, and is surely thinking "depart from me, accursed ones; I never knew you" - is obscene at its core. Such "love" and "desire to honor" was never anything more than a ruse, a smokescreen behind which their deadly hatred played its game. "From such turn away, because their evil is contagious."


For 20 years I have been a victim of a family member who is a full blown sociopath with psychotic traits. I am finally rid of her, and now I encounter the same dross over there. I feel unclean in the presence of such amoral lunatics. And it has poisoned the well here: Machiavelli, who is a crashing bore and has been given far too much credence here, is now hailed by them as the one asset of this forum. I hope the ties can be broken, for your own sakes. Adieu.

Well.... personally speaking, I respect and understand your point of view, and I empathise with you over your life experiences. But I read and post here because I am interested in the debate: I'm not only interested in a debate on the fundamental issue of the murder of Meredith Kercher and the trials of Knox/Sollecito, but also (albeit to a much lesser extent) I'm interested in the second-order study of those participating in the debate.

By far the most fascinating group of people to examine are the pro-guilt factions - I am deeply intrigued as to how they can be a) so collectively deluded, and b) motivated to form and bolster their irrational beliefs. Given that we are all essentially working from the same information/evidence set, I find it extraordinary that a certain group of people can not only get their reasoning so very wrong, but then also choose to build walls around themselves to preserve and magnify their fallible belief system and keep all other points of view strictly at arm's length. Personally, I've never seen anything like it before, and I'm genuinely fascinated by the whole thing.

So I think that it's perfectly reasonable to analyse what's going on inside the walled garden, and hold it up to the light for the criticism it richly deserves. And I also have no problem at all engaging with anyone who posts here, regardless of their point of view. I happen to think that Machiavelli's arguments on this case are incorrect, self-serving, illogical and beginning to verge on the ridiculous (including the beginnings of a stonking conspiracy theory), but that absolutely doesn't mean that he should be ignored. In fact, in many ways it's very healthy to have an actively adversarial debate of this kind being carried out on these pages. It's just a shame that nobody can put together a coherent, cohesive argument that supports the case for the conviction of Knox or Sollecito.

So, if you really are going to discontinue your participation here, good luck in the future, and from my perspective it's been interesting and informative to read your point of view over these past many months.

 

[RoseMontague]

Adieu.

I will personally miss your posts here and at some point I hope you change your mind. Anyone who abides by the MA here is allowed to have their say. For me this is a good thing.

 

[katy_did]

You've totally missed my point. When "per non avere commesso il fatto" is used with no qualifying factor, it then means that the acquittals are 530.1. Why, incidentally, do you think that the entire Italian media (who collectively are far better informed and more experienced than you - or I - in this matter) are in no doubt that these are 530.1 acquittals? Or maybe you could dig out a report from a reputable media source which is equivocal about whether the acquittals are 530.1 or 530.2.........

I've gone back and forth on this in reading the various arguments, but the above pretty much sums up my thoughts on this at the moment. My impression is that when a judge says "per non aver commesso il fatto", and doesn't follow up by mentioning paragraph 2, that would usually mean a 530.1 acquittal. Hence, as you say, the media assuming it was a 530.1 acquittal, as well as Raffaele's lawyers who were both certain it was 530.1 (I don't think they were bluffing, because Bongiorno explained to Raffaele and his father immediately after the verdict that it was a full acquittal; I doubt she would have done that if she wasn't sure about it).

There might be the occasional judge who doesn't mention paragraph 2, as Maresca claimed, and I suppose it's possible Hellmann is one of them - but taking into account Hellmann apparently stating they didn't use paragraph 2, along with the fact he didn't mention it in reading the verdict, it does seem a lot more likely that acquittal of all the charges was under 530.1.

It does still puzzle me that he mentions insufficient and contradictory evidence in his interview (seemingly referencing paragraph 2) but maybe that's just diplomacy, as komponisto says... The evidence for 530.1 is stronger, at any rate.

Ironically, Hellmann's statement about the PM is implicitly very critical of these judges. And that's clearly why he makes the barbed comment about his court looking at the evidence in a different way, and that only a small amount of doubt is required for acquittal. He is, in fact, suggesting that various courts before his should have thrown out the case, since it was abundantly clear that there was at the very least some reasonable doubt in this case almost from the very start. I'm sorry that you're not able to properly interpret Hellmann's words.

