Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
You are going to say there's no evidence regardless of the facts, that's clear. But again you make a post with inaccuracies. Some of us in this thread point to trial facts upon which we base the argument she may have done it. I have yet to see anyone on the innocent side in this thread weigh any of the contradicting evidence, its just, her defence said so, therefore its true. This thread is a caricature of message board debates.
|
The prosecution certainly provided their evidence; the part we disagree with is if it should have been considered evidence. In fact, this is the entire body of the argument. What the prosecution provided was disgusting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
1. Staging of a break-in
The prosecution showed that Knox and Sollecito staged a break-in in an attempt to make the murder look like a third party. Hardly the actions of an innocent woman.
|
They had no part in staging any type of break in at all. Anything regarding this matter was simple accusations with no evidence or motive. The murderer chucked a rock and climbed through the window. The same guy was on a spree breaking into places. And he was apparently familiar with the building as colleagues were growing marijuana in it.
Let me ask you this? What would their motive be to stage the break in? There was a body in the house that they (according to you) knew was dead. Yet they were never in the room during the murder (based on factual scientific evidence)...so why stage a break in? Aren't they masterminds and would know to simply stage a alibi at the boyfriends place? And to create a single story as a cover up? They did not of that because they had no clue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
2. Perjury
Knox had two seperate accounts of the events. First she claimed that she had gone to Kercher's apartment with a colleague, without Sollecito and Guede. She then claimed that this colleague, Lamumba, killed Kercher whilst she was in the kitchen. Lamumba has since been exonerated completely of the crime as it was shown he had not ever been in the flat and had a strong alibi. This false accusation heavily implies guilt. Later she claimed that she had spent the night with her boyfriend. Two witnesses showed this to be false.
|
Wrong. She was coerced. Anything said should be thrown out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
3. Guede
The third person convicted of the murder, who was trialled seperately, attests to Knox's assistence in the murder. However he refused to be a witness at the Knox and Sollecito trial.
|
Wrong, he only did that much later and had his sentence reduced as a result.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
4. Forensic evidence
The footprint made with Kercher's blood was shown to belong to a woman. No other woman has been implicated forensically or through witness testimony. [3] Also the footprint could not have belonged to Kercher
|
So are you saying Knox stepped in blood and then floated across the room and out the door? There was only one other person in the room, Guede. The claim is ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
A sufficient amount of Knox's DNA was found on the knife as was Kercher's demonstrating it was the murder weapon. As stated before, this alone is not enough to suggest guilt.
|
I think you are confusing blood with DNA. You are also confusing the murder weapon, which was never found, with a knife, one of many, found at the boyfriends.
You have really provided no evidence to suggest any guilt at all.
As they say, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Nothing in the room pointed to either Knox or Sellecito since they were not there.