After wading through the many articles by the many journalists on this matter, pre and post this final exoneration, I have come to the conclusion that I don't know who to trust. A lot of the journalism is pretty shallow, in my opinion, and so much of it is rife with errors.
When I first heard about the case, the first appeal trial was ongoing. I read Amanda's statement containing the words "I was not there." And I said, wait, hadn't she already admitted to being there? I remembered reading some sort of report about it in one of the articles talking about the appeal. When the verdict came back with their first exoneration, I wondered how the court could have resolved both sets of "facts." That is when I began digging into the actual facts of the case, and reading what actual experts had to say. It was eye opening.
And it was eye opening to read how people like Nancy Grace, a former prosecutor, did not "buy" the scientific evidence that exonerated Rafaelle and Amanda. I am afraid that we may have as big a problem with our own judicial system.
But my biggest take away from this has been the necessity of getting as many facts as possible, especially from people without an axe to grind before forming an opinion. It is noteworty to me that the scientific community, Italian, British, and American that studied the case and formed opinions all seemed to think that there was never any credible forensic evidence tying Rafaelle and Amanda to that crime.
This will be my last post on the subject. My best wishes to Rafaelle, Amanda, and the WebSleuth community that have joined the debate here.
Glenn