O.J. Simpson. The DNA said he was guilty but then his money, fame and the infamous 'Chewbacca Defense' got him off. That's what white America says anyhow, well that and some of black America and most of light brown and yellow America as well. Case closed.
Or was it?? Now according to the defense in the O.J. case the Los Angeles Police lost somewhere between ten millimeters and thirteen milliliters of the blood that O.J. gave in a sample to be tested against blood stains at Nicole Simpson's house, the crime scene. This was confirmed by the L.A. Crime Lab and further it was proved that only a few of the blood stains that 'proved' O.J. Simpson guilty were larger than half a milliliter, or 500 picoliters. That small of a sample was ample for a PCR DNA test and match, so say DNA experts in America. Keep that in mind as you read on.
Or is it?? Now, you may have heard about the Amanda Knox trial over in Italy, you know that country shaped like a boot that dangles out of Europe's groin. I'll recap, attractive girl A.)
Is brutally butchered by Some Italian black guy and/or Amanda Knox and her Italian douche bag boyfriend B.)
They rape, torture and murder her, allegedly. Now I have a few problems with this case and no it's not going to be a shrill guilty or not guilty diatribe. I wasn't there, I don't know who killed whom or why or who was in the bathroom with the mud-butt from a bad kebab (hint, it wasn't the Italian douche bag)I wasn't there, I have no opinion on who is actually guilty or not guilty. What I am concerned with is the American Reaction to the whole case.
Here in America, attractive , white teenage girl=incapable of committing a crime. Which is where Amanda Knox fits in.
So of course the Attorney General of Amanda's home state calls the trial and prosecution a sham and a mockery (a shamockery!) of justice, and her family calls 'DNA foul' and even Hillary Clinton is getting involved as poor Amanda Knox has been found guilty along with her alleged co-conspirators. Whatever, the jury has decided, I'm done with matter. However Amanda Knox's family and supporters aren't done with the matter.
Or are they?? No, they aren't. Here is their contention: the DNA evidence found on the apparent murder weapon that links the knife via blood DNA on the blade to Meredith Kerchner (the victim) and on the handle to Amanda Knox (the adorable defendant) is too small a sample to have yielded a DNA result. Oh and this knife was found at Italian douche bag boyfriends house. Case closed, too small a sample for DNA, right? WRONG!
How big was the sample you may ask? Well it was 500 picoliters. So we arrive at my point. 500 picoliters of blood is a large enough, reliable enough sample to charge a black man with murder, and would have been enough to convict if not for his money. YET it is total scandal that Italian police would use it as evidence against a white, moderately attractive piece of jail-bait like Amanda Knox.
For fucks sake America, can we at least try to be a little less hypocritical at least part of the time? If DNA is air tight enough to convict people over here in America then how about we let the Italian Police have the same credibility? Any one who says that evidence is a sham or isn't compelling enough needs to take a good hard look at the DNA evidence used here in the U.S. to send people to death row every single day.
Is Amanda Knox guilty? Fuck if I know, I wasn't there so the best that any of us can do is to let the Italian justice system do it's job and let a jury of her peers decide her fate. Which they did, and they said she is guilty and that is good enough for me.
Comment feed for this post
Rudy Guede's is all over the place including INSIDE the victim. It doesn't fit, you must acquit.
The main point is that in neither case was the evidence air tight, there were no eyewitnesses, no video of the crime, nothing like just minute quantities of DNA that any investigator with access to perp samples and crime scene evidence could easily fake.
The only difference is that we have an attractive, white teenager, which in this case gives her media coverage as an innocent being railroaded by corrupt police and in the other case we have a rich black man with his white ex-wife dead and the media labels the black man as guilty before a trial ever occurs.
I don't know who did what in either, I'm just interested in how both cases are portrayed even though they share the same type of circumstantial evidence. That's why in both cases I just have to agree with the jury, they heard and saw all the evidence, let the appeals begin.
and to Jaguar... did you know that at least 2 jurors were interviewed BEFORE the trial and declared they thought Amanda and Raffaele were guilty. And 2 judges sat with them and in the jury room as part of the jury. By law those 2 judges HAVE to vote guilty... the other part of their job is to convince the other jurors to vote guilty. Pretty easy when the newspapers ignore the judicial pre-trial evidence seal order and reprint every allegation, hint, innuendo and fantasy that is leaked to them by the prosecution for a full year before the trial starts. The trial was just a long formality with a foregone conclusion. The evidence was constructed to fit the original hunch and orchestrated to make all the flimsy stuff seem like steel.
DNA not from blood, so skin, muscle, something other, found on the blade, on a knife at the Italian douchebag's house, where Kerchner had never beens. Hmmmmmmmm. Suspicious.
Plus Knox's blood mixed with Kerchner's at the crime scene. I've been in juries here in the US and I have to say that the evidence presented would be enough without the media to convince just about every jury I've been on (three in total, 2 county, 1 Federal, all three juries had their minds made up as soon as they saw the defendants...........). There is no doubt that DNA evidence can, and has been faked and again you're missing my point, you jump to Knox's defense while ignoring that hundreds of black, inner city men are sent to death row here in the US every year on minuscule DNA evidence. Prosecutors here in the US make flimsy circumstantial evidence seem rock solid each and every day. I'm sure Italian polizia and prosecutors are any different.
I can see that you both agree with the jury that OJ was in fact not guilty?
Oh, and just a quick point, I don't think that Sollecito is a douchebag for any special reason, it's just that EVERY Italian guy I know is a douchebag, and they seem proud of it.