I think he's being specifically critical of Massei's court, by mentioning everyone but him as not being at fault! (i.e. he says the GUP - Micheli - did nothing wrong in sending the case to trial). Good point about the "small amount of doubt" comment possibly referring to the earlier court - in fact Hellmann also said there were "many doubts" about the knife and bra clasp evidence even from the first trial.

PS: I'm somewhat intrigued as to your job or your lifestyle, since you often tend to post here from around midnight Italy time through til well after 3am (today your last post of the night was at 4.30am Italy time). Please not that this is not a criticism, just a point of intrigue. Maybe you're one of these people like Baroness Thatcher who only need one or two hours of sleep per night.....

Now now, let's not go all PMF! The time at which Machiavelli posts is irrelevant, and IMO is completely his own business.

 

[Skind]

Thus, a person guilty of abuse of office cannot be called a liar.

Where in the criminal code is it impossible for a person to commit seperate acts that fall under both categories?

Obviously, an act must be prosecuted under one or the other, but you have provided no evidence that a person can only be one or the other.

 

[Skind]

Everybody knows if there is a recording it means there is an officer employed for the recording,

And is this officer a specialist? Can only certain officers make recordings? Is it illegal for officers to make recordings if they are not the specifically designated officer? As the officers sitting out were inevitable receiving OT pay or salary, why could one of them not do it?

The money was already being spent on people sitting around waiting. That's a shockingly ineffective use of police time and resources.

And in Perugia, for example, everybody knows Mignini is a man "of the Carabinieri", that he trusts the Carabinieri and not the Questura.

Are you seriously asserting that Mignini would have had no formal or informal power to enquire as to whether or not the interview he was alledegdly woken up for due to it's vital importance was being recorded? Are you seriously asserting that he would have been ignored if he formally or informally requested that the interview be recorded? Mignini? The PM? One of the most powerful and influential people present?

Are you seriously asserting that Mignini is so excitable that he spends several hours 'forgetting' the basics of suspect interviews, so much so that he totally forgets about not 'trusting' the Questora, and totally forgets that he's in a building with dedicated recording facilities.

Your level of disrespect for his skills and knowledge is shocking given that you have indicated that you are close to the case. If this is you defending him, I hate to think what you'd be able to dredge up if you decided to oppose him.

 

[katy_did]

Apologies for the late reply Kaosium; I am (as always...) catching up! I know the topic has moved on but I did want to reply anyway, as I find it an interesting subject; I'm sure it'll come round again in another hundred pages or so...

In a case of extradition from the US (or anywhere) the issue is not the laws of the requesting state, but the laws of the ones being requested of. Most all states offer their citizens and those in their country certain rights, thus they don't just hand over anyone asked for, in this case the Canadian government wouldn't release 'Bambi' until she was guaranteed another review, even though she too was a convicted murderess. I mentioned Roman Polanski in my last post as well. In Amanda (or Raffaele's) case the authority is the highest in the land, the Constitution itself, notably the Fifth Amendment. The one that government (in the US ) cannot break, theoretically at least.

It doesn't change because an appellate court, which is the role the Court of Cassation serves in this case, wants to retry someone on prosecution appeal, any more than it would here under the same circumstances. The issue here is not the dignity of the Italian Court System, but the rights of the accused.

I certainly agree with you that governments don't hand over citizens or those in their country automatically, once an extradition request is made. But it doesn't follow from this that the U.S. (or any other country) requires a foreign legal system to be exactly equivalent to their own on matters like double jeopardy for an extradition to go ahead.

In this case, a strict application of the double jeopardy rule – as the U.S. understands it – would mean that the three stage process of the Italian system is itself in violation of the bar on double jeopardy, given that the second stage is essentially a new trial, with new jurors and a new verdict. Crucially, it's possible for a defendant to be acquitted in the first stage, only to be convicted in the second – something which could never happen in the U.S. Since everyone charged with a criminal offence in Italy (AFAIK) goes through the three trial system, every Italian criminal case would potentially violate the double jeopardy rule. Why would the U.S. have an extradition treaty with Italy at all, if it's basically unenforceable?

