Continuation Part Six: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Grinder]

It's bad manners to ask other people their religious beliefs. It's a very personal subject. Also, anyone's beliefs could be coloring their point of view, regardless of what they believe.

Really ms manners.

I do believe the sub ject has been delving into the beliefs of someone all along. I further believe that asking isn't rude and his non answers are telling whether he believes in Satan or not.

Would you like to bet a yacht as to whether or not BW will bring this subject up again even if I never do?

Bill refuses to come clean on this subject. He has no source for the remark.
He hammers Mach for not providing all court transcripts because Mach said at one point they would prove that Mignini never said anything. No one can prove that sort of negative and BW knows it.

Do you believe in ETs? Is that a rude question?

What other beliefs are off limits? What opinion isn't personal?

Randy hammers the ISC because some believe that the chief believe 991 was an inside job. Is that okay?

I guess I'm like Amanda and don't have those inhibitions.

 

[Grinder]

You know Grinder, you tell me to drop the starch thing and I do, but then you keep bringing it up, again and again and again. And here you are talking about Bill bringing up the satanism thing. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black??

Didn't bring it up in the context of debating it. You do agree that the DNA is still part of case don't you? Just to be clear, I do believe in starch. Not that the DNA turned into it but that it exists.

Spezi is a journalist. PR is what he does. He is fighting the nut ball Mignini and Mignini has been trying to shut him up for about a decade.

They both may be nut balls. Journalists don't do PR as journalists.

 

[Grinder]

This convo with Grinder is one of the more bizarre things.... and completely peripheral to what the thread is about. His mileage varies. Obviously.

I responded most recently to this from this morning :

[*]I think so, too, but Machiavelli (unlike you and me) claims to have the proof which can end this debate right here, right now.

[*]And he won't post it. THEN he has the gall to try to slide into the conversation that he's already "proved" his claim, and accuses people of being wilful in reposting what to Barbie Nadeau and John Kercher (to name two) was obvious.

[*]So far, without saying why, Machiavelli has called me willfull, Barbie N. a liar (an "approximate reporter"), and John Kercher "mistaken".
​

So who is keep this going (Mary ) ? BW hammers Mach yet can't produce and I think his beliefs in this may explain much.

 

[Mary_H]

Really ms manners.

I do believe the sub ject has been delving into the beliefs of someone all along. I further believe that asking isn't rude and his non answers are telling whether he believes in Satan or not.

There's a difference between determining the beliefs of a public figure and asking someone you know, or kinda know, what their religious beliefs are.

Would you like to bet a yacht as to whether or not BW will bring this subject up again even if I never do?

It's a chance I'm willing to take.

Bill refuses to come clean on this subject. He has no source for the remark.
He hammers Mach for not providing all court transcripts because Mach said at one point they would prove that Mignini never said anything. No one can prove that sort of negative and BW knows it.

I think he has put it to rest in the post above yours. I don't know how this came up again, because he has said the same thing already.

Do you believe in ETs? Is that a rude question?

Only if it's my religion. It's not, so no. And no.

What other beliefs are off limits? What opinion isn't personal?

Sex, politics and religion are the ones that are supposed to be off the table. Unless the other person WANTS to talk about it.

Randy hammers the ISC because some believe that the chief believe 991 was an inside job. Is that okay?

As I said above, there is a difference....

I guess I'm like Amanda and don't have those inhibitions.

You can share all you want about yourself, but if someone doesn't answer a question you've asked several times, there's a strong likelihood they don't want to answer it, and it is best put to rest. That goes for all of us.

 

[Mary_H]

I responded most recently to this from this morning :

[*]I think so, too, but Machiavelli (unlike you and me) claims to have the proof which can end this debate right here, right now.

[*]And he won't post it. THEN he has the gall to try to slide into the conversation that he's already "proved" his claim, and accuses people of being wilful in reposting what to Barbie Nadeau and John Kercher (to name two) was obvious.

[*]So far, without saying why, Machiavelli has called me willfull, Barbie N. a liar (an "approximate reporter"), and John Kercher "mistaken".
​

So who is keep this going (Mary ) ? BW hammers Mach yet can't produce and I think his beliefs in this may explain much.

I don't know who is keeping it going because I am getting to the point where I just skim over any post that refers to it. I think enough people have laid out the bottom lines so well already that there is no need to continue to confront each other about it, except in PMs -- Bill to Mach and you to Bill. That is just my opinion, though.

 

[Grinder]

I don't know who is keeping it going because I am getting to the point where I just skim over any post that refers to it. I think enough people have laid out the bottom lines so well already that there is no need to continue to confront each other about it, except in PMs -- Bill to Mach and you to Bill. That is just my opinion, though.

Mary, Mary I love the unstated between the lines meaning whether you meant to communicate it or not.

Don't ever encourage BW to PM or I'll recommend the same to list that will curl your eyelashes.

BW can PM if he wishes to ever answer the question about sources. You know the ones he doesn't have but can't (for Satan's sake ) admit it.

 

[acbytesla]

They both may be nut balls. Journalists don't do PR as journalists.

I don't know Grinder, journalism, PR, kind of a nuanced difference wouldn't you say?

I think it's important to recognize that Mignini is STILL going after Spezi. Spezi is fighting the way he knows how to fight. Through the press.

There is an old newspaper adage. Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.

 

[Mary_H]

There will be lots of new stuff to talk about tomorrow. There will be some sort of ruling/hearing of the case in Florence, and there will also be the pro-innocence presentation in DC.

 

[Matthew Best]

I don't understand the point in asking Bill if he believes in Satan. Presumably it's some kind of gotcha, but I can't figure out how.

