Quote:
Originally Posted by Nage Waza
This is very silly. The crime scene had evidence of one attacker, including DNA evidence and footprints. There was no evidence at all of a second attacker. The person whose DNA was found at the scene? Guede. He even confessed.
There was evidence of an attacker with footprints everywhere in blood. Not two people, or three, just one. That in itself is evidence of one attacker.
Here are the facts, taken from a great website:
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI2.html
1. There is absolutely no evidence of Amanda Knox in the room at the time of the murder, nor is there evidence that she participated in any way. There was no motive. Originally, they claimed that Amanda caught a burglar in their house and decided to murder her roommate with the burglar. It is simply stupid.
a. No blood
b. No hairs
c. No fingerprints
d. No footprints
e. No saliva
f. No DNA |
I had to quote this because i don't think it be stated enough.
often the simple answer is the correct one.