has an interesting discussion / debate about the case vis-a-vis Ann Coulter. He's an "innocentista". Perhaps you should go there and duke it out. And I must say, he makes a better (less emotional) case for the twosome's innocence than you do for their guilt.
Auster asks an interesting question:
"Another point: if the case is on the up and up, why did the prosecutors in the appeals trial demand that the Knox and Sollecito, after having already spent four years in prison, serve several months in solitary confinement? Doesn't that suggest some kind of out of control vindictiveness on the prosecutors' part?"
You say this: "and the guilt of Knox and Sollecito was obvious to anyone who could read" but that only makes you lose credibility as a commentator. You take for granted what needs to be proved.
By comparison, yours is merely an emotional outburst.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Lawrence Auster vs Ann Coulter
Date: 2011-10-04 08:04 pm (UTC)http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/020638.html
has an interesting discussion / debate about the case vis-a-vis Ann Coulter. He's an "innocentista". Perhaps you should go there and duke it out. And I must say, he makes a better (less emotional) case for the twosome's innocence than you do for their guilt.
Auster asks an interesting question:
"Another point: if the case is on the up and up, why did the prosecutors in the appeals trial demand that the Knox and Sollecito, after having already spent four years in prison, serve several months in solitary confinement? Doesn't that suggest some kind of out of control vindictiveness on the prosecutors' part?"
You say this: "and the guilt of Knox and Sollecito was obvious to anyone who could read" but that only makes you lose credibility as a commentator. You take for granted what needs to be proved.
By comparison, yours is merely an emotional outburst.