I think they get off bc there is a reasonable alternative scenario based in the evidence that RG is lone wolf, and they have alot of support bc the DNA evidence was discredited by independent experts. If they did not have the DNA evidence being discredited by intl standards, it would be a stronger case for guilt.
Also if they connected them to the murder room w DNA evidence, being white or college students would be of no help to them. It's the lack of evidence tying them to the room and murder weapon that gets them off, not merely being white or College students. And if you add to that you have no evidence connecting the three nor do you have evidence of past animosity, even a curcumstantial case comes falling down.
The circumstantial case requires too many assumptions and too make inferences to stand on its own without either having unrebuttable scientific proof or a strong motive to back it. You probably need both in a case w so many assumptions but you at least need one or the other. Here you don't have either the forensic link or the motive.
bbm
I disagree that there is no evidence tying them to the murder room, or the murder itself. One can use different "date points" to connect the dots. They lied about where they were that night, I know there is much debate on this, but IMO, this is my opinion only based on the evidence, I believe they're lying about where they were that night. So if you come from
my viewpoint, is that they're lying about their alibi for the night. Then, they have their cell phones turned off, happened to be on the same night Meredith is murdered, and happened to be on the same night of which they're lying about where they were and what they were doing. Then, you have all the events of the next day, discovery of body, etc.. Then, you have all their different stories. Etc., Etc.. It is just too much, how can you say this is a "weak circumstantial case"?
I think the main difference between what we think is, I'm coming from the viewpoint that they're lying about a lot of things, and others have a viewpoint that they're not lying. This affects the prism of how we interpet all the other evidence from that point on. For example, if one doesn't think they're lying, and that they were really at home at Raffaelo's that night, then of course, they
couldn't possibly be at Amanda's cottage. I ask that people keep an open mind, and part of that is maybe considering that they just might be lying about the "fact" that they were at Raffaelo's the whole night. If one keeps an open mind about this "fact," one can see all other evidence in a different light.
So to think that they're telling the truth about their alibi, as I said,
automatically means one must disregard all other evidence. Because it is not possible to be two places at one time. This makes it possible to disregard everythingggggggggg from that point on. Such as DNA evidence, Luminol footprints, evidence of someone staging and some covering-up, the lies, evidence of lies, forensic evidence, etc..
I do not believe the forensic evidence is so easy to disregard, IMO. It is there. There are Luminol footprints, and there is DNA evidence of Amanda in that home when the murder occurred, and subsequent to that, lying about it. There is clear evidence.
As I said, to believe that they were at Raffaelo's when they said they were, of course means no other possibility is possible.
Nothing like being misled........Mignini asserted this in court. Why? grrrrr ETA: Unless perhaps there could be a stencil effect with some speckling of blood droplets on the breast?
