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

[Dan O.]

I still think the rock would force the inter shutter open when the rock hit it (as evidenced by the dented shutter & chipped paint) and it would be easy to reach though the broken glass in order to access the hardware you mentioned and open the window.

I'm agreeing with you. The lack of damage on the inside edge of the inner shutter or the latch handle is evidence that this latch did not prevent the inner shutter from swinging open when the rock struck.

The latch handle is right at the top of the opening where the glass was broken out. It's a reasonable assumption that not all of this edge glass would have fallen out upon the initial impact and it may have been necessary to remove the remaining pieces by hand.

It would have been fun to map and reassemble the window pieces from high resolution sterio photos. This would have told a much better story of the physics involved when the window broke.

 

[billyryan]

In fact I did not make it.
Though, you assert that I made it. And your assertion s false. I never made such "admission" they have a case.



No, I am not. Not even in your dreams. But you are apparently unable to accept what I consider the basic of applied logic.

All of this is illogical surely Machiavelli,as you as are an anonymous poster,nobody who is on the side of innocence knows who you are,no photographs exist so people can find out who you are as far as I know.Machiavelli will you once more be in the courtroom on Monday tweeting and gloating over the persecution of innocence

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I think the reasoning of Massei is logically correct.
And I think the objection LJ offers doesn't stand, it's not consistent, especially when you look at the physical findings.

So you're back to thinking the print on the mat was part of a trail that was later cleaned away, which is Massei's view of the matter?

I thought you had long since dispensed with that lunacy.

Why are you wasting time with this sterile discussion? Your simian court is in session. The transvestite has spoken. The new DNA test shows that Amanda touched the knife in a place where she would only touch it to commit murder but not to cut up food. The prosecutor has explained that the fatal confrontation started because Guede didn't flush the toilet. A guilt verdict is sure to ensue. You win.

You won't get Amanda back, though. You'll have to content yourself with ruining the life of a fellow Italian. Savor the victory.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think the reasoning of Massei is logically correct.

Well I think that the "reasoning" of Massei (on this issue at least) is a huge pile of illogical codswallop. So Machiavelli and I have differing thoughts on this matter

And I think the objection LJ offers doesn't stand, it's not consistent, especially when you look at the physical findings.

And I think I have no idea what this sentence even means. I do particularly love the meaningless (but superficially "informed") addition of "especially when you look at the physical findings". Lovely stuff!

I'm "looking at the physical findings", and what do I find? A knife and a bra clasp that are quite literally useless as reliable/credible evidence against Knox or Sollecito (chiefly due to the gross incompetence of Ms Stefanoni, who was stupid/mendacious enough to destroy one of these items through malpractice, and to perform an unrepeatable, totally protocol-free testing on the other). I find botched and unreliable swabs from the small bathroom. I find a dilute-blood partial print on the bathmat that the prosecution ludicrously tried to claim was entirely compatible with Sollecito but definitely incompatible with Guede(!). I find a knife print on Meredith's bedsheet that was definitively incompatible with Sollecito's knife. I find evidence that someone used the small bathroom to wash blood from his body and clothing. I find Guede's confession that he used the small bathroom to wash blood off his trousers and hands.

I know what I find when I "look at the physical findings". And what I find does nothing except support my contention that the blood/water partial print on the bathmat was NOT made by a foot that had first stepped directly into Meredith's pooled blood in her room and then been tracked into the small bathroom. Instead, what I find only tends to support my contention that the blood/water partial print on the bathmat was in fact made by someone stepping into blood/water that had pooled in either the shower tray or the bidet as a result of being washed off hands/arms and clothing. And I believe that the person washing off blood in this manner was Guede. And I believe the blood/water partial print on the bathmat was made by Guede's foot.

 

[kwill]

when Guede was sentenced to 16 years the Hellmann-Zanetti verdict didn’t exist (and even if it had existed, they wouldn’t expect it to survive the SC).


the Guede appeal reduction from 30 years to 16 years, awarding generic mitigation (equivalent to a reduction from life to 24 years in a regular trial) is anyway hinging around the judges finding that Guede was not a lone perpetrator.

I'm sorry, but it's very puzzling still. Stepping back from your long and helpful explanations, I don't see who would have been present at the fast-track trial to argue that Guede WAS the sole perpetrator. Any evidence, therefore, that indicated he acted alone (as I am certain he did) would not even have been seen by the judges. Guede's lawyer would have no motive to call those witnesses, and neither would Mignini.

