Is that because you've as much knowledge of the subject, or that you think any opinion is as valid as another regardless of merit? Her talking about 'bloody footprints' and 'mixed blood'
means something. It means Maresca is not being honest with them, and that they've not the wit to realize no one would care about that ridiculous DNA evidence either way if there were actually footprints mixed with blood or Amanda's blood mixed with Meredith's. That would be (if true) 'DNA evidence' as well, and far more damning than the knife that doesn't match the wounds and tested negative for blood, and the clasp which had the traces of three others as well.
How many cases can you name where there was a perpetrator convicted of the crime who was the only person for whom evidence was found at the scene when the forensics were processed, but that the family still blamed two college kids (meaning they weren't like mafia dons or criminal masterminds) for the crime? Isn't it the case in all these other instances that there's no basically nobody else to blame, unless it's someone who might have ordered it happen and it was believable that could occur?
Is defending oneself in a lawsuit the same thing as initiating one? Is one side not considered more aggressive? Is helping someone up the same as pushing them down? It is perfectly 'legal' to cheat on one's mate--does that make it right? It is (oftentimes) perfectly legal to lie behind someone's back and hurt their chances of promotion if it's the sort of thing that couldn't be proven, is that 'right?'
Defending someone from a bizarre charge is far different than condemning that person before due process is complete and sabotaging the efforts of people trying to help them and trying to put those people in jail too or at the very least intimidate them with scurrilous charges.
Should they lead a lynch mob to exact 'justice' anyway? Why not? What more could they do to hurt Raffaele and Amanda than tell public
lies (and Maresca
knows they're lies, he isn't
stupid) to defame the defendants in the eyes of the unsequestered jury to manipulate it, try to put Amanda in jail anyway for 'slander,' her parents as well, for 'daring' to try to speak out, and five members of the Sollecito family for exposing the bogus evidence against Raffaele? It would be a helluva a lot less harmful if John Kercher just tried to strangle them with his bare hands in court if acquitted.
Is there
anything the Kerchers could do that would earn condemnation from you? Now, if Amanda and Raffaele are acquitted, what would you think if they and their families went after
everything the Kercher's owned and tried to put them away with libel charges and whatever they could for the rest of their lives, and done it entirely legally? Because that's
exactly what the Kercher's tried to do to them, through the Jackal Maresca. If Amanda and Raffaele are acquitted, they are legally innocent, just as they are already to every cogent and rational observer of this case now. They are
victims here, mainly of the police and prosecution, but
also of the Kerchers through the actions of Maresca.
If they did that they would be
entirely justified as there's no doubt whatsoever that Maresca tried every last thing he could think of to harm the interests of Amanda, Raffaele, and their families. On the other hand, the Kerchers, through the Jackal Maresca will have done great evil to innocent people and have earned nothing but condemnation. They didn't sit back in reserved dignity, that is perhaps the most idiot lie told in this case, it is something people would simply prefer they had done and
want to believe, the actual evidence is entirely to the contrary.
There's a
reason behind the presumption of innocence, and this case is an object lesson for all who would forget it. It also shows just how badly something that
sounds good can become when (especially) sleazy lawyers get involved. No civil case should ever have been filed, and no lawyer should ever have taken it even if they wanted to. This should have been as obvious to them as it was to Paul Ciolino who figured it out after talking a little while to Giobbi and poking around the neighborhood.
I disagree, he sold his clients interests out, he has failed to properly advise them, and he has exposed them to action against them, and he might have invested them so much in a ridiculous action against two innocents they may be scarred for life. He should be jailed for his crimes, but instead he will probably dance between the raindrops, leaving devastation in his wake.
Of course his reputation is going to take a big hit. For that I'm grateful.
