I kind of agree with the tenor of this post. A moment's reading yesterday and an explanatory post by Charlie left me with the jaw-dropping realisation that she has not got the time line for the morning of the 2nd straight. She thinks she called her mother at noon rather than 47 minutes later and consequently places that call in her book at the time she was walking back to Raf's.
The only inference one can draw from that is that she has not been over it with her legal team over the course of two trials and four years in prison. I am not talking about coaching, which is not allowed where I come from (and usually results in a confused witness trying to remember what they were told to say rather than what they actually remember) but simply confronting her with time line points as an aid to her memory - which is.
She hypothesised on her blog that the lamp was probably borrowed by Meredith. Silly girl. She has not read my article and as a consequence neither she nor her team properly got to grips with that point, albeit the only harm that came from it was in the internet (assuming there were no 'hidden' findings in Massei) where people who don't properly understand the principles think the photographs prove the lamp was already in the room.
Her book disclosed she is confused about raw data and EDFs. She thinks the SAL records = raw data and implies that the prosecution fully discharged its disclosure obligations during the Massei trial. So she is wrong about a fundamental point. One of the worrying things about that is that non-disclosure will be a key plank in any eventual application to the ECHR and, like Randy says, it would be better for her if she deepened her own understanding of what has been happening because over-reliance on what may not always be the best advice is not recommended.
I sense a 'too many cooks' problem in her camp, with offers of advice and help coming in from many quarters, not all of them sound. What she needs is a small, well-chosen, tightly-knit and trusted team and a firewall enclosing her and them so she can focus. The one key area of that focus, with an eye on the ECHR and extradition as well, should be the period 02-06 November 2007.
- When did the cops identify Patrick?
- why did they not seal his place off?
- why did they select a knife from Raf's place?
- how come they did not locate the phone from which Patrick sent the 20:18 text?
- what exactly did De Felice say at the press conference of which there ought to be a transcript or footage from which to take one?
- what do the notes or recordings of her earlier interviews say?
- on what date did they set up the environmental thing at Le Chic?
and more.
ETA and why has she said on three separate occasions that I have been able to identify that the cops showed her Patrick's message? I would want an expert view on whether the Sim would still tell us when that message was deleted and then I would request access to it for examination. Well, if I had a time machine I would. It's too *********** late now.