And that means that this question was not even addressed. Stepping back and looking at the two separate prosecutions, it seems very obvious that Guede benefited hugely from the UNTESTED IN HIS TRIAL assumption (held by the prosecutor) that A & R were present and active participants. A & R lost any meaningful chance to challenge Guede's version of events, because by the time their trials began he had already been convicted of a certain crime (collaborative murder with sexual violence as a motive).

His conviction of that crime became part of the evidence against them, but they had no representation at his trial. Their convictions of that same crime became part of the reason his sentence was lightened.

If they were guilty, you might say, "Oh, so what."
But they're innocent, which makes all of this a travesty.

 

[Grinder]

This is your dietrology. If they have the right to attempt to prosecute you under Italian law, the issue of whether or not they have "a case" is not yours to make.

Yet, by saying that they have this right, you are admitting that they have a de facto case. Sheesh.

Bill I have the right to sue you for whatever I want. The case will go to court and you can ask for summary judgment to dismiss the case because even if everything I said were true there is no case. If what I claim would be a case then it will continue.

It doesn't mean I have a de facto case.

 

[acbytesla]

There are no other more compelling explanations, that is the only problem.

And you are dietrologist #1 on this forum.

You crack me up Mach. You must have very large testicles. You are the one who just a couple of weeks ago said that the cooking knife (Item 36) matched the bloody knife stain. That takes a serious set of juevos and amazing amount of intellectual dishonesty.

The idea that Amanda and Raffaele, with no motive, no history of violence between them and no real connection to Rudy Guede is the most compelling explanation is absurd. Especially when Rudy Guede who had broken into the Nursery days before, the law office two weeks before, Christian Tremantano and probably Madu Diaz and who admitted under no pressure at all that Amanda and Raffaele WERE NOT there.

But we fully expect you to keep up your sophomoric dietrology.

 

[RWVBWL]

1st Kiss...

My 2 pence (or cents if you're that way inclined) on the burglary / staging:

Either:
a) Rudy Guede was let into the house 'legitimately' by Meredith.
(Either through a chance meeting outside the cottage - most likely - or he did have a prearranged date with her - very unlikely)

b) Rudy Guede broke in.

c) Amanda and Raff let Guede in, and he was there legitimately.

Pretty much sums it up

It boils down to either he broke in and was there illegitimately (the break in was real) or he was let in and was there legitimately. In ANY scenario where Rudy was at the cottage legitimately, he then has a good reason to stage a burglary (to imply that the person who killed Meredith was someone who did not have legitimate access).
<snip>

Agreed and though you demur from saying the date was a real possibility I point out that Meredith and her girl friends most likely were blitzed at the Halloween party and could easily have forgotten that Rudy was present for a time and talked with Rudy. If he only THOUGHT he had made an arrangement to meet her that is all that would be needed.
<snip>

Hi Bri1 + Grinder,
Here's something from Judge Micheli's convicting report that casts further doubt that Rudy Guede ever had a date with Meredith the night she was knifed in the throat, raped, and died:

Micheli then examined the details of Rudy’s claimed meeting with Meredith which resulted in his invitation to the cottage on the evening of November 1st.

He noted there were substantial differences between his versions of December and March, particularly with regard to the location of his meeting with Meredith on the night of Halloween and his movements in the early evening of November 1st.

He considered it likely that Rudy had made these changes as he became aware of evidence which contradicted his December version. Notably, in December Rudy claimed to have had his meeting with Meredith which resulted in her invite at a Halloween party given by Spanish students.

