Well Treehorn, I think it's time to round up a few disparate threads and bring them all together.
Firstly the issue of whether or not (in your words) "
Amanda and Rudy smoked dope together several times". I think we've been over the relevant part of Amanda's cross-examination and the relevant parts of the Massei report often enough now to see that there was never any factual basis for this claim whatsoever. There is in fact no evidence that Amanda and Rudy
ever used drugs together. Do you now acknowledge this?
Secondly, you seemed to think that it was a huge problem both for myself personally and for the pro-innocence argument as a whole that you thought I had got the number of times Amanda and Rudy had met wrong. It turned out, of course, that I was perfectly correct (Amanda was at one party where Rudy was present, and spoke to him at that party according to one of Rudy's friends, and Amanda saw Rudy present at her place of work on one occasion. That's it).
Is this error on your part as devastating for the pro-guilt case and yourself personally, as the error you thought I had made was supposed to be for me personally? Or are there two sets of rules here, where you get to declare victory if you get one fact right that I get wrong, but you are allowed to make wildly mistaken claims and defend them with misleading citations and then skate away from it?
This error about Amanda's drug use led us on to the cross-examination technique issue. So thirdly Treehorn, do you accept that the cross-examination that
so confused yourself and
TomM43, which you two thought was Carlo Pacelli being outmanoeuvred by Knox, was in fact Carlo Pacelli carefully framing his questions to get the incriminating facts he wanted into court
without asking Knox directly if she ever shared drugs with Rudy Guede, or used drugs at the one party where she and Rudy Guede were present?
(There's a curious symmetry here... earlier you seemed to think that the maxim that one should never ask a question that you did not know the answer to was a rule for discussion in general, not a specific rule for risk-averse cross-examination. Then when you came across an example of a lawyer doing
exactly this, it slipped past you completely and you and TomM43 thought Amanda was outwitting Pacelli and the court).
Moving swiftly on from the question of how two people who say they are lawyers have no idea how cross-examination actually works, almost like two bad students cribbing from each other in an exam, I think what well want to know is:
Do you have a coherent theory of the crime?
What do you think the most compelling pieces of evidence against Knox and Sollecito are? How strongly does each influence your final view of the likelihood of their guilt? Can you give us a (not necessarily unique) set of incriminating evidence sufficient to get you personally to >50% belief in their guilt?
