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

[Strozzi]

When I responded yesterday regarding Amanda wearing the "All you need is love" T-shirt, my focus was on her as a young person isolated and lost in an Italian prison, being manipulated by older Italian police, prosecutor, prison HIV "doctor", and a (sexual predator) deputy warden. Amanda was given a shirt by her best friend Madison with a line from a favorite song that comforted her and she wore it to court, probably because it was a bonding message to her few family and supporters who would be in attendence.

I agree that she was let down by her Italian defense counsel who should have been much more savy to the hostile media and hostile authorities, some of whom had to be fueling the slander and sluttifying of Amanda.

Amanda's family is middle class. Her mother is a school teacher. Her father at the time was an accountant for a non-profit. Her mother flew to Italy to support her daughter and while changing planes at an airport in Switzerland learns from TV news that Amanda is being perp-walked to the world media for murder. "Case closed!"

What they needed, but did not get and did not understand, was an Italian attorney to take this on - to get them a very capable and savy criminal defense team, forensic experts, and a media advisor to guide them and perhaps defend them in the media. The Knox family had no knowledge of what they were facing and probably did not have the ready means. (I understand that her parents subsequently mortgaged their homes and cashed out their retirement funds.)

Even Sollecito's family, which being Italian knows how things work in Italy, initialy had weak attorneys defending Raffaele.

Note the contrast with the resources the police and prosecution have put into this. When Mignini wanted a visual to incite the case and seal a guilty verdict, he had Commodi issue a Euro 180,000 purchase order for an animation. He also had the Kercher family's attorneys and Lumumba's attorney attack and slander the defendants in parallel. Look at the nastiness that the prosecution, their incompetent and corrupt forensic scientists, and parallel attorneys have brought to this case. How could the Knox family know what was coming?

 

[LondonJohn]

I see you have chosen to ignore my question and launched straight into the guilter mantras. Where bedsides the trial has all the evidence in the case been open to critical analysis? If we got all our evedence in the Knox case from reading TJMK and PMF we might even be in their choris chanting Guilty-guilty-guilty.

Huh? I don't know the answer to the question of where one can find online resources discussing the Simpson evidence. I would suspect, however, that this is because the evidence is a slam dunk for guilt.

In the same way, I doubt there are many online resources discussing the evidence against (say) the Unabomber or Dennis Rader. For the same reasons: there's no real debate to be had about the nature and quality of the evidence.

In the Simpson case, the only debate is around how he was acquitted in the face of so much incriminating evidence. Any objective analysis of the evidence shows how incredibly strong it was in incriminating Simpson.

However, if you want to have a crack at starting a website demonstrating how the evidence either a) does not point to Simpson as sole culprit, or b) points towards someone else as the culprit, then you should do so, and let the debate begin. Is that what you DO believe (that the evidence does not prove Simpson's guilt)? Because if so, I disagree strenuously, but would be open to a debate elsewhere.

 

[Bob001]

I see you have chosen to ignore my question and launched straight into the guilter mantras. Where bedsides the trial has all the evidence in the case been open to critical analysis? If we got all our evedence in the Knox case from reading TJMK and PMF we might even be in their choris chanting Guilty-guilty-guilty.

One key difference between OJ and Amanda is that OJ was acquitted. No one has any reason to argue that the case against OJ was flawed; the jury already said so. But as a guide to the case, there is this:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/simpson/simpson.htm

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't think I am communicating my argument well enough then.

For one thing, Knox most certainly didn't know she was going to get convicted in Massei's court.

For another thing, what "statement" was Knox making by wearing that t-shirt? In what way was it even slightly comparable to Mandela using the courtroom as a pulpit to advance his political manifesto?

And I still ask: what did Knox think she stood to GAIN from wearing that t-shirt? (This is probably the most pertinent question).

Lastly, would you at the very least agree that there's a socially-accepted convention that is in place in both the US and Italy, in which people appearing in criminal courtrooms - especially if it is they who are on trial - dress appropriately. And that "appropriately" in this context means smart, sober, muted clothing with collared shirts and either a smart sweater or a tailored jacket. Would you agree that this is as much of a social convention as that regarding dress codes in - say - a clerical office, a high street bank or a funeral (unless specifically informed otherwise)?

First off we're arguing this in 2014, not 2009. We now know that it was completely immaterial what Knox wore, what Knox said, what length her hair was, or if she'd been anywhere on a continuum from The Virgin Mary to the Whore of Babylon. Or if she'd had Atticus Finch as a lawyer or the Hardy Boys.