By March it was well known that Meredith had spent her entire Halloween in the company of friends, first in the Merlin pub before they later moved on to Domus disco. In March Rudy changed the location of his meeting with her from the Spanish party to Domus, which by chance Rudy had also attended following the party. However, neither Meredith’s friends who were continuously in her company nor those who accompanied Rudy to the Domus witnessed any meeting between the two. Judge Micheli commented:
On 26 March 2008, instead, Rudy explained to the Prosecution, drawing a picture, that the group invited to the Spaniards’ house actually moved wholus-bolus to the “Domus” club, but it was right in that nightclub that he met Kercher, and not before; offering up a tour-guide description from the chair, saying, “there’s a bar for the drinks and then there’s a room, there’s an arch and a room. I walking [sic] around there, and that’s where I met Meredith”. On the facts of the meeting and the subject of the conversation, he elaborated: “I started talking to Meredith …talking anyway I gave her a kiss.. after which I told her how much I liked her and asked her if the next day, in all the confusion anyway, if we were going to meet the next day and she said yes (…), we met in the evening around half eight, like that. While not intending to explore the question, basically irrelevant, of whether the pair had agreed to a more or less specific time (his confirmation of the suggestion of 8.30 pm in both verbal statements however allows the inference that according to Guede they had an appointment), the patent contradiction between the two versions jumps out. One context, of a room between two bathrooms, in an apartment, is completely different to that of a drinks-bar and an arch, in a pub; one might concede, perhaps, the possibility of forgetting which place it was where they last bumped into a friend, but hardly the first time there was a kiss with a girl towards whom one was attracted.


2 links:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Micheli_Sentencing_Report_-_English_Summary
+
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...y_he_rejected_rudy_guedes_explanations_as_fi/

Your thoughts?
RW


PS-See that cute lil' surfer girl in my avatar?,
Opps, I mean that German DNA scientist,
a gal who's studying the effects of alcohol on rats here in L.A.
well I had a 1st kiss with her waaay back in April of 2008.

And though I am not charged with a horrendous crime like rape+murder,
and my life of freedom does not depend on me gettin' my story straight and the facts right, well I can still tell you, correctly, as can she, where we 1st kissed! On the 2nd floor of a bar with-in eye-sight of Venice Pier one night...

Rudy Guede was never on a date with Meredith Kercher.
MOO...

 

[Mary_H]

I re-read it and on the second read I noticed you wrote "guilters"; at firset I thought you were meaning "innocentisti", describing what the pro-Knox people do; I'm not joking. I understand that my implicit pov was the reason of my first, let's say "automatic" interpretation.

The difference is PIP believe freedom of speech (even to defame) should be extended to everyone, regardless of the country they live in. The PGP have a double standard they apply when it suits their needs -- they are allowed to defame, Sfarzo is not.

It's good to point out that Mignini has sued a relatively small number of people if you compare him with the average Italian citizen.

I don't. I compare him to the average public figure in civilized countries.

It's not correct to say that legally Mignini had no choice but sue Sfarzo. But I mean that politically, as a public figure, he basically hae no choice but to respond legally to deligitimization campaigns.

No choice legally or no choice politically, it's all the same. Essentially he is relinquishing personal responsibility for his decisions.

But the defamation laws are not designed to protect public figures: they are designed to protect common citizens.

This is why Italy's legal system has a backlog of 90,000 cases and 20 years. It's also why most Italians we have seen in this case tend to defer to higher authorities instead of accepting personal responsibility or attempting non-adversarial negotiations.

I point out that Hellmann and Vecchiotti have the right to attempt prosecute me under Italian law (this does not go for H & V alone, any citizen has the right to sue anyone), but H&V don't have any interest in waging a legal war against me. That would be a very stupid mistake on their part.
I am not shielded by the American flag at all. Instad I feel shielded by the inherent risk that these people would take if they decide to sue me. They would risk to lose much more than me by taking that move.

My goodness, you must be a very important person.

 

[acbytesla]

Rudy Guede is literate and of above average intelligence, who is trading a few years of his own freedom for a collective 50 years freedom of others with perfect comprehension of what he is doing. This situation is probably unprecedented, he should be considered the most evil person of the century.

While I don't think Rudy is "poor Rudy" I think describing him as the most evil person of the century to be hyperbole of the first rate. No offense Samson, but Rudy is not likely to make the top 1000.

 

[Mary_H]

Anglo who? Is that the fellow that was mad about playing checkers or one of those board games?

I pity the fool who wrote this post.

 

[Machiavelli]

The difference is PIP believe freedom of speech (even to defame) should be extended to everyone, regardless of the country they live in. The PGP have a double standard they apply when it suits their needs -- they are allowed to defame, Sfarzo is not.

