News1 min ago
Amanda is innocent ... Here's why!
56 Answers
Let me do this logically.
Let me do this
- without personally abusing each other
- without reference to Amanda Knox being attractive
- without discussing lipstick.
Let me take you through each bit of the evidence as adduced at Trial.
I will show you why the evidence against Amanda (and Raffaele, actually) is
unreliable
inconclusive
fabricated
And pray that no daughter of yours is ever wrongly prosecuted in such an awful way.
I will show you why the Italian Authorities are Guilty of an appalling attempt to secure a conviction by lies and innuendo.
This will take me about 12 posts.
Each post will show why a part of the so-called "evidence" is unreliable.
Please do not post until I tell you.
Here goes ...
Please do not post
Let me do this
- without personally abusing each other
- without reference to Amanda Knox being attractive
- without discussing lipstick.
Let me take you through each bit of the evidence as adduced at Trial.
I will show you why the evidence against Amanda (and Raffaele, actually) is
unreliable
inconclusive
fabricated
And pray that no daughter of yours is ever wrongly prosecuted in such an awful way.
I will show you why the Italian Authorities are Guilty of an appalling attempt to secure a conviction by lies and innuendo.
This will take me about 12 posts.
Each post will show why a part of the so-called "evidence" is unreliable.
Please do not post until I tell you.
Here goes ...
Please do not post
Answers
Dear Jack The Hat ...
=0)
Whilst this topic has been posted before, I have reposted for this reason.
On previous occasions, some posters have suggested that my confidence in Amanda Knox's innocence is coloured because I have previously referred to her as "Foxy Knoxy".
However, that is not correct.
And now that the Prosecution case has been...
=0)
Whilst this topic has been posted before, I have reposted for this reason.
On previous occasions, some posters have suggested that my confidence in Amanda Knox's innocence is coloured because I have previously referred to her as "Foxy Knoxy".
However, that is not correct.
And now that the Prosecution case has been...
14:40 Mon 20th Jul 2009
Evidence 1
Meredith�s bra fastener
The one and ONLY piece of evidence linking either Raffaele or Amanda to the room where the murder took place.
A Police videotape (3 November 2007) showed Meredith's bra fastener where her body was found. It had apparently been cut away when she was attacked. At that time, investigators decided it was not important evidence, and did not bag it up.
On 18 December when police returned to the crime scene, they decided that the bra fastener (previously seen as �unimportant�) was very important, and it was collected it as evidence.
Only then was it subjected to DNA testing. This revealed �microscopic� traces (the words accepted by the Police report) of DNA belonging to Raffaele Sollecito. It also produced DNA from �at least 3 other unidentified people� including Amanda.
This DNA test result is central to the prosecution's case.
But how reliable is this evidence? If you have ever been present in a room and touched something, you leave a DNA trace. Raffaele had been on the premises several times, and would have left his DNA all over the place. The bra fastener had been (literally) kicking around the premises for 6 weeks before it was tested. It�s no wonder Rafaele�s DNA had got on to it.
As for Amanda�s DNA ... of course it had got on to it ... she lived there!
And if this evidence shows that Raffaele and Amanda were at the crime scene, then at least 2 other people must have been there too.
In reality, all that it proves is that, while the bra fastener was kicking around for 6 weeks on the floor, it had become contaminated with DNA from everyone who had recently been in the premises.
2 investigators even admitted having handled it before dropping it into the bag. These 2 investigators admitted that they had also handled items belonging to Amanda. So, the investigators had
Meredith�s bra fastener
The one and ONLY piece of evidence linking either Raffaele or Amanda to the room where the murder took place.
A Police videotape (3 November 2007) showed Meredith's bra fastener where her body was found. It had apparently been cut away when she was attacked. At that time, investigators decided it was not important evidence, and did not bag it up.
On 18 December when police returned to the crime scene, they decided that the bra fastener (previously seen as �unimportant�) was very important, and it was collected it as evidence.
