"Making a case for justice" are you? No you are not. In any case, it's pretty lame claiming to have "proven" something in another forum, without any reference to it, as though that settles a point here. Nobody in this forum has any obligation to go hunting in another location for an unspecified posting of yours, claimed by you to be proof of your point.
But you know, I have no obligation to repeat myself neither, not even to answer for once actually, with no offence to anyone. I am just explaining why I am not answering again here.
You make the mistake of assuming I post from the US. The location information ("London, England") under my user name should be a clue, here.
I had read it. I also thought for a moment about an edit but it won't be the case. However the point is that these argument won't have citizenship in the legal context where the trial takes place. They are non-existent, they would appear as surreal, alien to logic and facts.
Of course, this is true, but in reverse of the sense you are trying to make out. It's the accusations against Amanda and Raffaele that are the "foolish claims". There is certainly no genuine evidence to back them up.
Wel, you are quick to say "certainly"
Unfortunately, in the Massei trial the foolish claims were taken seriously; whether the Supreme Court was swayed by foolish claims is a question that will be answered by June 24.
There is no actual deadline, if you await the SC motivations.
To me - without Massei and independently from it - the evidence looks totally compelling.
(while all wild accusations against Mignini or Stefanoni they look foolish and obviously false).
You know, when you get excited, your writing style and command of the English language is noticeably different. It gives the impression that there is someone else typing the response than the cool, linguistically correct author of most of your posts.
I think it is a matter of time rather than excitement. When I'm hasty, don't have time to check or correct, I don't pay attention.
So, Machiavelli, do you disagree that the mandatory recordings of the Nov 5-6 interrogations of Amanda, Raff, and Patrick Lumumba are missing?
On the contrary, I expect you to concede that no recordings was mandatory, nor expected to exist.
And also that none of this would be logically relevant to the case (because Amanda wrote down false accusations with her hands, claimed a false memory syndrome, etc.).
Do you disagree that the bra clasp was allowed to rust by the scientific police?
But the bra clasp test was a legally 'non-repeatable' test. You know, the most frequent procedure by the Carabinieri is to destroy the piece of evidence after the incidente probatorio (in order to make it actually 'non-repeateble'). In this case instead, they tried to preserve it although thy were not expected to do so. But how could you prevent a pice of iron from rusting? You would need to de-hydrate the sample tissue and test tube completely (extremely difficult at cold temperature) or freeze it. You can't put an anti-rust solvent, it would destroy DNA. Why should a lab implement such extremely expensive procedures for non-requested purposes?
Or is this just a "propaganda narrative"?
It is indeed a propaganda narrative; on this latter particular point the fact itself (the rusting) is true, but the interpretation of it as if it was something "wrong" or unexpected is propaganda.
About the interrogation tapes instead, besides the falsehood of alleged logical implication and relevance, also the assertion that they were 'mandatory' is factually false.
