@Robert Gentel,
Is there some good reason you can't or won't answer the question I asked, rather than the one you wished I asked? It was not at all specific to this case for good reason (rule of law.)
As for DNA, there is a video of the buffoons handing the bra clasp back and forth when they discovered it, rather than bagging it immediately. I also doubt any forensic authority is suggesting the time on the floor would contaminate the evidence, but rather that the month long gap in the chain of custody makes it unreliable from a legal standpoint. With that big of a gap, and the mishandling there is simply no way of knowing if it's been contaminated... and the benefit of that doubt should go to the accused. Same goes for the knife. There is apparently an insufficient quantity of genetic material to verify the State's test, which wouldn't fly here in the States.
And as you pointed out, even the things that were suppressed; said supression had little consequence because it was introduced through the swarming media instead,and there was no sequestration... and there certainly didn't appear to be any kind of gag order ordered or respected.
Finally, comparing the media biases is hardly a wash because the Italian Jury was bombarded not just by the Italian media version; but also poisoned by a steady dose of the American disdain for same as well as our disdain for the Italian system itself. Their "Soap Rags" sold plenty of paper, literally painting the U.S. as suggesting we don't believe the Jurors themselves were up to the task... without qualifying the sentiment with the FACT that we would find a simple majority of American jurors to be equally repugnant to justice.
While none of the above does anything to prove her innocent; here in the States there would be no need to prove her innocent… which has been my complaint from the get go. A simple majority from a mostly lay person jury (6 of 8), who sat on an un-sequestered, frequently tainted panel, and listened to what can only be deemed coerced (by U.S. Standards) testimony… was certainly not primed to decide anything
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Aside: I wouldn’t be so quick to forfeit a jury of your peers. You are correct in judging the lay person infinitely less qualified, but he is the juror of choice because he is unbiased and un-jaded (in theory.) Professional Judges tend to be ex-District Attorneys, can get bored in their profession as easy as anyone, and might care more about making their Tee Time than anything else. I doubt it’s an unusual occurrence for the wide-eyed, ignorant lay person juror to be more interested in justice than the professional judge and both the advocates for the prosecution and the defense combined. I’d rather face a jury of my peers, anytime.