Only then was it subjected to DNA testing. This revealed �microscopic� traces (the words accepted by the Police report) of DNA belonging to Raffaele Sollecito. It also produced DNA from �at least 3 other unidentified people� including Amanda.
This DNA test result is central to the prosecution's case.
But how reliable is this evidence? If you have ever been present in a room and touched something, you leave a DNA trace. Raffaele had been on the premises several times, and would have left his DNA all over the place. The bra fastener had been (literally) kicking around the premises for 6 weeks before it was tested. It�s no wonder Rafaele�s DNA had got on to it.
As for Amanda�s DNA ... of course it had got on to it ... she lived there!
And if this evidence shows that Raffaele and Amanda were at the crime scene, then at least 2 other people must have been there too.
In reality, all that it proves is that, while the bra fastener was kicking around for 6 weeks on the floor, it had become contaminated with DNA from everyone who had recently been in the premises.
2 investigators even admitted having handled it before dropping it into the bag. These 2 investigators admitted that they had also handled items belonging to Amanda. So, the investigators had
Evidence 2
The footprint on the bathmat
At the trial, on May 9, Lorenzo Rinaldi, director of the print identity department of the Italian Police, delivered an elaborate presentation intended to show that a bloody footprint found at the crime scene matches Raffaele�s foot. It was great material for a news story, and the media largely accepted it at face value. There was just one small problem ... it was obviously not true.
A subsequent comparison of the footprint with Raffaele�s showed that they were completely different. The pronation/supination pattern was entirely different from Raffaele�s, and the toes were positioned differently.
But the footprint WAS a perfect match for the print of one other person ... Rudy Guede (who has already been convicted and sentenced for the murder).
Only conclusion ... the Italian Police tried to convince the Jury that Rudy Guede�s footprint belonged to Raffaele. The Police evidence has now been discredited.
The footprint on the bathmat
At the trial, on May 9, Lorenzo Rinaldi, director of the print identity department of the Italian Police, delivered an elaborate presentation intended to show that a bloody footprint found at the crime scene matches Raffaele�s foot. It was great material for a news story, and the media largely accepted it at face value. There was just one small problem ... it was obviously not true.
A subsequent comparison of the footprint with Raffaele�s showed that they were completely different. The pronation/supination pattern was entirely different from Raffaele�s, and the toes were positioned differently.
But the footprint WAS a perfect match for the print of one other person ... Rudy Guede (who has already been convicted and sentenced for the murder).
Only conclusion ... the Italian Police tried to convince the Jury that Rudy Guede�s footprint belonged to Raffaele. The Police evidence has now been discredited.
Evidence 3
Mixed DNA at the crime scene
Forensic investigators found the mixed DNA of Meredith and Amanda in a total of six samples (from among dozens that were taken). Three of these samples were from the bathroom shared by the two women (the other housemates shared a different bathroom) where mixed DNA was inevitable. Mixed DNA was also found on swabs taken from Amanda's room and a latent shoe print in the corridor. A swab from Filomena's room revealed Meredith's DNA with what appears to be a very weak profile for Amanda.
All of the mixed DNA samples from the bathroom were visible bloodstains. Most likely they were composed of Meredith's blood mixed with an organic residue containing Amanda's DNA. No test was performed to determine if any of these samples contained the blood of both Meredith and Amanda, and there is no evidence that any of them did.
The other three mixed DNA samples were taken from latent stains revealed with luminol. No test was performed to confirm the presence of blood in any of these samples.
The prosecutor has tried to insinuate that these findings are incriminating, but the insinuations do not lead to a specific theory. The most plausible explanation is that the mixed DNA is simply a result of cohabitation. As an example for the sake of comparison, investigators used luminol in Raffaele's apartment and found a latent stain with the mixed DNA of him and Amanda. All it means is that two people have been sharing the same space.
This evidence is confusing, perhaps even �pointless�. What was the Prosecutor trying to say? Nobody knew ... least of all the Trial Judge!