She is now in 2014 controling her own person. If she wants to fart at a funeral, all I would say is, "That's so Seattle."

The only meaning behind the tshirt was that it was a valentine gift from her sister. Everything else is part of the problem. They took a nickname she'd had since she was 11 and sluttified it.

The problem is elsewhere rather than earning scorn for not knowing which fork to use in polite company. Sheesh.

 

[LondonJohn]

When I responded yesterday regarding Amanda wearing the "All you need is love" T-shirt, my focus was on her as a young person isolated and lost in an Italian prison, being manipulated by older Italian police, prosecutor, prison HIV "doctor", and a (sexual predator) deputy warden. Amanda was given a shirt by her best friend Madison with a line from a favorite song that comforted her and she wore it to court, probably because it was a bonding message to her few family and supporters who would be in attendence.

I agree that she was let down by her Italian defense counsel who should have been much more savy to the hostile media and hostile authorities, some of whom had to be fueling the slander and sluttifying of Amanda.

Amanda's family is middle class. Her mother is a school teacher. Her father at the time was an accountant for a non-profit. Her mother flew to Italy to support her daughter and while changing planes at an airport in Switzerland learns from TV news that Amanda is being perp-walked to the world media for murder. "Case closed!"

What they needed, but did not get and did not understand, was an Italian attorney to take this on - to get them a very capable and savy criminal defense team, forensic experts, and a media advisor to guide them and perhaps defend them in the media. The Knox family had no knowledge of what they were facing and probably did not have the ready means. (I understand that her parents subsequently mortgaged their homes and cashed out their retirement funds.)

Even Sollecito's family, which being Italian knows how things work in Italy, initialy had weak attorneys defending Raffaele.

Note the contrast with the resources the police and prosecution have put into this. When Mignini wanted a visual to incite the case and seal a guilty verdict, he had Commodi issue a Euro 180,000 purchase order for an animation. He also had the Kercher family's attorneys and Lumumba's attorney attack and slander the defendants in parallel. Look at the nastiness that the prosecution, their incompetent and corrupt forensic scientists, and parallel attorneys have brought to this case. How could the Knox family know what was coming?

I entirely agree with all of this. Knox must have been bewildered, confused and alone, and may well therefore have wanted to wear the t-shirt for strong personal reasons. But, as you say, it was the job of her lawyers to tell her, in polite but firm terms, that there was no way she was going to wear that t-shirt in court.

It appears that the "Dalla Vedova disaster" began with the US Embassy, who failed in their duty of care to Knox's mother by failing to give her proper advice about choosing a suitable lawyer for Amanda. Dalla Vedova was a purely commercial lawyer, and had no place even being put up for consideration as Amanda's lead criminal defence lawyer in a murder trial.

But once Knox's mother had failed to understand this, and had contacted Dalla Vedova, it was then incumbent upon Dalla Vedova himself to inform her that a) he was not properly qualified or experienced to take on the role, and b) he could recommend instead a list of suitably-qualified and suitably-experienced criminal lawyers who could also speak very good English. I find it astonishing and deeply ethically unprofessional that Dalla Vedova appears not to have done either of those things, and instead agreed to take the case. Was he seduced by the chance of fame? Only he knows.

And the upshot was that Knox had a dreadfully deficient defence throughout the whole court process. She should have had a lead lawyer who was a) a seasoned criminal lawyer who had experience of defending major cases, b) a skilled courtroom operator, c) a skilled media operator, and d) an astute political operator.

Perhaps the outcome would have been exactly the same even if Knox had had such a person (in collaboration with Bongiorno for Sollecito). Perhaps not. But in my opinion, it's abundantly clear that Knox could have given herself (and Sollecito by association) a far better chance if she had had the proper level and quality of legal representation.

 

[Kaosium]

It's a lie. And you know it. You have been shown repeatedly... but you denie it... Vecchiotti was caught lying.
I have shown that and innocentisti folks deny it...

About what?

Stefanoni never lied.

Yes, Machiavelli she did, being in denial of it doesn't mean that it's not true! They did TMB tests on the luminol hits, she hid that and omitted it from the technical report, the RTIGF, and then lied in court when asked if she'd done any other tests on the luminol hits. She also lied in the RTIGF and again in court about the quantification of the knife blade, 36 B. Only the delusional can deny that.

