You have nothing but RS's lies. Why do you defend them when even the defense team doesn't buy this garbage? They went with the contamination theory. Do you not agree with them?
.
Their reply, Alt+F4, is that the legal defence posture has little to do with (and can even be contradictory to) the media posture.
For example, even as Amanda testified in an Italian courtroom that she knew Rudy, that they had been together in a small gathering in the boys flat, and that they had smoked marijuana, Paul Ciolino was broadcasting on CBS to a USA audience that Amanda had "never set eyes" on Rudy, didn't know him at all.
Another example, Amanda testifying and writing about how the use of marijuana impaired her memory, when her mother stated on a BBC broadcast that drugs had nothing to do with that night.
Another example, FOA trying to paint the couple as having a shared, common alibi, when Raffaele's most recent, official alibi (as stated in early 2008 to the Supreme Court) is that it's erroneous to believe that they were together.
Another example, FOA talking about Amanda getting slapped around, while her lawyers said it didn't happen (until - coinciding with a visit by her stepfather to Perugia - Amanda got up in court and made a spontaneous statement, about a physical hit).