Conclusion ... this was a simple act of �clutching at straws� by a Prosecution lacking in hard evidence.
Mixed DNA at the crime scene
Forensic investigators found the mixed DNA of Meredith and Amanda in a total of six samples (from among dozens that were taken). Three of these samples were from the bathroom shared by the two women (the other housemates shared a different bathroom) where mixed DNA was inevitable. Mixed DNA was also found on swabs taken from Amanda's room and a latent shoe print in the corridor. A swab from Filomena's room revealed Meredith's DNA with what appears to be a very weak profile for Amanda.
All of the mixed DNA samples from the bathroom were visible bloodstains. Most likely they were composed of Meredith's blood mixed with an organic residue containing Amanda's DNA. No test was performed to determine if any of these samples contained the blood of both Meredith and Amanda, and there is no evidence that any of them did.
The other three mixed DNA samples were taken from latent stains revealed with luminol. No test was performed to confirm the presence of blood in any of these samples.
The prosecutor has tried to insinuate that these findings are incriminating, but the insinuations do not lead to a specific theory. The most plausible explanation is that the mixed DNA is simply a result of cohabitation. As an example for the sake of comparison, investigators used luminol in Raffaele's apartment and found a latent stain with the mixed DNA of him and Amanda. All it means is that two people have been sharing the same space.
This evidence is confusing, perhaps even �pointless�. What was the Prosecutor trying to say? Nobody knew ... least of all the Trial Judge!
Conclusion ... this was a simple act of �clutching at straws� by a Prosecution lacking in hard evidence.
Evidence 4
The supposed �big clean up�
Quite simply ... it never happened. This has now been shown to be a complete myth.
The Police authorities have nurtured the �clean up� story, but without providing any details about what was supposed to be cleaned, how it was done, or what evidence shows that it happened.
The Police told the press that they would produce witnesses (eg the shopkeeper) and copies of receipts for cleaning fluids. They said this so often, it became accepted as the truth.
It turned out to be a lie.
No prosecution witness testified during the trial that a cleanup took place.
When it came to the �receipt� for cleaning fluids, the Prosecution were forced to admit that no such receipt existed. It had all been a complete fabrication.
Conclusion ... quite simply, the Police invented this evidence. It never existed.
The supposed �big clean up�
Quite simply ... it never happened. This has now been shown to be a complete myth.
The Police authorities have nurtured the �clean up� story, but without providing any details about what was supposed to be cleaned, how it was done, or what evidence shows that it happened.
The Police told the press that they would produce witnesses (eg the shopkeeper) and copies of receipts for cleaning fluids. They said this so often, it became accepted as the truth.
It turned out to be a lie.
No prosecution witness testified during the trial that a cleanup took place.
When it came to the �receipt� for cleaning fluids, the Prosecution were forced to admit that no such receipt existed. It had all been a complete fabrication.
Conclusion ... quite simply, the Police invented this evidence. It never existed.
Evidence 5
The �alleged� murder weapon
Police seized a large kitchen knife from Raffaele�s apartment, which they claim has Amanda�s DNA on the handle and Meredith�s DNA on the blade.
Great. But ... there are 6 CRITICAL problems with the knife as evidence:
1. The Police had previously seized a completely different shaped knife, and asserted that the wounds were consistent with that other knife.
2. The knife does not match a knife-shaped blood stain found on the victim�s bed. The Police subsequently tried to �gloss over� this fact. Why? Because it confirms that they have probably got the wrong knife.
3. The alleged match to Meredith�s DNA is highly dubious because the sample quality was so infinitesimally small (less than 100 picograms, with a picogram being a trillionth of a gram, or 0.000000000001 gram). If you had been in contact with somebody who subsequently had contact with the knife ... your DNA would be there too !! ... and YOU would be on Trial ... think about that !!!
4. Experts have stated in the Trial that the �Amanda� knife COULD NOT have made at least 2 of the 3 wounds found on Meredith�s throat. The 3rd wound COULD have been made by the �Amanda� knife ... but not definitely.