Never cehated and never refused to deposit documentation.

She did when the independent experts asked for all files pertaining to that DNA work.

She answered all questions. But I see how you folks repeatedly try to rationalize about something different. You "imagine" things. Even Stefanoni guess about hundreds picograms was correct, and it was proven that the defence lied on several occasions (when they talked about 5 picograms found by Vecchiotti. or when they falsely claimed that Novelli and Stefanoni agreed to refuse the testing...).

This is an interesting claim. Whatever makes you think her lie about it being hundreds of picograms could possibly be correct being as at that same time she lied about getting that quantification value through Real Time PCR? There's no way you can look at the results and think it's 'hundreds of picograms, here's why. These are trials done with 10 pgs amplified 28 cycles with the Identifiler kit, here are trials done with 100 picograms at 28 cycles with the Identifiler kit. Here's the electropherogram for the knife blade. Now, look at the scale at the left and notice the RFU level for the knife blade, most about 20-40 RFUs, a few peaking over 50 but not many. Now look at the same for the trials run with 10 pg and 100 pg and as you can see there's a massive difference. The 10 pg trials produced peaks around the same as the knife blade, whereas in the 100 pg trials the peaks are all over 100 RFUs with most in the 200-400 RFU range.

Since Stefanoni got the same result ('Too low') with the Qubit as she would have with nothing in the sample and never quantified the sample with Real Time PCR like she lied about in court, the only clue to the amount is the electropherogram and that shows results consistant with about 10 pgs and hell and gone from 100 pgs, let alone 'some hundreds of picograms.' Stefanoni is a liar.

We can take this point about alleged misconducts of Stefanoni as just one small example. Falsehood is a the roots of the arguments of pro-Knoxes. Of all their arguments.

The difference being instead of just saying things innocentisti can back them up with evidence, something extremely lacking in the colpevolisti world, they think if they just say it enough times it becomes true.

Stefanoni lied, make yourself comfortable with that, the deed is done.

 

[Desert Fox]

Some parts of what you describe could be the Lindy Chamberlain case in Australia, more than thirty years ago now. I don't know anything about a novel being associated with this case, and Azaria's body was never found, so perhaps we are thinking of two different tragedies. There is a thread or two here at JREFF on the Chamberlain case, and one can draw some close parallels with the forensics of the present one.

It is interesting how often the police go for a ritual sacrifices/satanism. I think it is part of the prosecutor's handbook; when you have no clue about motive, go for satanism, and hope the jury is gullible.

I found the case although it does not talk about Satanism
John Miller / Debbie Loveless Case in Texas
http://www.leagle.com/decision/1990...LOVELESS v. STATE/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3393
Could be conflating a different case with this one or something not mentioned here.

 

[Kaosium]

There certainly appears to have been an orchestrated campaign to place altered text onto Knox's sign, and to distribute these altered images around the internet. In my opinion, such activities only serve to tell us (and anyone) more about the mindset and motives of those orchestrating such activities. A certain pretend-lawyer has been coyly alluding to his role in this orchestration (and congratulating himself rather crassly in the process), and others have talked of the "campaign" to smear and mock Knox through this photoshopping-and-distribution game.

They seem to believe that they've made Knox's action in creating the sign-holding photo "backfire spectacularly". In fact, all they've done is shown just how misanthropic, bullying, vengeful and bitter many of them are. Oh well, tant pis........

Why does this not surprise me? They organize a hate campaign and wonder why people think they're a hate cult. Who else spends up to six years (some of them nearly every day!) regurgitating the same false memes and discredited 'evidence' while refusing to allow anyone who disagrees to post?

Thanks for the news from the Dark Side as I no longer visit.

 

[Antony]

What I haven't seen is a skeptical site with an unbiased presentation of all of the OJ evidence and with rational discussion. At the time, the primary sites presenting the data were the equivalent of TJMK with the message that it was in memory of Nicole and the same sort of frenologists comming out of the woodwork.

My point wasn't to open a debate on whether OJ was correctly acquitted of murder, but that when a defendant manages to avoid responsibility for a crime, it often has the effect of emboldening him so that he feels untouchable. That's the only way I can make sense of OJ's later engaging in armed robbery to retrieve memorabilia he regarded as belonging to him.

Guede has already carried out at least 3 break-ins without any consequences for him and has had his act of murder downgraded. The fact that he, above everyone, knows that the police screwed up this case mightily, doesn't give him any reason to seek to make his way in the world in an honest or peaceful way.

