Yeah, except that of the things he listed, only one was probative. The fact that Knox changed her story isn't evidence--it's innuendo. And Dershowitz really should know better.
I have no dog in this fight. I have no way of knowing whether Knox is guilty or not. All I can do is take all of the evidence that has apparently been presented (and I assume that Dershowitz is listing all of it) and ask myself if it should be enough to support a conviction.
The answer is no. Not even close. And if Dershowitz thinks that sort of around-the-edges innuendo could support convictions in the U.S, he's either full of it or there are a lot of innocent people in U.S. Prisons on flimsy murder raps.
As I said, she absolutely could be factually guilty. But the evidence that I've heard (always assuming there may actually BE evidence that I HAVEN'T heard) is not enough to support a conviction in any halfway just legal system.
|