5. The stain on the bed appears to have been made by a knife compatible with ALL the wounds. But that would have to be a totally different knife from the �Amanda� knife that has been exhibited at Trial.
6. Low Copy Number (LCN) tests, like the one performed on the knife blade, are regarded by forensic experts as inherently unreliable, because it is not possible to prevent biological contamination at the level of picograms. Even in well-run labs, control samples show up with DNA at that level that theoretically should not be there. And this lab was definitely NOT a �well run� lab.
Conclusion ... the Prosecution have got the wrong knife.
The �alleged� murder weapon
Police seized a large kitchen knife from Raffaele�s apartment, which they claim has Amanda�s DNA on the handle and Meredith�s DNA on the blade.
Great. But ... there are 6 CRITICAL problems with the knife as evidence:
1. The Police had previously seized a completely different shaped knife, and asserted that the wounds were consistent with that other knife.
2. The knife does not match a knife-shaped blood stain found on the victim�s bed. The Police subsequently tried to �gloss over� this fact. Why? Because it confirms that they have probably got the wrong knife.
3. The alleged match to Meredith�s DNA is highly dubious because the sample quality was so infinitesimally small (less than 100 picograms, with a picogram being a trillionth of a gram, or 0.000000000001 gram). If you had been in contact with somebody who subsequently had contact with the knife ... your DNA would be there too !! ... and YOU would be on Trial ... think about that !!!
4. Experts have stated in the Trial that the �Amanda� knife COULD NOT have made at least 2 of the 3 wounds found on Meredith�s throat. The 3rd wound COULD have been made by the �Amanda� knife ... but not definitely.
5. The stain on the bed appears to have been made by a knife compatible with ALL the wounds. But that would have to be a totally different knife from the �Amanda� knife that has been exhibited at Trial.
6. Low Copy Number (LCN) tests, like the one performed on the knife blade, are regarded by forensic experts as inherently unreliable, because it is not possible to prevent biological contamination at the level of picograms. Even in well-run labs, control samples show up with DNA at that level that theoretically should not be there. And this lab was definitely NOT a �well run� lab.
Conclusion ... the Prosecution have got the wrong knife.
Evidence 6
Amanda and Raffaele�s connection with Rudy Guede
On 6 November 2007, before the �evidence� was even collated, they held a news conference at which they asserted that the murder had been committed by Amanda, Raffaele, and Patrick Lumumba.
Later, Lumumba proved to have an airtight alibi.
Guede was then substituted as a suspect.
But ... Amanda and Raffaele had NO connection whatsoever with Rudy Guede.
However, the authorities had publicly committed themselves to a specific theory involving Amanda and Raffaele. So, they went to work �developing� evidence that would fit that theory.
Conclusion ... instead of studying the evidence, and reaching a conclusion ... the Police srarted with the suspects whom they wanted to convict, and have tried desparately, almost embarrassingly, to make the evidence look as if it supports their conclusion. In reality, it does no such thing.
Amanda and Raffaele�s connection with Rudy Guede
On 6 November 2007, before the �evidence� was even collated, they held a news conference at which they asserted that the murder had been committed by Amanda, Raffaele, and Patrick Lumumba.
Later, Lumumba proved to have an airtight alibi.
Guede was then substituted as a suspect.
But ... Amanda and Raffaele had NO connection whatsoever with Rudy Guede.
However, the authorities had publicly committed themselves to a specific theory involving Amanda and Raffaele. So, they went to work �developing� evidence that would fit that theory.
Conclusion ... instead of studying the evidence, and reaching a conclusion ... the Police srarted with the suspects whom they wanted to convict, and have tried desparately, almost embarrassingly, to make the evidence look as if it supports their conclusion. In reality, it does no such thing.
Evidence 7
Amanda�s Police Statement, and the text with Lumumba
Amanda made inconsistent statements. But, what is often overlooked, is thatthe actual truth was contained in Amanda�s first statement.