Rudy's non celebrity status may be an advantage for him. He will be mostly forgotten as a side note while the attention remains focused on Amanda and the other guy.

That's until he re-offends.

 

[Poppy1016]

I entirely agree with all of this. Knox must have been bewildered, confused and alone, and may well therefore have wanted to wear the t-shirt for strong personal reasons. But, as you say, it was the job of her lawyers to tell her, in polite but firm terms, that there was no way she was going to wear that t-shirt in court.

It appears that the "Dalla Vedova disaster" began with the US Embassy, who failed in their duty of care to Knox's mother by failing to give her proper advice about choosing a suitable lawyer for Amanda. Dalla Vedova was a purely commercial lawyer, and had no place even being put up for consideration as Amanda's lead criminal defence lawyer in a murder trial.

But once Knox's mother had failed to understand this, and had contacted Dalla Vedova, it was then incumbent upon Dalla Vedova himself to inform her that a) he was not properly qualified or experienced to take on the role, and b) he could recommend instead a list of suitably-qualified and suitably-experienced criminal lawyers who could also speak very good English. I find it astonishing and deeply ethically unprofessional that Dalla Vedova appears not to have done either of those things, and instead agreed to take the case. Was he seduced by the chance of fame? Only he knows.

And the upshot was that Knox had a dreadfully deficient defence throughout the whole court process. She should have had a lead lawyer who was a) a seasoned criminal lawyer who had experience of defending major cases, b) a skilled courtroom operator, c) a skilled media operator, and d) an astute political operator.

Perhaps the outcome would have been exactly the same even if Knox had had such a person (in collaboration with Bongiorno for Sollecito). Perhaps not. But in my opinion, it's abundantly clear that Knox could have given herself (and Sollecito by association) a far better chance if she had had the proper level and quality of legal representation.

While I agree that the defense did not do an acceptable job, I think the Italian legal system hampered the defense also. The system, using osmotic reasoning,and disregard of proper science, was largely to blame. All of that in addition to corruption, greed, and to a degree framing, left AK and RS with little hope of a correct verdict .

 

[Desert Fox]

Stefanoni lied, make yourself comfortable with that, the deed is done.

Everybody tries to shade the truth . . . .I know I am guilty myself.
Machiavelli could try to argue that.

Still, even without possible foul play, there are more plausible reasons for the DNA on the bra clasp and knife than Amanda and Rafaelle committed murder.

That he/she cannot accept that shows that he has no objectivity at all.

Not just from Machiavelli but I often get "They had DNA evidence proving their guilt." When I first heard the evidence they had, all I could do was hang my head on how thin that evidence is.

 

[Kaosium]

Everybody tries to shade the truth . . . .I know I am guilty myself.
Machiavelli could try to argue that.

However a supposedly objective forensic scientist lying in her report and in court about the nature of critical evidence is not just 'shading the truth.' The lie about negative blood tests goes to help them support their 'bloody footprints' contention, the lie about the amount quantified hides the fact it was contamination level DNA and gives the impression an ample amount was found. The former requires different procedures to be considered reliable, hence the need to lie.

Still, even without possible foul play, there are more plausible reasons for the DNA on the bra clasp and knife than Amanda and Rafaelle committed murder.

That's true, however it doesn't change the fact that Stefanoni lied, and it's not just nitpicky things, but very important things which discredit the evidence she was attempting to present.

That he/she cannot accept that shows that he has no objectivity at all.

Not just from Machiavelli but I often get "They had DNA evidence proving their guilt." When I first heard the evidence they had, all I could do was hang my head on how thin that evidence is.

Your point also gets lost sometimes, but it's important in my view not to forget that the prosecution is allowed to outright lie in Italian courts without consequence, which is why it's doubly important to get discovery on things like the EDFs. Each time the defense has gotten more information from the prosecution it has shown (or confirmed) the prosecution was lying about the nature of the evidence. This goes back to the very beginning when Mignini didn't like the vague report on Rudy's shoeprints being Raffaele's and got a sexed up report from the Polizia Scientifica claiming an 'exact match.' However when Raffaele's defense was allowed to evaluate the shoeprints found at Rudy's and they were an actual exact match (he even had the shoebox for them!) it showed the prosecution had brought a fraudulent report into Matteini's court.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

