Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
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.
|
Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on OJ Simpson? Did he murder his wife and her BF?
It is obvious Knox knows more than she is saying even if the evidence doesn't add up. She's not guilty, but not innocent.