Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticks
So the evidence was not collected like they show on CSI?
Is this not the CSI effect where juries who have watched that TV show have unrealistic expectations about forensic evidence?
|
The evidence wasn't strong enough for a conviction as it's obvious they just wanted a result. Convictions don't get turned for no reason at the end of the day. It's strange that you're determined to continue down this path with Knox but you haven't mentioned the more likely suspect who is still serving time, you know the one who was convicted of attacking women in the past? The one who's DNA was closely linked to the crime?
The law and the evidence is on Knox's side and a lot of experts that know more about the field then me and you ever will have said that the same result would have been achieved in other countries. In the law's eyes she's innocent yet you keep going on saying that she should be retrialed on nothing more but emotional sensationalism. What's the point of even having a verdict if people are going to be seen as guilty anyway?