Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
I'm, frankly, a little astonished at what Dershowitz describes as "some evidence" in that video. I was hoping he could then trot out some new piece of super-probative information that would tend to incriminate Knox.
But nope. It's the same stuff people have been rehashing in this thread. It's a little sad to see such a prominent US lawyer confusing innuendo with evidence.
|
First he lists in short form the evidence he thinks shows she could be guilty, then he uses the words "considerable evidence". No where in that video does he use the words, "some evidence". And he's talking about the evidence that has been presented in court. There's no way Dershowitz would have access to more than was presented. And he knows he's on a timeline, he's commenting and has only seconds to make his point.
As for innuendo vs. evidence, the items he listed were admitted in court
as evidence. I'd add he's a far greater legal expert than anyone posting in this thread.