Her untrue, fanciful, statement, was the second statement, made under Police pressure. Here�s why ...
Between 5 November 2007 and the morning of 6 November 2007, after an arduous interrogation, Amanda made two statements. The second statement described a dream or vision of herself covering her ears to block out screams while Lumumba (!) was in Meredith's room.
Both Lumumba and Guede are black men. It now seems clear that the Police who interrogated Amanda were aware, on the basis of hair they had recovered from the victim's hand, that a black person was involved in the crime. For that reason, they steered her toward Lumumba.
Amanda had exchanged text messages with Lumumba on the evening of 1 November. At 8.18 pm, Lumumba sent a message telling Amanda that there wasn't much business and she didn't need to come in to work. At 8.35 pm, she confirmed receiving the message and said "See you later. Good night."
According to Judge Claudia Matteini's court order of 9 November 2007, the Police wrongly believed that Amanda�s text message meant that she intended to meet Lumumba later, and they continued to press her on this point. Rememer that, at this time, the Police were still going to prosecute Lumumba.
Conclusion ... Both Amanda and Raffaele�s initial statements to police were truthful and accurate. They told the truth immediately. The Police then pressurised Amanda into changing her story, and then tried to portray the bizarre notion that she had changed her mind about the facts.
Amanda�s Police Statement, and the text with Lumumba
Amanda made inconsistent statements. But, what is often overlooked, is thatthe actual truth was contained in Amanda�s first statement.
Her untrue, fanciful, statement, was the second statement, made under Police pressure. Here�s why ...
Between 5 November 2007 and the morning of 6 November 2007, after an arduous interrogation, Amanda made two statements. The second statement described a dream or vision of herself covering her ears to block out screams while Lumumba (!) was in Meredith's room.
Both Lumumba and Guede are black men. It now seems clear that the Police who interrogated Amanda were aware, on the basis of hair they had recovered from the victim's hand, that a black person was involved in the crime. For that reason, they steered her toward Lumumba.
Amanda had exchanged text messages with Lumumba on the evening of 1 November. At 8.18 pm, Lumumba sent a message telling Amanda that there wasn't much business and she didn't need to come in to work. At 8.35 pm, she confirmed receiving the message and said "See you later. Good night."
According to Judge Claudia Matteini's court order of 9 November 2007, the Police wrongly believed that Amanda�s text message meant that she intended to meet Lumumba later, and they continued to press her on this point. Rememer that, at this time, the Police were still going to prosecute Lumumba.
Conclusion ... Both Amanda and Raffaele�s initial statements to police were truthful and accurate. They told the truth immediately. The Police then pressurised Amanda into changing her story, and then tried to portray the bizarre notion that she had changed her mind about the facts.
Evidence 8
The witness who saw the suspects together
An Albanian man with drug and alcohol problems testified that he saw the three suspects together on the night of the murder. His recollection was completely and utterly discredited on cross-examination.
Two additional witnesses came forward more than a year after the crime ... yes (!)
One testified that he saw Amanda in his store the morning after the murder. However, his employee took the stand and flatly contradicted this assertion, confirming that it was a total fabrication.
Conclusion ... the evidence was fabricated. Neither Amanda nor Raffaele had any prior connection with Rudy Guede.
The witness who saw the suspects together
An Albanian man with drug and alcohol problems testified that he saw the three suspects together on the night of the murder. His recollection was completely and utterly discredited on cross-examination.
Two additional witnesses came forward more than a year after the crime ... yes (!)
One testified that he saw Amanda in his store the morning after the murder. However, his employee took the stand and flatly contradicted this assertion, confirming that it was a total fabrication.
Conclusion ... the evidence was fabricated. Neither Amanda nor Raffaele had any prior connection with Rudy Guede.
Evidence 9
Amanda�s demeanor and character (Leggy�s favourite �evidence�)
The prosecutor went to a lot of trouble and expense to bring in witnesses who made unfavorable comments about Amanda. These witnesses included a number of Meredith's friends from the UK.