On the phenomenic level I'd say what you observe is that the say they believe freedom of speech should be extended. While you can also observe how on the practical side, the commentators anti-Mignini and anti-Stefanoni are not replied to from Italian media nor from Italian prosecutors and posters in the same massive terms, because they are protected by the Italian rules. You have sources reporting that Mignini put forward a satanic scenario and Mignini never made a press conference to reply, thus the sources factually takig advantage from Italian rules of restraint.
I think you may talk about freedom of speech, but in fact the spreading of lies from your side takes advantage from the Italian law.

No choice legally or no choice politically, it's all the same. Essentially he is relinquishing personal responsibility for his decisions.

I think actually he is taking responsibility as he should. The difference seems to be that I think that it is good and right on his part to file criminal lawsuits; you seem to think it’s morally bad.
We are in disagreement about what is good or bad. Our disagreement will not change my opinion nor influence the opinion of millions citizens in democratic society, probably.

This is why Italy's legal system has a backlog of 90,000 cases and 20 years. It's also why most Italians we have seen in this case tend to defer to higher authorities instead of accepting personal responsibility or attempting non-adversarial negotiations.

Actually, Italy has a backlog of over 5.6 millions of judicial cases. But if you think this is caused by defamation law you reveal a poor knowledge of the system, and of European systems in general. The number of cases is not caused by defamation cases, instead more than 2/3 in the civil section it is caused by insurances on car accident cases . In the criminal section, defamation is an irrelevant percentage, whilst crimes against property and petty crimes are dominating. What cause the huge number of cases is: 1. too many appeals; 2. too many small offences are dealt with by judges; there are no incentives to solve these small controversies by paying a fine to a police station for example; 3. there are too many lawyers, they lobby to inflate the number of cases and oppose to incentives that would reduce it, which is the basic reason why the law is designed to produce so many cases (to feed lawyers’ bellies); 4. In the Italian jurisdiction (as in several others) magistrates are compelled to prosecute all crimes, they cannot chose the most important ones and drop the others.

My goodness, you must be a very important person.

Don’t you think that, instead, I maybe keep some evidence files?

 

[Machiavelli]

You crack me up Mach. You must have very large testicles. You are the one who just a couple of weeks ago said that the cooking knife (Item 36) matched the bloody knife stain. That takes a serious set of juevos and amazing amount of intellectual dishonesty.

I said I thought it was compatible. I may point out that the Prosecution General of Florence said the same thing.

The idea that Amanda and Raffaele, with no motive, no history of violence between them and no real connection to Rudy Guede is the most compelling explanation is absurd. (...)

We were talking about a footprint on a small carpet.
Compelling explanation was meant to adress the question whether it means a cleanup occurred or not.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill I have the right to sue you for whatever I want. The case will go to court and you can ask for summary judgment to dismiss the case because even if everything I said were true there is no case. If what I claim would be a case then it will continue.

It doesn't mean I have a de facto case.

C'mon grinder. Even you at your contrarian best sees what Machiavelli is doing here. He's not arguing theory here, he's arguing as one of the sides to a potential dispute.

I've never heard one side say anything but that the other side is BS.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Gubbiotti and the knife he never should have handled

It appears that there is still confusion elsewhere about the problems surrounding Gubbiotti and his handling of the knife. Therefore, I would like to return to these problems one more time. First, I cannot think of any reason for anyone to unpackage and then repackage the knife. Once the forensic team has sealed it up, it should go straight to the laboratory.

Second, it is undisputed that Officer Gubbiotti was at the women’s cottage prior to his repackaging of the knife. I read one comment to the effect that he was there to catalog Meredith's belongings, but I don't have a citation for that. Reporting on the Patrick Waring case Estelle Blackburn wrote, “In court, police conceded they had not followed best practice in the case. Various officers said that the Central Park scene was left unguarded from 1.25am on the night, it was a week before it was searched, and the same officers had visited the homes of the girl and the accused which allowed for contamination of evidence.” If anyone were going to handle the knife, it should not have been Gubbiotti. What is not best practice in Perth is not best practice in Perugia.

Third, I offered the following scenario as no more than one of at least several plausible routes of contamination: Airborne DNA perhaps from Meredith’s dried blood, to Officer Gubbiotti’s clothing, to his gloves, to the knife. Let us break this down step by step. There is an unpublished study that shows that dried blood is a bigger DNA contamination risk that wet blood. Airborne DNA is a well-recognized problem in DNA forensics. DNA has been found on examination gloves handling a very soiled dress. Clothing sometimes has DNA that is not from either the wearer or his/her immediate family. Some of it may come from the air. Arguments from personal incredulity about a particular route are not very convincing when it comes to something as easily transferred as DNA; they are even less convicing when that person is ill-informed.