single cell polymerase chain reaction in diagnostic applications

"Abstract
The advent of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has revolutionised the way in which molecular biologists view their task at hand, for it is now possible to amplify and examine minute quantities of rare genetic material: the limit of this exploration being the single cell. It is especially in the field of prenatal diagnostics that this ability has been readily seized upon, as it has opened up the prospect of preimplantation genetic analysis and the use of fetal cells enriched from the blood of pregnant women for the assessment of single-gene Mendelian disorders. However, apart from diagnostic applications, single-cell PCR has proven to be of enormous use to basic scientists, addressing diverse immunological, neurological and developmental questions, where both the genome but also messenger RNA expression patterns were examined. Furthermore, recent advances, such as optimised whole genome amplification (WGA) procedures, single-cell complementary DNA arrays and perhaps even single-cell comparative genomic hybridisation will ensure that the genetic analysis of single cells will become common practice, thereby opening up new possibilities for diagnosis and research."
Cell Mol Life Sci. 2000 Jan 20;57(1):96-105.
Current applications of single-cell PCR.
Hahn S, Zhong XY, Troeger C, Burgemeister R, Gloning K, Holzgreve W.
Link to abstract here.


Findlay I., Methods Mol Med. 1998;16:233-63. doi: 10.1385/0-89603-499-2:233.
Single cell PCR : theory, practice, and clinical applications.

Abstract
The analysis of genetic material is fundamental to many medical and scientific applications. These include diagnosis of genetic disorders from preimplantation embryos (1) prenatal diagnosis (amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling [CVS]), forensic analysis (2) analysis of pathological specimens (3) paternity testing (4) disease screening, (e.g., antenatal cystic fibrosis screening (5) disease diagnosis, gene therapy (6) formation and analysis of transgeinc animals (7) and investigation of oncogenes (8). However, the major reason for the analysis of genetic material, particularly in medicine, is the diagnosis of genetic disorders.
Link to abstract here.

 

[Strozzi]

. . . It appears that the "Dalla Vedova disaster" began with the US Embassy, who failed in their duty of care to Knox's mother by failing to give her proper advice about choosing a suitable lawyer for Amanda. Dalla Vedova was a purely commercial lawyer, and had no place even being put up for consideration as Amanda's lead criminal defence lawyer in a murder trial.

You and I and others are correct that Knox needed savy, expert legal defense and did not get it. Machiavelli pointed this out about a month ago and ran through the list of lawyers the two defendants had and their poor qualifications, for the most part, to handle a case of this nature.

However, I want here to emphasize what I said earlier several times that a US Embassy has no role and no expertise in advising or guiding an American in selecting an attorney.[/I][/I] The American Citizen Services Section within an embassy or consulate Consular Section maintains a list of local (and American) attorneys who have provided their names and expressed a willingness to assist an American with a legal case. That's it. The US Government has no role in recommending, selecting, or determining the appropriateness of legal consul.

Maybe a large Italian law firm should have been consulted to identify what sort of expertise might be needed and then to guide the family to identfy and select the talent they needed? That might be the best way. (Keep the US Embassy out of it. They don't know thus stuff.). But at the time neither Amanda nor her mother understood what was happening and expected the local authorities to clarify their mistakes and correct it. Fat chance of that, as we have seen!

 

[platonov]

Not with a howl but a whimper.

I would remind everybody that we are not to be talking about each other in this thread. I shall therefore not be responding to comments about me though I might make a note of them in the future.


So what is "their world". It would seem that they believe Amanda and Raffaele are responsible for the murder of their daughter/sister. But, what about Rudy? So many motives have been presented to explain this crime. It seems there is a new motive for every prosecutore that presents the case as well as one for every judge that hears it. For each one, what is highly improbable for two new lovers becomes impossible when you try to fit a drifter into the mix. So, do they believe instead that Rudy is telling the truth?

• Do they believe that Rudy met Meredith at the disco on Halloween night?
• Do they believe that Rudy and Meredith arranged a date?
• Do they believe that Meredith invited Rudy into the cottage?
• Do they believe Rudy and Meredith were engaged in consensual sexual foreplay?
• Do they believe that Rudy was sitting on the toilet when somebody else entered the cottage and murdered Meredith?

Obviously if they accepted all that they would believe that Rudy was the last friend and intimate acquaintance of Meredith and he would have been welcome into their family if the relationship had continued.


Is there any evidence that shows Meredith's family do not believe the above points? This in skeptics parlance would be called attacking the argument.

This (for the noobs) is whats known in JREF parlance as JAQing off.

