Diabolicals quite deliberately report inaccurate, misleading, unfair and outright dishonest information and tout it as “truth.”
Diabolicals defend their lies, half truths and inaccuracies, no matter how harmful, even when presented with factual evidence that their information is inaccurate (or worse).
Diabolicals appear to be incapable of separating fact from opinion and often offer personal opinions as fact.
Diabolicals don’t care about grief, distress or privacy. They will use the grief and distress of devastated families, very often on both sides of the justice debate, simply to further their own aims.
It's my day off Nicholas, no shirt has been ruined in the reading of that very diabolical statement.
One of my points around this not matching samples to the correct report:
P:202 of IB.
"-----It was (and still is) virtually impossible to tell which results correspond to items originally labelled "visible", or "not visible", or neither"
To:
"Semen staining on the inside left sleeve of the t-shirt appears to have been visible to the naked eye. It is unlikely that a 14-year-old girl would go out to meet her boyfriend with visible semen staining on it. Since the t-shirt reportedly smelled of washing powder, indicating it was freshly laundered, the conclusion would have to be that the visible stains on Jodi's clothing were deposited either during or after attack - in no way can it be claimed, for example, that a visible semen stain on a t-shirt got there by transfer in a washing machine or rainwater"
(P:202 IB)
"Incapable of separating fact from opinion and often offer personal opinions as fact" Furthered with this male, by claiming for many years he had no alibi, that he had only been in the company of his girlfriend JaJ's. Pulled up on this and reminded of the facts, one (SL) said it reality, it did not count that he had been alibied by his father, as she claimed not to have seen that statement from RK. Pulled up again, with the information in their own statements along with precognitions carried out, one still would not accept wrong. Stating that this alibi did not come about until statement X. So we have
"defend their lies, half truths and inaccuracies, no matter how harmful, even when presented with the factual evidence that their information is inaccurate (or worse)"The boys on the bike another brief example, pulled up repeatedly with the absolute facts of this impossibility, that no V break can be seen from anywhere other than on the path itself. Knowing for a fact the inaccuracy of this claim, but the "diabolical" journalists printed something, so it is OK to use inaccuracies, knowing they are, and again the defence of never being in the wrong. The original of this claim/statement was of being "close to" from an employee of BTH. To then posing a question as an answer, with 'A tractor in the field could have seen the bike?' The same thing of late has been going on around that claimed witness and the identify of the mystery man?
I do wonder what it actually says in statements and testimony of how SK's semen came (no pun intended) to be on JaJ's t-shirt. Directly or a 'cloot' perhaps? The trouble once more with no contents/context. Does it matter? well it does where deception/bias is the name of the game? Certainly that it was proved and accepted to have gotten there innocently and washing machine/rain water transferal certainly happens, it did take place.
So, a couple of very basic yet damaging examples to innocents. With of course that pre-disposed "I make no apologies -----------" For the blame for any upset, any harm is laid at the feet of the system, the police and not the fault of the author if any
"grief, distress or privacy" Issues arise from one's "truth" being put, born from "opinion?"
And as always and by invite of the author to "make of it what you will" And I invite the author publicly here to explain in full where and whom exactly did her chapter on "Agreed Facts" come from. Who on earth "agreed" all these so called "facts?" Does she agree that perhaps one may be describing themselves in parts with that statement? I am not accusing, just expressing opinion here and offer a response directly from her?