They described Amanda�s behaviour after the murder as being insensitive.
But, as all of these �witnesses� accepted ...
Amanda never said anything negative to Meredith, or about Meredith.
Amanda never became angry or raised her voice with anyone.
Amanda never stole from them, lied to them, or caused them any problem whatsoever.
Amanda never intimidated anyone.
In short, none of them described any behaviour that could be considered hostile or aggressive, much less violent.
Therefore, the prosecution's character witnesses are in perfect agreement with Amanda's friends and family in Seattle ... she was always happy and cheerful. Sometimes too happy and cheerful for her own good.
Conclusion ... Amanda�s demeanour (including the famous cartwheels) suggest that she was not capable of murder ... not that she callous.
Amanda�s demeanor and character (Leggy�s favourite �evidence�)
The prosecutor went to a lot of trouble and expense to bring in witnesses who made unfavorable comments about Amanda. These witnesses included a number of Meredith's friends from the UK.
They described Amanda�s behaviour after the murder as being insensitive.
But, as all of these �witnesses� accepted ...
Amanda never said anything negative to Meredith, or about Meredith.
Amanda never became angry or raised her voice with anyone.
Amanda never stole from them, lied to them, or caused them any problem whatsoever.
Amanda never intimidated anyone.
In short, none of them described any behaviour that could be considered hostile or aggressive, much less violent.
Therefore, the prosecution's character witnesses are in perfect agreement with Amanda's friends and family in Seattle ... she was always happy and cheerful. Sometimes too happy and cheerful for her own good.
Conclusion ... Amanda�s demeanour (including the famous cartwheels) suggest that she was not capable of murder ... not that she callous.
Evidence 10
Evidence that the crime scene was staged
The Police asserted that the shattered window showed that a break-in was staged, to make it look like the murder was committed by a stranger.
There is no evidence to support this notion. Investigators wrongly assumed that the window was too high off the ground to have been used as a point of access.
A witness at the trial, however, has testified that shortly before Meredith was killed, Rudy Guede was found in possession of property that had been stolen from an office by someone who pitched a rock through a window 3m above the ground, and used that window to gain entry. This is almost identical to what appears to have happened at the cottage.
Moreover, actual experiments showed that a man of Guede's height could easily have entered through the broken window at the cottage. The bars on a lower-story window could have been used like a ladder to gain access.
Conclusion ... the Police reached the wrong conclusion because they failed to conduct a detailed enquiry. This evidence is wrong, and worthless.
Evidence that the crime scene was staged
The Police asserted that the shattered window showed that a break-in was staged, to make it look like the murder was committed by a stranger.
There is no evidence to support this notion. Investigators wrongly assumed that the window was too high off the ground to have been used as a point of access.
A witness at the trial, however, has testified that shortly before Meredith was killed, Rudy Guede was found in possession of property that had been stolen from an office by someone who pitched a rock through a window 3m above the ground, and used that window to gain entry. This is almost identical to what appears to have happened at the cottage.
Moreover, actual experiments showed that a man of Guede's height could easily have entered through the broken window at the cottage. The bars on a lower-story window could have been used like a ladder to gain access.
Conclusion ... the Police reached the wrong conclusion because they failed to conduct a detailed enquiry. This evidence is wrong, and worthless.
Evidence 11
The dispute about when police arrived at the cottage
Meredith's mobile phones were found in a garden on the day after the murder. They were turned into the Postal Police, a branch of Italian law enforcement that deals with telecommunications. The Postal Police traced the phones to the cottage where Meredith and Amanda lived, and the supervisor dispatched officers to investigate.
The prosecutor and the Postal Police assert that these officers arrived at the cottage at least 15 minutes before Raffaele called the emergency number to alert a different branch of the police that an intruder had broken into the cottage. They say Raffaele told them he had already called the emergency number.
This allegation invites the question of why Raffaele did not tell the arriving officers that he was about to call the police, instead of carrying out a ruse.
