I understand your frustration Otto. I followed the Haidl gang rape trial here in Orange County a few years ago. Not only was there significant evidence but the actual gang rape itself was entirely videotaped! How more clear can it be?This was a no brainer imo.My point is that the Italian jury was made up of 8 people, including 2 judges, and that there is no foundation to accuse the jury of being influenced by, or basing their opinions on, what was published in the newspaper. Furthermore, there is ample evidence, both circumstantial and forensic, to justify the conviction. Accusations that the jury was tainted, that both prosecutors are corrupt, that the police had tunnel vision and didn't do their jobs or had it in for Amanda or were anti-American, that the forensic analysts were incompetent ... all of this is nothing more than attacking people that were simply doing their jobs. It does not address the facts of the case. Instead, the facts of the case are simply dismissed with one singular remark; that being: "there is no evidence". After an 11 month trial, how anyone can conclude that there was no evidence and that the facts of the case are insignificant is beyond me. Those people that were doing their jobs have become the targets for the fact that Raffaele Sollecito and the American woman were convicted of murder, and the victim is ignored while Amanda Knox is placed on a pedestal.
Amanda Knox is an insignificant woman who arrived in Europe thinking it was her playground, and that she did not have to abide by any laws. She has paid a high price for her foolish, self indulgent, self entitled attitude. If she is innocent, she is the subject of a mountain of coincidences all pointing towards her guilt.
But the first jury was hung. They were not hung because they acted improperly but because they interpreted all the evidence differently than I did. They drew different conclusions from the evidencead the facts. The woman was unconscious and did not even flinch when penetrated from behind with a pool cue. Yet they thought they saw her hips move forward just a bit so they determied it was possible that she was feigning unconsciousness and the rape was consentual. what?
My point is that the very same pieces of information and facts are all open to interpretation, that is why it comes down to experts sometimes;it is their opposing opinion on facts that weighs heavily. But the conclusions will not always be the same. This thread is a perfect example of that.
So, while you and the jury may see the evidence and facts one way, it is always open to interpretation by anyone else that comes upon it.Just to throw an additonal curve into that news reports prior to any trial can influence just about everyone.
If the jury was biased then it is a problem. If the jury did the best they could with the information they had, that is all that can be asked of them.