Sunday, September 25, 2011

Is Knox acquittal a done deal?

One of the most significant pieces of evidence during their murder trial was what prosecutors claimed was Sollecito's DNA on Kercher's bra clasp, which had been cut or torn away from the bra during the attack that left her partially nude and her throat slashed.

To bolster her argument, Comodi pulled out a white bra and showed judges and jurors "how Raffaele Sollecito's DNA ended up on the bra clasp."

This probably-planted piece of evidence is the best they can do? Sollecito was supposedly involved in a wild sex game in that room, and we're supposed to believe that that's the only trace of DNA that he left? It's obvious that this is something they cooked up after realizing that then needed "evidence," and had to explain why it hadn't been found earlier.

Their closing "arguments" otherwise consist of mudslinging, with the same amount of substance as their "case," which was always a fantasy with tiny bits of fabricated physical evidence. They simply assert that the experts who blew their DNA "evidence" out of the water are incompetent, using insulting analogies that imply that the jury is a bunch of morons.

I get the sense that the acquittal is a done deal, for reasons mentioned in previous posts (saving face for Italy and its system of justice) and that these blatantly pathetic closing "arguments" and demands for the harshest possible punishment are intended to explain the impending acquittal, and to give the impression that the prosecutors really believe that Knox and Sollecito are guilty, to let them save some face. It's much better to make it appear that Knox and Sollecito are just extremely good at covering their tracks, than giving the impression that they prosecuted them just to put them through hell, which is what they actually did.