Did you not read what I said? Two Courts of Law considered the evidence sufficient for a guilty verdict. I don't have to explain anything, the lawyers should have done it and obviously they failed.
There's no conspiracy here and the case has nothing to do with whatever corruption exists in Italy. You just have preconceived ideas and you let them could your judgement.
I do like that you are conveniently forgetting the court of law which found her innocent.
As for courts of law, your evidence that they got it right, is that a court of law found her guilty, ignoring the fact that IN EVERY COUNTRY, courts get cases wrong, it's always happened, it always will happen, they aren't infallible making your assumption that being found guilty automatically means she is certainly guilty an absolute truth, silly at best, then we get back to the case in which the most effort was expended by the defence, was found in their favour. In the latest case, which was a publicity stunt, the defence wasn't particularly significant.
Once again, READ THE EVIDENCE, your opinion holds no weight if you refuse to comment on the case frankly.
Again, the police's story is she cleaned up a room of two peoples dna evidence, leaving the third persons completely intact....... it is literally impossible. Defending a prosecutor and assuming the case is fine and above reproach, when the defining factor of their case is so fundamentally stupid as to make it laughable.... makes you look silly.
If you want to ignore the rest, go back to this one question. How did she clean two peoples evidence from a room, yet leave the thirds intact, with precisely zero evidence of cleaning in that room?