As CDHost argued earlier, a case could be made that the simple fact the U.S. has an extradition treaty with Italy implies an acceptance of at least the basic processes of the Italian legal system, especially combined with the fact that the Senate has recognized the Italian system as fully valid. It's not that I think double jeopardy couldn’t be raised as an objection to extradition, nor even that it wouldn't be successful (though I'm inclined to think it wouldn't, looking at some of the other cases where it's been tried). But I do think that this is a really complicated question - it's not as simple as claiming double jeopardy, and extradition then automatically being denied.

That could be too, however she seemed to know that Amanda would be released and they wouldn't be getting her back, which was the point of her statement. She could have also gotten lucky and told a true lie or stupidly hit upon the truth.

I think it was very obvious to anyone with half a brain that if Amanda was acquitted and released, there's no way she'd be extradited from the United States, whether double jeopardy played a part or not! I credit Comodi with having half a brain.

Yes to the latter, as noted above that Menelaou decision by the ECHR demonstrates the double-jeopardy provision is not one of them, and I was apparently reading the wishes of those who would very much like that changed, perhaps in part due to that decision.

Yes, both the ECHR and the Schengen Agreement (providing for extradition between member states) recognize double jeopardy as applying only when a decision is final and enforceable. Hence it can’t apply to an ongoing case where no final decision has been reached.

Italy also dominates EU member nations in the 'Right to a Fair Trial' category. Turkey and the Ukraine are the the only ones who surpass it of the nations subject to the ECHR.

I totally agree that there are serious problems in the Italian legal system, and those problems might well be serious enough for the U.S. to reconsider having an extradition treaty with Italy (just as there are solid reasons why Italy might want to reconsider having an extradition treaty with the U.S. Very few countries can take the moral high ground on this one, IMO). But none of this is relevant to the double jeopardy question.

No, as the case I posted above shows, what they do is (on points of law) void the result of the Trial of the Second Instance, and remand it back to the Court of Court of Assizes for a retrial on that level. Amanda would still be considered innocent under Italian law, and as Machiavelli posted recently they would not even ask for extradition until the whole thing had been through the courts again and she was convicted guilty in finality through the Court of Cassation. They would try her in absentia.

I’m still not sure that they can’t (in theory, at least) annul the second Court’s judgment and leave Massei’s verdict as the effective one, without returning the case to an earlier court. They can certainly do this if the outcome is acquittal, so the question is only whether they can do the same when the result is a conviction.

For the rest, yes, I agree.

 

[js202]

I have come to a decision about PMF. A revelation, if you will.

If JREF wants to hold itself to the highest standards, it should follow Nietzsche's advice: Do not ever engage in conflict with the substandard; instead, lay it respectfully on ice. Every time we remark on their posts, or copy paste some of their drivel - and I have been one of the biggest offenders - it serves only to feed their sense of self-importance and their petty egoism.

I have just read the latest of their rants and insults against us, and I am fully convinced that they are substandard, hate-fueled, little nobodies. I will no longer post here, because Machiavelli is given far too much attention - when he ought to have been respectfully laid on ice ages ago - and they are gloating over his importance here. Henceforth, whosoever wants to refer to that site or honor that poster, do so knowing fully that you are inflating their delusional and rabid self-pride.

History will be the judge of such persons: It has already judged them, and I for one am positive that Meredith Kercher holds no interest for them except as an object of their narcissistic hate. Do not be deceived: She is worthless to them if Guede alone killed her: Their so called love for this stranger, this stranger who never asked for their attention, and is surely thinking "depart from me, accursed ones; I never knew you" - is obscene at its core. Such "love" and "desire to honor" was never anything more than a ruse, a smokescreen behind which their deadly hatred played its game. "From such turn away, because their evil is contagious."


For 20 years I have been a victim of a family member who is a full blown sociopath with psychotic traits. I am finally rid of her, and now I encounter the same dross over there. I feel unclean in the presence of such amoral lunatics. And it has poisoned the well here: Machiavelli, who is a crashing bore and has been given far too much credence here, is now hailed by them as the one asset of this forum. I hope the ties can be broken, for your own sakes. Adieu.

Well done, SMK. Bravo.

Perhaps the JREF poster who calls himself Machiavelli will eventually follow the prescription of his exemplar, but, in the mean time, his missives are pollutants to the spirit, to logic, to good sense, and to common decency.


The wise man does at once what the fool does finally.
- Niccolo Machiavelli

 

[katy_did]

double jeopardy continued...

