In following this case since the original media attention, I learned several lessons by doing my own "independant research." It was this case that opened my eyes to many different miscarriages of justice against many innocent people who went on to be wrongfully convicted and then luckily later exonerated decades later.) Some where the evidence was questionable at best, where many are still fighting for cases to be reheard from behind bars.
This case helped me see that we arent taught to use critical thinking when we read an article or watch the news. We have a false belief that lies or inaccurate/misleading information wont be reported ...
I also saw how influencial law enforcement is where we always seem to believe that the good guys got the bad guy.. Statements they make during an investigation where they can manipulate a situation by reporting that the subject was known to police (but they dont tell us in what capacity .. did the person of interest have speeding tickets??) we dont use critical thinking as we look for relief that the bad guy was caught and put all our faith in law enforcement so we can await justice to be served against the "suspect"..
We dont question what is reported (we see footage of Raphael kissing Amanda outside the crime scene but we only see that 3 second clip.. we dont see the 10 seconds before or the 10 seconds after where Amanda is clearly upset ..of course it was innapropriate, but we dont know at that time that Raphael, feels that is the only way he thinks of to comfort her.. we are taught that innappropriate behavior should always suggest guilt. We believe that. We are taught by law enforcment (interviews and crime shows) that how one behaves will determine innocence or guilt. We dont realize that we dont get the entire story, just the part that suggests guilt. Once the jury of public opinion is established the media appear to continue to feed the fire.
When this crime story first broke,the media came out with the story that Amanda admitted seeing a few drops of blood on the bathroom fawcett. This article accompnaied the picture of the bathrom where it apeared to be covered in blood. We werent told that the picture was taken after luminol was sparyed which would turn red any protein on the wall incvluding toothpaste, mouthwah, soap and spills and splashes and these show up as bright red by the luminol. This is how we start forming our opinion that the person is a liar therefore guilty.
We also heard that Amanda and Meredith's blood was found on a kitchen knife from Raphaels apartment.
More reason to believe guilt.
What wasnt openly reported was that the knife blade was longer than every stab wound. Every stab wound measured a shorter depth of the blade, which would mean that each stab would have been refrained to go in as far it could each time, where the stabber stopped short in each stab wound at the exact depth each time. Another telltale was that there was also a nic on one of the stab wounds where the prosecutor said that the rim of the knife (where the blade meets the handle) made the nick .How could the would have happened if the blade was longer than the wounds.. which brings the claim that DNA of Amanda and Meredith were found on this knife.
I have attached an explaination of the process of how DNA is required to be tested and concluded and how much of society sufers from the "CSI Affect" ... The article gave me a better understanding of DNA and the process ... and how DNA can be so misleading to jury pools It certainly is complicated ...
Snippet....
"If you watch crime dramas, you'll be forgiven for the impression that DNA evidence makes an airtight case. And if you
do have that impression, you might be confused about the internationally famous case of American Amanda Knox, convicted of murdering her British roommate in Perugia, Italy in 2007. After all, the prosecution's case was based on DNA evidence; Knox's genetic fingerprints were found by Italian police on the handle of a kitchen knife, which also had the victim's DNA on the blade.
But not all DNA evidence is created equal—and Knox walked free last week from an Italian jail after scientists savaged the forensic evidence against her as being wholly unreliable. How did DNA analysis go so wrong?
To understand the problems with the Knox case, we drew on the extensive real-world genetics experience of the Ars science staff and spoke with Dr. Lawrence Kobilinsky of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. Kobilinski has seen the DNA test results from the Knox case and helped walk us through the reasons that DNA evidence isn't always as airtight as it sometimes looks on TV."
How weak DNA evidence railroaded—and then rescued—Amanda Knox | Ars Technica
