She says she was not, and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Err she said she was.. then said she was not.. then said she was.. and then said she was not.. Plus she lived there, so chances are she was at some point during that day.
This is not evidence of murder.
Most murders are done by people the murdered knew.. just saying.
False. There is absolutely no DNA evidence linking her to the crime scene.
There is plenty of DNA evidence linking her to the crime scene.. she lived there after all. Now the evidence linking her to the crime is another matter. There is evidence but the defence has shown that the police screwed up. Now that does not mean she did not do it, just that the police were idiots.
This is not evidence of murder.
No but is of some sort of guilt...
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.
No this about how the American media are biased when it comes down to one of their own and will do anything to make fun off and discredit outsiders to gain said persons freedom. Instead of sticking to the facts, the American media painted this woman as some sort of all American girl who was being pounded by the evil Italians. Now saying that the Italian media were no better in doing exactly the opposite. This case reminds me of the Lockerbie bomber case.. same bull**** US media bias over again.
As for me not liking the US.. come on... what a load of bullcrap.
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.
And you base this on her account? American media reporting or? Or on court facts? Just asking..You do realize that she got convicted on this point.... are you saying that the very court that freed her also screwed up on this point?
Which aspects of her story have changed? And why wouldn't they necessarily be the sign of an innocent person?
LOL have you even followed the story? Her story changed constantly..as did his.. That is why many people are very suspicious of this woman.
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.
Yea.. sure... that is why you dont have the innocents project, and that is why you did not just execute an very possibly innocent man... yea... sure..
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.
Demeanour and physical evidence go hand in hand along with many other things (history and so on). Her demeanour screamed guilt of some sort... the evidence also screamed guilt up to a point.. but the fact that the evidence was badly collected means she walks.. for now. Like it or not the only evidence in that apartment was that of the 4 persons involved.. it has to be one or all 3 of them that did the murder. Since none of them have any sort of alibi nor can get their stories straight, plus acted strangely.. then yes it is only the non corrupted physical evidence that is lacking to put the nail in the coffin so to say.
There it is again, you hate Americans so you want an innocent person to go to prison for the rest of her life.
No I dont hate American's.. I hate people who get away with murder. I can not be sure she did not do it, just as I can not be sure she did not... that is my issue with this case. It is O.J. Simpson 2.0.
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.
Of course his DNA is all over the place.. he was most likely screwing both girls and was at the scene several times...
Why is it you want to blame the black man automatically over the white girl and boy? You do realize that much of the evidence against Rudy Guede is also going down the tubes right?
The sad fact is we will never know the truth because the police screwed up and the whole case turned into a media case with a USA vs Italy battle instead a battle over the truth... and in the end.. there is still a very dead British girl who has had no justice what so ever and that everyone has forgotten ... very little about the victim on the US news reports I have seen... and that is sad.
End of story, this case pisses me off and makes me even more a believer of closed criminal courts where no media is allowed and there is a media gag until the court rules.
