[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Delgar

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.

The knife was not part of the crime, never was. It was simply a knife in a house. Knox does not have to provide an explanation why her DNA is on a knife, but I would guess it is because she claims they made meals together at his place? She is not a scientist who specializes in DNA. The average person may assume DNA equals blood, which it does not. It also includes pretty much all of you, including skins flakes, hair and saliva.

Originally Posted by Delgar

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.

Nope, the prosecution and scientists never scientifically proved the knife was part of the crime - at all. The knife was just a knife. Contrary to that, experts claims the knife could have never been a part of the crime since it was too long and one knife was used in the attack. You are going down their path of lies.

Originally Posted by Delgar

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.

Why would anyone care her DNA was on a knife they used for cooking at her boyfriends? The murderer ditched most of his clothes and the murder weapon. In fact, that guy was the guy who is currently in jail for this murder, and he left his DNA everywhere at the crime scene. This is a silly debate.

Originally Posted by Delgar

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.

She did not lie. Anything she was purported as to saying or agreeing with was done under coercion under extreme circumstances. And the recording equipment magically disappeared. The police knew they crossed lines and quickly discovered there was international attention and deleted everything.

Originally Posted by Delgar

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.

Blame the victim is a real classy thing.

Originally Posted by Delgar

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.

There was no evidence. You brought up a knife that was not used in the crime and was taken from a kitchen in another location, along with many other knives. The crime scene proved it was one person. The absence of evidence tells everything, except for what evidence existed resulted in the arrest in Germany of the sole murderer. How do you think it played out? They magically floated above the murder scene and took a souvenir?

Repeating nonsense does not make it true.