Come on Foxy Knoxy - You can do it!

[PAH]

So - who did it then?

Come on, all you amateur Colombos who can see so clearly everything about the McCann case - solve this one.

Obviously it was the guy still in prison.

Funny you should mention the McCann case. There are some coincidental similarities between the two cases:

1. The foreign police are shown to be clowns who can't do the most basic of crime scene preservation and investigation.

2. Huge media circus involved.

3. Huge amounts spent on PR and media handling.

4. Giving a clear account of the evening of the crime is very hard to do and requires constant refinement to alibis.

5. A man of religion was encouraged to offer support (Foxy's in prison).

Probably others I can't think of at the moment.

[TimberWolf]

Always knew she was innocent.

Thank god Sollicito's father is wealthy enough to pay for a top legal team to pick holes in the prosecution's case (though where were they the first time around?), and Foxy had a great PR team to prove she wasn't really a cartwheeling smiling nutjob.

Maybe if Foxy and Sollicito had just told the truth in the first place (they weren't there, the killer cleaned up the crime scene yet left plenty of his own evidence, they had no motive as reports Foxy was jealous of Meredith were untrue, they are deeply in love as proven by Sollicito's final speech at the appeal even though they only were going out for about a week).

What were they thinking to keep changing their stories and blaming someone they couldn't have known was there as they weren't there.

Fortunately the truth is now out and Foxy is going to become a celebrity millionaire selling her story in the USA.

Proof that justice is yours for the right price.

I think you're right about one thing. Someone with less resources would likely have been found guilty the second time around, if indeed there were even a second trial.

[PAH]

The thing I find myself asking mirrors what Meredith's family are now asking:

"How can evidence that was good enough to secure initial convictions now be so wrong?"

There seems something wrong with the justice system if people can be thrown in prison and released years later when a review of the same evidence throws up such a different result.

It's not like advances in technology have uncovered new evidence, which is one scenario where the above would make sense.

Lawyers and judges. I wouldn't trust them with my life.

[NotAllThere]

....What were they thinking to keep changing their stories and blaming someone they couldn't have known was there as they weren't there. ...

People do stupid things when they're under pressure, and in fear that they'll be accused of a crime they didn't commit.

[Churchill]

She's as innocent as OJ Simpson.

[Mich the Tester]

There seems something wrong with the justice system if people can be thrown in prison and released years later when a review of the same evidence throws up such a different result.

It's not like advances in technology have uncovered new evidence, which is one scenario where the above would make sense.

Could be an interesting research subject on its own. The evidence hasn't changed, but perhaps the circumstances have. The psychological state of all those who gave evidence in the first trial is perhaps different in the appeal. Their memories of what they saw have changed; perhaps they remember things less well, or perhaps they've had more time to think about and interpret what they saw, heard and said, and their perception of things has changed. The accused obviously go through a whole rollercoaster of emotions and are therefore likely to behave differently in trial and appeal. All these changes in psychological state can lead to changes in behaviour and influence the interpretation by the judge and the jury, who have also been influenced by previous press coverage.

[Doggy Styles]

"How can evidence that was good enough to secure initial convictions now be so wrong?"

Always was wrong apparently. God knows how they convicted Knox in the first place. That murder weapon (the knife) for instance - now we find out it was the wrong size for the wounds, had no particles of blood on it, and DNA samples on it were too small to be admissible. Where was this information at the original trial?

[PAH]

People do stupid things when they're under pressure, and in fear that they'll be accused of a crime they didn't commit.

I don't see how telling the truth and sticking to it is so hard if you're innocent.

While it may be hard to imagine being in their shoes, if I came home and found a housemate murdered I wouldn't be changing stories and guessing who may have done it. I'd stick to what I know and leave the rest to the fuzz to work out.

Remembering the truth is a lot easier than anything else so only a moron deviates, unless they've something to hide.

Maybe these two are just cartwheeling, smiling in court morons. Would you consider that behaviour as normal if up for a driving offence let alone murder charges? Bizarre.

[dang65]

There seems something wrong with the justice system if people can be thrown in prison and released years later when a review of the same evidence throws up such a different result.

You say that as though it were unusual for this to happen.

List of miscarriage of justice cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Mich the Tester]

Remembering the truth is a lot easier than anything else so only a moron deviates, unless they've something to hide.

Ah, but 'something to hide' may not be 'something illegal' and may not be connected to the crime; it may be something unconnected, but the person doesn't tell the whole truth for other reasons, such as shame or fear of what others may think. The suspect may not wish to reveal as an alibi 'I was indulging in a session of wild group sex nextdoor' even though it might get them off. Irrational perhaps, but people don't tend to be rational, especially when under pressure.