General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Amanda Knox will again go before an Italian court [View all]msanthrope
(37,549 posts)wer e 26 separate splashes and spots of blood within and without the Bronco? The defense was smart enough to hire Henry Lee who focused on two equivocal spots......thus the jury simply forgot about the 24 other samples and specimens. The defense team also used this to get the jury to dismiss the blood evidence on the leaves the gloves the sock and within the house.
by focusing on a couple of equivocal pieces of forensic evidence the defense team also got the jury to completely not consider the circumstantial evidence which undoubtedly tied OJ to the crime.
you have the same strategy here only here it's being played out in public opinion by a PR firm. but if you read the report of the first jury.......you'll note that Knox was convicted primarily not on forensic evidence, because the jury was smart enough to realize that with the vast amount of forensic cover up that Knox and Sollecito performed lots of evidence would be equivocal. The jury believed her guilty because of the web of direct and circumstantial evidence that happened after the murder tied her to the crime......her movements her conflicting alibis the emails to cell phone calls.....
if you really want to know why she got convicted read the report of the first jury.......Knox did an extremely effective job of covering up the forensic evidence that tied her directly to the crime.....and her defense including primarily the PR firmmade hay with the equivocal pieces that she left. but what the vast majority of Knox supporters haven't been able to address is the report of that first jury that relies not on the equivocal forensic evidence but on the web of deceit and lies and circumstance that is completely inexplicable afterwards. it is the evidence of the cover up thatpoints back to the crime and that's why if she stands trial again she's going to be convicted again.