Quote:
Originally Posted by fintstone
They never had any evidence to start with. She was convicted in the media.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmccuist
Wrong. She was acquitted in the media. There was plenty of evidence that she and her two friends killed Kercher. She's guilty all right. And she's gonna get away with it.
|
What was the primary evidence against her?
#1. DNA at a level that was consistent with her living in the apartment.
- It has been noted repeatedly that this evidence would not be admissible in any US court
#2. A "Confession" while being interrogated without sleep for over 2 days, with no access to a lawyer. And when the "bits" that were floated to the media were expanded, you found out that the confession was a discussion with the police on what they thought might have happened.
The only significant DNA was from Rudy Guede, the third guy who was convicted, and his DNA was on her "inside and out".
Rudy Guede raped, killed and robbed Meredith Kercher. He fled to Germany after the killing. His bloody hand prints were found on her pillow.
The prosecution came up with the idea that this was a 3 way sex thing and that Meredith was killed because she wouldn't participate. No mention of a fourth person. Then they found Rudy Guede and his DNA everywhere and hand print. He claimed he was in the apartment, in the bathroom and only heard screams. None of this matched any of the real evidence. He was convicted in a separate trial.
They most damning thing against Amanda Knox was a foot print showed by Luminol. The problem is, more than blood is shown by luminol, so it isn't conclusive.
The only evidence against Amada's "boyfriend" was his association with Amanda.
This prosecuter and this police group has a history of creating a theory and then manufacturing facts to support the theory. The prosecuter spent 16 months in jail for manufacturing evidence in other cases.
Finally, her "conviction" of slander against the police is obviously a face saving measure. It isn't slander, if it is true.