]However, none of this matters, nor would it were she in Great Britain , Mexico , India --or even Oz! Double jeopardy protections prevent it, just because one cannot sue through the ECHR doesn't mean common-law countries also subject to the ECHR automatically bow to the majesty of the Italian Court System, their laws supersede it. What happens in Italy (and other vestiges of inquisitorial systems) cannot happen in those countries because of that stricture. Just because a prosecutor can appeal a trier of fact in Italy doesn't mean that elsewhere everyone must subsume their own law to that. Canada is one common-law legal system that doesn't have that stricture and would consider the trial not completed until the Court of Cassation approved it, that makes it unusual in that respect.

Oh, of course I can't disagree that a prosecution appeal would violate double jeopardy rules in many countries. But how this translates into judgments on extradition is complicated. I ran across this quote in my Google adventures just now, by Chief Justice Rehnquist: "the decisional law in the area of double jeopardy is a veritable Sargasso Sea which could not fail to challenge the most intrepid judicial navigator". As a confused judicial surfer of a mere hour or two, I can only agree.

I think it's too simplistic to look at the article on double jeopardy in isolation and assume that it's enough in itself to deny extradition; you need to look at the way double jeopardy has been considered in practice, not simply in US criminal trials but in other extradition cases, with Italy and with other countries. Precedent is important, which is why I asked Bruce if he knew of other cases where the double jeopardy issue had arisen.

My googling turned up this case which may be relevant, involving extradition to Canada. As you noted, in Canada the prosecution can appeal; in this case drugs charges against the defendants were dismissed initially by the Court, the prosecution appealed and the appellate court convicted. The defendants argued double jeopardy, and the court agreed that this would have constituted double jeopardy in the U.S., but nonetheless rejected it as a defence against extradition.

When I was looking for information about that case, I found it had been mentioned during a Senate hearing in 2006 to discuss the UK-US extradition treaty, in relation to a UK law which allows for re-trial after acquittal in certain circumstances. Paul McNulty and Samuel Witten were asked a question about the possible double jeopardy implications for the U.S. with regard to extradition:

...it would be both difficult and inappropriate to strictly apply U.S. law regarding double jeopardy in the extradition context because there is considerable variation among nations in how and when double jeopardy concepts may apply. For example, while U.S. double jeopardy concepts bar the government from appealing a judgment of acquittal, such appeals by the prosecution are in fact quite common abroad, particularly among countries with a civil law tradition. See, e.g., Sidali v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 107 F.3d 191 (3d Cir. 1997). Thus, U.S. courts have held that even where foreign procedures would have violated our double jeopardy bar had they occurred in the context of a U.S. criminal prosecution, this was not a basis for denying extradition. U.S. ex rel. Bloomfield v. Gengler, 507 F.2d 925, 927-28 (2d Cir. 1974) (affirming extradition to Canada where Canadian trial court had dismissed charges against defendants after presentation of all evidence, but prosecution appealed and appellate court entered judgment of conviction).

Thus, neither the terms of the proposed treaty or any other U.S. extradition treaty, nor U.S. caselaw, would per se bar extradition because procedures in the U.K. (or other foreign state) would not comport with U.S. double jeopardy requirements.

The other case mentioned there - Siddali v Immigration and Naturalization Service - is also worth a look. Siddali was acquitted of rape and murder in Turkey by the first court, the prosecution appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeals (which can only consider points of law), and it annulled the judgment, returning the case to the original court for review and a new judgment. The first court again acquitted, and the decision then went to the General Board for review. This court annulled the acquittal, found him guilty, and then returned the case to the lower court for sentencing. A clear-cut case of double jeopardy by U.S. standards - yet apparently not a bar to extradition from the U.S.

Now, I'm sure there are arguments to be made that those cases are different in fundamental ways to the Knox case, and that may well be true. Perhaps there are other cases where judges have made different rulings, and other factors to take into account, as I'm obviously just skimming the surface here. But the more I read, the more I'm convinced that it's not as simple as shouting "double jeopardy! As WE understand it!" and the case ending there (even if none of this matters since it's never going to happen ).

 

[Dougm]

OK; I'll try and lower it a few reading comprehension levels (again):

1) The poster says all money was wasted recording calls
2) My reply stated that the recording actually result in indicting 5 Family members on serious charges relating to the case.

