This DNA evidence was eviscerated by the experts hired by the court
In fact, as I stated previously, the amount of DNA needed for PCR is so small that any lab without extremely good practices will have rampant false positives. If they had items with the victims DNA being analyzed in the same lab they would have been just as likely to find her DNA on your collar.
I assume you can account for your whereabouts that night.
Cite? Surely you wouldn’t make such a bald assertion of fact without a cite, would you?
I’m not sure if you’re referring to the same Sollecito or some other Sollecito.
I’m not sure which Knox case you’re referring to.
See, two can play at that game. But I’m not sure which game you think I’m referring to.
Can I ask once more for you to elaborate on your comment:
They’re angry that the people who were convicted are being let go even though the evidence proves they didn’t do it and were railroaded by the Italian police.
Honestly, it’s an obviously disgusting reaction and it’s so obviously disgusting that Bo probably doesn’t feel the need to explain it.
Did you read your own link?
I guess I’m missing something here. Which part of the above do you think is a self-evidently disgusting reaction from the family?
I’d have to disagree. The factual answer has nothing to do with a court of law.
If she is innocent a court finding won’t change that. Similarly if she is found guilty. What we get is a court finding which does not alter whether or not she did have any part in a murder.
The evidence has overwhelmingly proved that Knox was railroaded. It’s disgusting that they would support any appeal to overturn her acquittal.
I am dismayed at the sort of self-righteousness it must take to look at the hurt, desperate reactions of the family of the victim, their craving to see justice done for their daughter, their vulnerability to believing what the local prosecution tell them happened…and add insult to that injury by accussing them of behaving badly. You should honestly be ashamed.
Let’s just recap here. Their daughter/sister was raped, and then murdered over a lengthy period of time. They were then sucked into a media circus of epic proportions, and had the local prosecutors telling them that Rachel was killed as part of a horrific sex game, etc. Can you imagine just how much they have suffered over the last 4 years, thinking about her final moments? Are you surprised that, having gone through that, they would take comfort thinking that at least the guilty had been caught and punished?
Now the verdict has been overturned, and frankly I think anyone at arms length from this case is relieved. But for the Kerchers, what little closure they had is now gone. The appeal judge has stated that her murder “will remain an unsolved truth”. The high court ruling Guede’s sentence stated that in their opinion Guede didn’t act alone. On top of that,there’s a huge list of unresolved queries still left.
So no, I don’t see them doing anything at all inhuman or disgusting in still clinging to the theory the prosecutors stated as fact 4 years ago. I just see some terribly hurt people who have not only lost someone they love, but had to then try to come to terms with it in the most public of circumstances, and then be reminded of it again and again, all the while getting no real answer to who did it or why. I have an incredible amount of sympathy for them, and I find it quite lamentable that they should be accused of being anything other than victims who have suffered greatly.
No, perjury is simply giving a false statement under oath. Calunnia, which I don’t believe is a specific offense under common law, is accusing a person of a crime even though you know he/she is innocent. The key is the knowledge of the person’s innocence; if you accuse an innocent person of a crime but are convinced of his/her guilt, it’s not calunnia.
Nope. The problem, for the prosecution, was insufficient evidence. At least, according to the Court of Appeals. Nothing was “proved” about Ms. Knox being “railroaded.”
Perhaps you have a different definition of railroaded than I do.
I think the normal sense of “railroading” involves convicting a person of a crime against all evidence. That didn’t happen here.
No, it involved convicting a person even though there was no evidence. It’s a distinction without a difference.
Nope, again. There was evidence, plenty of it. What it boiled down to was how trustworthy the dna evidence was. The first judges thought it was valid, the Court of Appeals didn’t. Who was right?
Plenty is probably an exaggeration.
The case was a battle between expert witnesses. Who was right? I don’t know, and I doubt whether anyone without specialized knowledge in that field would even be able to hazard an intelligent guess.
By the way, trusting newspaper accounts (especially foreign sources) to get legal questions right is iffy at best. In my experience, news reports always get something wrong, and sometimes they get everything wrong.
So Nathan, what happens now? Is there double jeopardy in Italian law? Can Knox be tried again?
What about the prosecutor? He seems to have bungled two high profile cases. Does he keep his job?
Even on nights when you get completely smashed, your account of your actions or whereabouts will normally make sense and be consistent with the circumstantial evidence. For example, you can’t remember anything about what you did last night after you were drinking at a bar; there is vomit on the floor of the bar’s bathroom with your DNA in it; your credit card records show that you bought a pack of cigarettes at the convenience store down the street; the surveillance cameras from the convenience store show you buying a pack of cigarettes there; and your cell phone records show two 30-second calls to the number of your ex-girlfriend.