However, the verbal Police evidence is totally inconsistent with the available facts.
The Postal Police claim that they arrived at 12.35pm, because one of them checked his watch. This was not true.
The official log entry made by the department supervisor at the time of the incident confirmed that the car was not sent out until 12.46pm. It COULD NOT have arrived at 12.35pm, because it was still parked at the Police station.
Raffaele called the emergency number at 12.51pm ... 5 minutes after the Postal Police car was sent out, and some time before it could possibly have arrived at the cottage.
Conclusion ... Raffaele was telling the truth ... the Police were lying.
The dispute about when police arrived at the cottage
Meredith's mobile phones were found in a garden on the day after the murder. They were turned into the Postal Police, a branch of Italian law enforcement that deals with telecommunications. The Postal Police traced the phones to the cottage where Meredith and Amanda lived, and the supervisor dispatched officers to investigate.
The prosecutor and the Postal Police assert that these officers arrived at the cottage at least 15 minutes before Raffaele called the emergency number to alert a different branch of the police that an intruder had broken into the cottage. They say Raffaele told them he had already called the emergency number.
This allegation invites the question of why Raffaele did not tell the arriving officers that he was about to call the police, instead of carrying out a ruse.
However, the verbal Police evidence is totally inconsistent with the available facts.
The Postal Police claim that they arrived at 12.35pm, because one of them checked his watch. This was not true.
The official log entry made by the department supervisor at the time of the incident confirmed that the car was not sent out until 12.46pm. It COULD NOT have arrived at 12.35pm, because it was still parked at the Police station.
Raffaele called the emergency number at 12.51pm ... 5 minutes after the Postal Police car was sent out, and some time before it could possibly have arrived at the cottage.
Conclusion ... Raffaele was telling the truth ... the Police were lying.
Evidence 12
Any other evidence
Ladies and Gentlemen ...
Any other evidence that you might believe you have seen was fed to the press, in the hope of creating a media pre-judgment of the case.
And to some extent, this dishonest and corrupt action by the Prosecutors has seemed to work.
But, when it came to the Trial, the anticipated evidence was nowhere to be seen.
We waited with baited breath for the Prosecution to adduce evidence of CCTV cameras, evidence of clothes found in washing machines, etc.
Such evidence does not exist.
Any other evidence
Ladies and Gentlemen ...
Any other evidence that you might believe you have seen was fed to the press, in the hope of creating a media pre-judgment of the case.
And to some extent, this dishonest and corrupt action by the Prosecutors has seemed to work.
But, when it came to the Trial, the anticipated evidence was nowhere to be seen.
We waited with baited breath for the Prosecution to adduce evidence of CCTV cameras, evidence of clothes found in washing machines, etc.
Such evidence does not exist.
Dear Jack The Hat ...
=0)
Whilst this topic has been posted before, I have reposted for this reason.
On previous occasions, some posters have suggested that my confidence in Amanda Knox's innocence is coloured because I have previously referred to her as "Foxy Knoxy".
However, that is not correct.
And now that the Prosecution case has been completed, it is clear that it was even more of a sham than I had thought.
Much of the promised evidence simply did not exist.
It was completely invented.
Fabricated.
There was no receipt for cleaning fluids.
The Police just MADE IT UP !!!!!!!
They said they had a receipt. The receipt did not exist.
It's bizarre.
=0)
Whilst this topic has been posted before, I have reposted for this reason.
On previous occasions, some posters have suggested that my confidence in Amanda Knox's innocence is coloured because I have previously referred to her as "Foxy Knoxy".
However, that is not correct.
And now that the Prosecution case has been completed, it is clear that it was even more of a sham than I had thought.
Much of the promised evidence simply did not exist.
It was completely invented.
Fabricated.
There was no receipt for cleaning fluids.
The Police just MADE IT UP !!!!!!!
They said they had a receipt. The receipt did not exist.
It's bizarre.
