Quote:
Originally Posted by Nage Waza
There was no evidence in Italy either, so I am unsure what standard you are speaking of.
|
If you really mean to say this, then you weren't paying attention either to the trial or the news that came out. There is evidence which suggests she may have been involved in the murder. The most obvious example being that her DNA was found on a knife which may have been used in the murder, along with the victim's. That is significant and deserves an explanation given her own words. Based on Knox's own statements, she provides no explanation on how that could have happened, and in fact her statements suggest it would be impossible for her own DNA to be on the knife handle. This warrants further investigation by itself.
I suppose its possible the police put the DNA there, or otherwise mishandled the knife. But that does not mean there is "no evidence". There is evidence which needs to be explained. Discrediting evidence does not mean it doesn't exist.
As a result, these are not "cruel and unusual" claims against her. The evidence required vetting in a trial. I don't think it was vetted very well, but Italy has different standards.
As to saying she's not a liar, her own words have come back to haunt her in several respects. This is the first I've heard of someone defending Knox on the ground she was entirely truthful, and it doesn't stand scrutiny. Lying about things doesn't make one a murderer, but she sure didn't help her case when she spoke with the police with half-truths some cases and intentional misdirection in others. That's not blaming the victim (your word, "pathetic" suggests you don't appreciate the meaning of that word), its fact.
And as pointed out, the main victim is the deceased. Knox is perhaps a victim of circumstance as well, but as indicated above she did have some role in causing her own problems.
Anyway, stick to thinking there's "nothing" or "no evidence", all that shows is you're not paying attention, and doesn't actually help your argument, as those statements are clearly over the top. Poor evidence, or discreditable evidence? Sure. No evidence? That's wrong.