Therefore money is not 'wasted'

Logical enough ??

I could add #1 is minor premise, #2 is major premise, #3 is the logical conclusion.
But that would defeat reducing comprehension levels, wouldn't it?

TRY:
How is all money wasted if the money spent results in criminal indictments

OR
Euros spent catching criminals is not wasted money

OR
All the posts from both of the two guilters still bothering to argue here are "getting worse"

Thanks for that!! I had a long day at work, and came back here and had to laugh out loud at this post!!

I couldn't decide if it was funnier that you say you had to lower your post a couple of readling levels for me/others, or if it was the part about the two guilters still "bothering" to argue here!

Or maybe it was you arguing a point that has nothing to do with what I posted, then saying you have to lower the reading level to explain it to me ...

That is fricking hilarious! Thanks a bunch!!

 

[Bruce Fischer]

OK; I'll try and lower it a few reading comprehension levels (again):

1) The poster says all money was wasted recording calls
2) My reply stated that the recording actually result in indicting 5 Family members on serious charges relating to the case.

Therefore money is not 'wasted'

Logical enough ??

I could add #1 is minor premise, #2 is major premise, #3 is the logical conclusion.
But that would defeat reducing comprehension levels, wouldn't it?

TRY:
How is all money wasted if the money spent results in criminal indictments

OR
Euros spent catching criminals is not wasted money

OR All the posts from both of the two guilters still bothering to argue here are "getting worse"

Why do you keep arguing? It is like staying at a baseball game after it has ended just so you can see people sweeping up the garbage.

This debate has ended. Have a safe drive home.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Well.... personally speaking, I respect and understand your point of view, and I empathise with you over your life experiences. But I read and post here because I am interested in the debate: I'm not only interested in a debate on the fundamental issue of the murder of Meredith Kercher and the trials of Knox/Sollecito, but also (albeit to a much lesser extent) I'm interested in the second-order study of those participating in the debate.

By far the most fascinating group of people to examine are the pro-guilt factions - I am deeply intrigued as to how they can be a) so collectively deluded, and b) motivated to form and bolster their irrational beliefs. Given that we are all essentially working from the same information/evidence set, I find it extraordinary that a certain group of people can not only get their reasoning so very wrong, but then also choose to build walls around themselves to preserve and magnify their fallible belief system and keep all other points of view strictly at arm's length. Personally, I've never seen anything like it before, and I'm genuinely fascinated by the whole thing.

So I think that it's perfectly reasonable to analyse what's going on inside the walled garden, and hold it up to the light for the criticism it richly deserves. And I also have no problem at all engaging with anyone who posts here, regardless of their point of view. I happen to think that Machiavelli's arguments on this case are incorrect, self-serving, illogical and beginning to verge on the ridiculous (including the beginnings of a stonking conspiracy theory), but that absolutely doesn't mean that he should be ignored. In fact, in many ways it's very healthy to have an actively adversarial debate of this kind being carried out on these pages. It's just a shame that nobody can put together a coherent, cohesive argument that supports the case for the conviction of Knox or Sollecito.

So, if you really are going to discontinue your participation here, good luck in the future, and from my perspective it's been interesting and informative to read your point of view over these past many months.

I think I must definitely take a mental health break from the case, but this is mainly a reflection of my own present state of mind. I am grateful to Rose and to js202 for understanding the animus of my rant, but I understand your balanced and mature point of view. I have just read this piece on the Knox/Sollecito acquittals, and had I read it prior to posting, I would have been less forthcoming:

Internet hatred - the new pastime of the mob:Schadenfreude and confirmation bias – coming soon to a computer near you

I have just reached a point at which obtuseness and nastiness on the part of others have become intolerable, due in large part to the current state of political affairs in the U.S. I mentally salute you for allowing them to call you, "Looney John": For me, this would now constitute a gesture of disrespect so uncalled for as to be untenable. A verbis ad verbera would be a real possibility at this juncture. You are a strong person, and it was largely the desire to interact with you which propelled me to join this forum prior to the acquittals. Buona Notte!

 

[Dougm]

[/HILITE]

Why do you keep arguing? It is like staying at a baseball game after it has ended just so you can see people sweeping up the garbage.

This debate has ended. Have a safe drive home.

Thank you, Bruce! That made me laugh as well! Yes, it's over! Thankfully.