So you are now weakly insinuating that the Kerchers don't believe Guede is guilty of the sexual assault /murder of MK. OK.

Lets see the evidence for this.

Thats how it works in skeptical parlance on JREF, even in cartwheel world – you make the assertion, you back it up with evidence.

But apparently you cant - Hence the retreat into JAQing off.
[I'm open to correction on this - we shall see]

If your not prepared to own your argument – dont make it.

 

[Kaosium]

This (for the noobs) is whats known in JREF parlance as JAQing off.

So you are now weakly insinuating that the Kerchers don't believe Guede is guilty of the sexual assault /murder of MK. OK.

Let's see the evidence for this.

Why wasn't Rudy Guede's mitigation for remorse appealed? He 'apologized' for not doing more to 'save' Meredith, he never admitted to his role in the crime but pretended it was others who killed her and his only failing was not doing more to assist her.

Raffaele and Amanda's mitigations were appealed, including up until the last verdict, they wanted the max, yet Rudy Guede's mitigations were not appealed. The purpose of the 'victim's lawyer' is to represent the family's interests, which usually doesn't have anything (or much) to do with money as most perpetrators are not wealthy, but they 'count coup' instead by piling up aggravations and contesting mitigations so, if guilty, the defendant serves the longest sentence possible.

So why weren't any of Rudy Guede's mitigations appealed while Amanda and Raffaele's were?

 

[Strozzi]

DanO Quote:
Rudy's non celebrity status may be an advantage for him. He will be mostly forgotten as a side note while the attention remains focused on Amanda and the other guy. (end quote)

Rudy is not a celebrity the way OJ is, but Rudy will be recognized everywhere he goes in Italy. He will not live an anonymous life. Furthermore, he will be subjected to sustained efforts by others to get him to talk and record him. The interesting thing is that the PLE have a real interest in rehabilitating him so that he lives a straight life going forwards and doesn't talk to journalists, unless they are the right kind of journalists.

Just imagine how hungry Andrea Vogt would be to befriend and interview Rudy. Do you think she might make a business deal with Rudy's attorney or some other kind of deal with Mignini to get first crack at Rudy? Once she does get access to Rudy, do you think Andrea Vogt can be controlled to report Rudy's story "just the right way"? That will be interesting to see. Is their "honor among thieves"?

 

[js202]

It's a lie. And you know it. You have been shown repeatedly... but you denie it... Vecchiotti was caught lying. I have shown that and innocentisti folks deny it... Stefanoni never lied. Never cehated and never refused to deposit documentation. She answered all questions. But I see how you folks repeatedly try to rationalize about something different. You "imagine" things. Even Stefanoni guess about hundreds picograms was correct, and it was proven that the defence lied on several occasions (when they talked about 5 picograms found by Vecchiotti. or when they falsely claimed that Novelli and Stefanoni agreed to refuse the testing...).
We can take this point about alleged misconducts of Stefanoni as just one small example. Falsehood is a the roots of the arguments of pro-Knoxes. Of all their arguments.

Right. Please remind us again of the ways in which Conti and Vecchiotti - both professional scientists with advanced degrees and refereed journal articles to their credit - lack Ms. Stefanoni's "expertise".

Your post is complete, irrational nonsense, motivated by an implacable will to prosecute two innocents at all cost, whilst ceding no ground even when pinned to the wall with objective reality and facts.

 

[Antony]

AMANDA AND RAFFAELE: BEHIND THE CURTAIN

More on Ground Report from Karen Pruett:

http://groundreport.com/amanda-and-raffaele-behind-the-curtain/

 

[Planigale]

This (for the noobs) is whats known in JREF parlance as JAQing off.

So you are now weakly insinuating that the Kerchers don't believe Guede is guilty of the sexual assault /murder of MK. OK.

Lets see the evidence for this.

Thats how it works in skeptical parlance on JREF, even in cartwheel world – you make the assertion, you back it up with evidence.

But apparently you cant - Hence the retreat into JAQing off.
[I'm open to correction on this - we shall see]

If your not prepared to own your argument – dont make it.

FWIW RG was not charged or convicted of sexual assault of MK despite evidence of sexual contact (I do not know if the family were agreeable to this); AK and RS were charged with sexual assault (although there is zero evidence of sexual contact) the family seem agreeable to this. Whilst I cannot reference family views this is clearly the prosecution view and the family seem supportive of the prosecution approach in general.