Not to mention she lied about her alibi, where she was. When cops confronted her about that lie, she lied again...blamed her boss for the killing even though he was nowhere near the place, tons of people later on vouched for him. Why would she lie so much? Hmmm... She also told the cops Meredeth was sexually assaulted even though nobody told Knox about it. Another hmmmm....Then there’s the murder weapon with her DNA and the victims on it that was bleached in a desperate attempt to clean it, then there is the staged burglary. This girl is guilty as hell, but because she is good looking and we must listen to liberals about who is guilty and who isn’t she walks.
I'm turned off on Amanda Knox because she was too young, too good looking, too rich and fancy free and she partyed her way across Italy it appears...
but Occam Razor's.......what is more likely...a black man with some dubious past assaulting an unwilling young woman and killing her, or Amanda Knox, not so smart shallow American young woman?....
I know which way I lean....
about blaming te boss: yes bad. People, especially young ones, may try desperate strategies to get out of a seemingly hopeless situation. This tells us NOTHING about the cause of the hopeless situation.
Not knowing if Knox is innocent or not, blaming the murder on her is equally bad as she blaming the murder on her boss. Did the prosecuter have to spend 3 years in jail for that? Does blaming Knox make the prosecuter a murdering basterd?
About the knife: it was discovered that the actual murder weapon was different from the knife presented as evidence. The prosecutor then invented a story that there must have been 2 knives, one of which was never found.
The Italian prosecutor is known for his strange accusations and theories and he makes use of his powers way above what is conventional in Italy. They cannot easily fire a prosecutor, otherwise powerful people would try to fire any prosecutor they don’t like or who may be prosecuting them. This does not automagically make every prosecutor a perfect civil servant.
Even if it can be proven there was a staged burglary, how does that prove the guilt of Knox? It is obvious at least someone committed a crime, so that someone could have also staged a burglary? There was a lot of forensic evidence, prints, DNA, stains, blood at the murder scene from one person. He got convicted for the murder. How does the existence of a conviected murder imply the guilt of Knox? No forensic evidence of her presence at the scene was ever presented.
Why do you think it is only ‘liberals’ that think she may be innocent until proven guilty? Should we decide on guilt from suspicion alone, like these very un-liberal people did in Kabul Afganistan where they lynched a woman last week because someone (falsely) accused her of burning the Koran?