"Foxy Knoxy" convicted

[kiarj]

No, he didn't.

When he was first questioned in December he told police he could identify the killer who he claims to have fought with. However at the time he failed to do so.

That implies he wasn't alone, doesn't it?

So he could have seen Sollecito and simply.. not recognize him, y'know?

 

[Bellum]

Well, since he's an honest law abiding citizen*, he doesn't have anything to be afraid of, now does he.

*At least in the eyes of the system.

Was that addressed at me? If so, that's nonsense. Innocent people go to prison all the time. Presumably, regardless of what judicial system is actually used.


Anyway, I'm not paying that much attention, but I haven't seen any real hard evidence. Most of the discussion seems to be centered around questionable accounts by the people involved, which is worth **** all as far as I'm concerned. Personally, I wouldn't convict someone of murder (or anything else) unless there was proof that the person was guilty. Thankfully I don't vote, so I don't really have to worry about it.

 

[Mage246]

No, he didn't.

When he was first questioned in December he told police he could identify the killer who he claims to have fought with. However at the time he failed to do so.

That implies he wasn't alone, doesn't it?

So he could have seen Sollecito and simply.. not recognize him, y'know?

Or maybe he made the whole thing up and killed her alone, and then when the police showed him pictures later of them he realized he might get a lighter sentence if he spread the guilt around?

 

[Archonsod]

Fortunate for him he could create convincing DNA trace evidence and fake their fingerprints.

 

[bugman]

Criminals be getting smarter

 

[Mage246]

Fortunate for him he could create convincing DNA trace evidence and fake their fingerprints.

Except that the DNA evidence was contaminated or too small to be conclusively identified. I think you watch too much CSI, there's a limit to how much you can do with DNA evidence, especially if you don't have enough of it. And I have no idea what you're talking about with the fingerprints, since the only one they found of Knox was on a glass in the kitchen. Last I checked, there is no law against touching the glasses in your own kitchen.

 

[Archonsod]

Except that the DNA evidence was contaminated or too small to be conclusively identified.

As alleged by the defence. The prosecution meanwhile demonstrated the techniques they used to get a match to the court.
The contamination hinges on a bra clasp. The defence allege that since it was only picked up three months after the incident it had been contaminated. Because lying underneath a bed in a sealed crime scene for three months it's bound to have picked up DNA from two people being held several miles away in police custody. I'm sure quantum linkage is a constant hazard for forensic investigation. Of course, they then went on with a slightly more believable claim that the evidence had been mishandled, but since they failed to provide either evidence or example of this I suppose it must be a fact. Just to be sure, they got an expert witness to testify on the pitfalls of genetic evidence in general.
And that still leaves the DNA found on the knife. But I suppose we can discount this because "it's too small to have caused those wounds". According to an Italian solicitor, who are of course world famous for their knife fighting skills so we can place absolute trust in their ability to determine the kind of wounds a given knife would cause based on observation alone. Even if it does disagree with the coroner report.

I think you watch too much CSI, there's a limit to how much you can do with DNA evidence, especially if you don't have enough of it.

CSI?

And I have no idea what you're talking about with the fingerprints, since the only one they found of Knox was on a glass in the kitchen. Last I checked, there is no law against touching the glasses in your own kitchen.

They found her fingerprint on the knife, and in her blood on the bathroom sink.

 

[Bellum]

Wow, Archonsod, actual evidence. That is considerably harder to argue against than "but she lied under pressure!". 

 

[denwood1]

It was an unfare trial and they were just looking for someone to blame.