Four many other routes are possible. Proving which route it was would be difficult under the best of circumstances. However, now that Amanda’s DNA was shown to be on the blade, it is even more likely that Meredith’s profile is the result of some form of contamination. How could anyone remove blood from the knife without removing starch in at least one place and DNA in two places? It is absurd.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm sorry, but it's very puzzling still. Stepping back from your long and helpful explanations, I don't see who would have been present at the fast-track trial to argue that Guede WAS the sole perpetrator. Any evidence, therefore, that indicated he acted alone (as I am certain he did) would not even have been seen by the judges. Guede's lawyer would have no motive to call those witnesses, and neither would Mignini.

In Guede's first instance trial, Bongiorno, Maori, Ghira & Dalla Vedova took part and argued that Guede was the sole perpetrator. Maori & Bongiorno brought up a piece of "evidence" that became rather famous, known as the "Y-shaped glass" theory. They argued there was a small piece of glass that was captured by the alleged burglar's shoe sole and carried along, left prints in blood etc.
But they did not make it, their arguments lost and were dismissed by the judge.
The judge actually was offered ample evidence about the alternative theory.

This occurred on the first instance though, not on Guede's appeal. Actually arguening further evidence on his appeal would have been impossible and illegal: the appeal was launched by Guede alone and meant to focus only on a limited number of points rose by Guede's defence.

Bear in mind also that Guede's trial was a short track trial. This option legally prevents the prosecution from introducing further pieces of evidence against him. That was uninfluential in this case, but the rule exists. In the US there is plea bargain, which is actually far more baffling and more disruptive to the process of evidence collection, imho.

And that means that this question was not even addressed.

The question was indeed addressed.
It must be anyway clear that the prosecutions - all prosecutions that investigated the case - concluded that the scenario of events had three perpetrators, that is what they found in their evidence. They obviously put forward that scenario, they could not logically prosecute another one incompatible with their case, at the same time.
Had they chosen to prosecute the Guede alone scenario, the guilters and the Kercher lawyers could have complained that the other scenario was not even considered.
The fact is that you cannot have a theory about innocence of two suspects and about their guilt at the same time. You can only argue one of these two alternatives.

 

[Mary_H]

On the phenomenic level I'd say what you observe is that the say they believe freedom of speech should be extended. While you can also observe how on the practical side, the commentators anti-Mignini and anti-Stefanoni are not replied to from Italian media nor from Italian prosecutors and posters in the same massive terms, because they are protected by the Italian rules. You have sources reporting that Mignini put forward a satanic scenario and Mignini never made a press conference to reply, thus the sources factually takig advantage from Italian rules of restraint.
I think you may talk about freedom of speech, but in fact the spreading of lies from your side takes advantage from the Italian law.

It is not Italian restraint, it is American laws that prevent, for example, Mignini from suing Steve Shay and the West Seattle Herald. American laws allow the free-for-all that is the debate about this case. Nobody is ever going to get sued here, not even Peter Quennell.

I think actually he is taking responsibility as he should. The difference seems to be that I think that it is good and right on his part to file criminal lawsuits; you seem to think it’s morally bad.
We are in disagreement about what is good or bad. Our disagreement will not change my opinion nor influence the opinion of millions citizens in democratic society, probably.

We don't have to influence millions of citizens, we only have to influence judges and legislators. Once a law is enacted, millions of citizens usually follow.

Actually, Italy has a backlog of over 5.6 millions of judicial cases. But if you think this is caused by defamation law you reveal a poor knowledge of the system, and of European systems in general. The number of cases is not caused by defamation cases, instead more than 2/3 in the civil section it is caused by insurances on car accident cases . In the criminal section, defamation is an irrelevant percentage, whilst crimes against property and petty crimes are dominating. What cause the huge number of cases is: 1. too many appeals; 2. too many small offences are dealt with by judges; there are no incentives to solve these small controversies by paying a fine to a police station for example; 3. there are too many lawyers, they lobby to inflate the number of cases and oppose to incentives that would reduce it, which is the basic reason why the law is designed to produce so many cases (to feed lawyers’ bellies); 4. In the Italian jurisdiction (as in several others) magistrates are compelled to prosecute all crimes, they cannot chose the most important ones and drop the others.

