She says she was not, and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise.
This is not evidence of murder.
her DNA is all over the place (shocker I know),
False. There is absolutely no DNA evidence linking her to the crime scene.
the way she acted after the murder and so on and so on.
This is not evidence of murder.
The US just executed a man with less evidence against him than Knox.. so..
That's exactly what this is about. You don't like the United States, so you want to see an innocent person spend the rest of her life in prison. I imagine that this is what her original conviction stemmed from as well.
Yes that would be an American's claim.
:roll:
She was the one that accused someone else, not the police.
False. The police made up the story about Lumumba being involved, and kept asking her if it was true. As far as I know this fact isn't even in dispute. After many hours of interrogation (during which she claims she was struck by a police officer) she told them what they wanted to hear. That's far different than her just accusing him out of the blue. And for that matter, even if she HAD accused him out of the blue, it would hardly suggest she was guilty of murder as opposed to merely under a lot of stress.
In fact the police quickly dismissed her accusation because the man had a freaking alibi. Knox did NOT have an alibi. Hell she did could not even get her story straight and changed it many times. Not the sign of an innocent person.
Which aspects of her story have changed? And why wouldn't they necessarily be the sign of an innocent person?
LOL of course it is. Such things are used constantly in US courts for peak sake.
I don't think you understand the US court system very well if you believe that. Things like this would very rarely be accepted at all, and only in conjunction with lots of evidence linking her to the crime.
Her demeanour and state of mind are very much part of the case.. granted I fully agree some sort of physical evidence is needed as well to convict someone, but demeanour is very much part of any case.
Oh how nice, you're willing to allow that "some sort" of physical evidence is necessary but demeanor is "very much" part of the case. Demeanor should, at most, account for maybe 5% of the evidence because it's nothing more than someone's subjective opinion of how people are "supposed" to behave following a murder.
LOL so you wont follow the law just because it is a pretty white girl form Seattle?
There it is again, you hate Americans so you want an innocent person to go to prison for the rest of her life.
Yea blame the black guy. As I have stated, the case against Rudy Guede is worse off than the case against Knox. Witnesses against him have changed their stories and have considerable credibility problems (heroin addict for example). On top of that they cant even use Knox as a witness any more since she is a convicted slanderer.
You have GOT to be kidding. You either don't know much about the facts of the case or you're so blinded by your hatred for the United States that you can't see anything else. Rudy Guede's DNA is all over the crime scene. He even left a deuce in Kercher's toilet the night the murder occurred, which the police found.