His DNA is all over and inside the corpse, and his story of events completely fails to explain all the evidence in the room. I mean, I guess you could argue that the Italian police have framed him by fabricating and/or lying about evidence after the fact, but judging from the Knox case the Italian police actually do a shitty job of framing people.zugschef wrote:lol dude... the only guy who is in jail is a black dude from ivory coast who admitted being there, but didn't actually commit the murder or rape her.Grek wrote:Not really. I mean, for one Knox didn't actually kill anyone, where as O.J totally did.
I really don't know why anyone would believe that Amanda Knox was provably guilty, and at this point there are half a dozen major things the police did that were absolutely bullshit in order to make her look guilty. The corruption in this case is clear and obvious, and Knox herself looks only as guilty as a random person off the street would. So in the sense that anyone at all could have committed the murder, yes, Knox could be guilty. But that's not exactly a very strong argument. Things the police did wrong include:
1) The interrogation. Whether or not you believe Knox's version of the interrogation, fine, whatever, but of the four days following the murder she spent basically every waking hour being interrogated by police. That's a pretty clearcut case of how to make someone break under pressure. When Knox did point the finger at someone after five days of questioning and interrogation, it turned out to be someone totally unrelated to the case (who later sued her). Which is completely consistent with how high pressure interrogation tactics work: eventually people just tell you something they think you want to hear because you have broken them down. If they don't have anything to tell you they give you gibberish. The police got gibberish.
2) She was approached by officers in civilian clothes who tried to casually interrogate her about the case, strike up small talk, and whatever else, and then things she said or did were taken out of context or exaggerated or lied about. When she was actually in prison, the prison fabricated a positive test for HIV, asked for a list of sexual partners, and then leaked them to the public. All in order to use it at trial to drive home their "she's a deviant sex freak, and everyone knows deviant sex freaks murder their flatmates" motive.
3) The police outright destroyed evidence involving Knox and Sollecito's alibi rather than hand it over to the defense: the computer the two said they were watching a movie on.
4) Most of the the eye witnesses that came forward against did so like half a year later, and were fairly ridiculous and unreliable testimonies on top of that.
5) The DNA evidence tying Knox and Sollecito to the scene is either a) nonexistent, b) from the deliberate use of low quality techniques that prove somewhere between nothing and fuck all (and then passed off as proper DNA analysis, which they were not), or c) has a broken chain of custody in which it could have been contaminated or outright fabricated at any point. As in, it spent more than a month missing and was then readmitted into evidence.
6) There's no fucking motive. None. Zilch. They had nothing. It basically came down to "she has sex, so she stabbed her flatmate."