So humour me. If he does believe in Satan, then what? If he doesn't believe in Satan, then what?

 

[Mary_H]

Mary, Mary I love the unstated between the lines meaning whether you meant to communicate it or not.<snip>

Thanks for the song, Grinder. My husband has that record. I don't think he knows my online name, though.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't know Grinder, journalism, PR, kind of a nuanced difference wouldn't you say?

I think it's important to recognize that Mignini is STILL going after Spezi. Spezi is fighting the way he knows how to fight. Through the press.

There is an old newspaper adage. Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.

Never bring a sword to a pen fight?

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't understand the point in asking Bill if he believes in Satan. Presumably it's some kind of gotcha, but I can't figure out how.

So humour me. If he does believe in Satan, then what? If he doesn't believe in Satan, then what?

When you get a sense of what Grinder is on about, please let me know. What I would regret would be if he's actually on to something and I'm just too confirmation biased about him to see it....

One thing I hope I would NOT do... is make a statement one way or the other, then get captured on a YouTube upload attending a conference where I make a complete ass of myself....

 

[acbytesla]

Never bring a sword to a pen fight?

That works too.

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't know who is keeping it going because I am getting to the point where I just skim over any post that refers to it. I think enough people have laid out the bottom lines so well already that there is no need to continue to confront each other about it, except in PMs -- Bill to Mach and you to Bill. That is just my opinion, though.

A good opinion. I'm not sure I'm ready to take the pledge yet, though, about keeping it in PM with Machiavelli.

 

[christianahannah]

There will be lots of new stuff to talk about tomorrow. There will be some sort of ruling/hearing of the case in Florence, and there will also be the pro-innocence presentation in DC.

I thought just the RIS report would be deposited with the court tomorrow and then discussion of the results would take place on November 6? Has this changed?

I image both defense and prosecution will be given copies of the report and maybe we will hear something of its contents from one or both (or neither) side. We have already had some report earlier about the swab containing Amanda's DNA which I don't find particularly damning.

 

[Bill Williams]

I thought just the RIS report would be deposited with the court tomorrow and then discussion of the results would take place on November 6? Has this changed?

I image both defense and prosecution will be given copies of the report and maybe we will hear something of its contents from one or both (or neither) side. We have already had some report earlier about the swab containing Amanda's DNA which I don't find particularly damning.

Like last time, they could very well leak the results. This trial could very well be over very soon. IMO it will beg the quesiton: "Why did the ISC send this back?"

 

[Mary_H]

I thought just the RIS report would be deposited with the court tomorrow and then discussion of the results would take place on November 6? Has this changed?

I image both defense and prosecution will be given copies of the report and maybe we will hear something of its contents from one or both (or neither) side. We have already had some report earlier about the swab containing Amanda's DNA which I don't find particularly damning.

No, I don't think anything has changed, but there will still be plenty to talk about, I'm sure!

 

[christianahannah]

Like last time, they could very well leak the results. This trial could very well be over very soon. IMO it will beg the quesiton: "Why did the ISC send this back?"

This is only my opinion and as such may not hold much weight, but I think regardless of which side you fall, the law has to be followed correctly to ensure a fair verdict not only for the current trial being appealed but also for future trials.

If you ask me what needed correcting in the first appeal trial, I will defer to the SC decision and leave it at that. I haven't any idea which way the court will decide and see nothing thus far to indicate the decision will be against the defendants and for the prosecution or vice versa.

 

[Strozzi]

I think all religious cult meetings are bizarre. I think a Catholic nation inside Italy is bizarre. I do find that conference as BW describes it bizarre. I'm not convince that portrayal is accurate

If As Mach puts it, Mignini is saying nothing should be ruled out that is less of an issue for me than if he is promoting looking at Satanism from the git.

I think that BW's own beliefs may be coloring his POV. I think that people that believe inb Satan and practice satanism are nuts.



Bill says Mignini said it was a satanic rite, Mach says no. It is for Bill to prove the point regardless if Mach says he has transcripts of court hearings. I don't really care as I think the point isn't germane to the appeal. The sex game is however.



I think that the conference is more about Italy than Mignini. I can understand why a murder committed on or near Halloween might have occult undertones. So what?

Bill keeps it up but can't give a source. He won't reveal why he is obsessed with Satan or satanic rites or if Mignini considered them at the beginning.

Mignini is a prominent local dignatary in certain circles in Perugia and would obtain sustenance from them. I would like to know more about how he fits in in the local legal establishment and also how he fits in in local Catholic circles. When he walks into a restaurant or banquet hall or political meeting what reception does he receive? By whom? Does he socialize with people of a certain political or religious persuasion?

 

[Bill Williams]

This is only my opinion and as such may not hold much weight, but I think regardless of which side you fall, the law has to be followed correctly to ensure a fair verdict not only for the current trial being appealed but also for future trials.

If you ask me what needed correcting in the first appeal trial, I will defer to the SC decision and leave it at that. I haven't any idea which way the court will decide and see nothing thus far to indicate the decision will be against the defendants and for the prosecution or vice versa.

As far as the letter of Italian law is concerned, you are absolutely correct. We up here in the cheap seats can complain all we want, but at the end of the day "this" is the process.

So your opinion is probably also the only iron-clad fact of all of this. Like it or not, the ISC threw it back to the appeal's level. I may quibble with the word "correctly" above, but then again I'm neither Italian, a lawyer, nor an Italian lawyer, and it is not as if all Italian lawyers think it was wise for the ISC to have done this.... but all Italian lawyers would say they had the authority to do it....

I will venture the opinion that everything so far has gone the defence's way, but then someone will quote my disclaimer above!