I was speaking generally, and in fact had your (2) and (3) in mind when I wrote that. In English, the phrase "this is why" can be idiomatic that way -- it is not necessarily referring to very specific claims.

Don’t you think that, instead, I maybe keep some evidence files?

Ah, you're right, I had not considered blackmail.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I have already spoken, giving rather precise information about this.

The Jan 15 is obviously a preliminary hearing - an elementary knowledge of procedure should be enough for knowing that it cannot be the beginning of a trial (a trial requires an indictment, and Mignini is not indicted).

Also, some basic knowledge of the case would be sufficient to understand that the only legal option would be a prosecioglimento, dropping of charges. That could be a technical drpping of charges, but Mignini and Giuttari are hoping for a dropping of charges on the merit.

Machiavelli,
This doesn't sound like you. You never use the word "also" -- you always use "moreover," among other subtle writing differences. I hope someone hasn't hacked Mach's JREF account.

Do you have for me the document I've been waiting for you to show?

 

[Machiavelli]

It appears that there is still confusion elsewhere about the problems surrounding Gubbiotti and his handling of the knife. Therefore, I would like to return to these problems one more time. First, I cannot think of any reason for anyone to unpackage and then repackage the knife. Once the forensic team has sealed it up, it should go straight to the laboratory.

The reported reason was security of handling the item. The lab is in Rome, the item needed to be transported. But it was a cutting and pointed knife and the procedure for these items includes concern that the blade could cut or poke the bag. So it was unpacked and transferred into a rigid box.

Second, it is undisputed that Officer Gubbiotti was at the women’s cottage prior to his repackaging of the knife. I read one comment to the effect that he was there to catalog Meredith's belongings, but I don't have a citation for that.

Actually he never entered Meredith's room.

Reporting on the Patrick Waring case Estelle Blackburn wrote, “In court, police conceded they had not followed best practice in the case. Various officers said that the Central Park scene was left unguarded from 1.25am on the night, it was a week before it was searched, and the same officers had visited the homes of the girl and the accused which allowed for contamination of evidence.” If anyone were going to handle the knife, it should not have been Gubbiotti. What is not best practice in Perth is not best practice in Perugia.

The above quote looks like decribing a different event. I apparently describes a contamination of environments as a consequence of activities performed during previous searches.
But here we are talking about a knife, a single item, that was somewhere else - in Sollecito's apartment - in a place not contaminated from massive presence of Meredith's DNA.

Third, I offered the following scenario as no more than one of at least several plausible routes of contamination: Airborne DNA perhaps from Meredith’s dried blood, to Officer Gubbiotti’s clothing, to his gloves, to the knife.

Gubbiotti testified he put on a pair of new gloves.
The search at the cottage occurred previously in the morning. The unpackaging and packaging of the knife occurred hours later.

Let us break this down step by step. There is an unpublished study that shows that dried blood is a bigger DNA contamination risk that wet blood. Airborne DNA is a well-recognized problem in DNA forensics. DNA has been found on examination gloves handling a very soiled dress. Clothing sometimes has DNA that is not from either the wearer or his/her immediate family. Some of it may come from the air. Arguments from personal incredulity about a particular route are not very convincing when it comes to something as easily transferred as DNA; they are even less convicing when that person is ill-informed.

Unfortunately for your theory, I think it will be deemed unrealistic.
That could be taken into consideration as a hypotheses, let's say realistic, in statystical terms, if Gubbiotti was wearing a shirt spattered with the victim's blood while he was handling the knife. Or if he unpacked the knife while inside Meredith's bloody room.

(...) However, now that Amanda’s DNA was shown to be on the blade, it is even more likely that Meredith’s profile is the result of some form of contamination. How could anyone remove blood from the knife without removing starch in at least one place and DNA in two places? It is absurd.

Very, very weak. Really worrying for the defence if these are their arguments.

 

[acbytesla]

I said I thought it was compatible. I may point out that the Prosecution General of Florence said the same thing.

You're right, Crinii did. Which just prove the axiom that the world has more than one person who has sold his integrity. But Crini is the idiot who came up with the poop theory. So nothing surprises me about that moron. I thought you were better than that.