sapphi_snake said:
kennyrester said:
sapphi_snake said:
kennyrester said:
This is one of those stories where there's so much nonsense written about it from both sides that it's hard to know what to think. To the OP though, you seem pretty convinced Knox is guilty, why?
As far as I can see the collapse of the case against her, particularly the DNA evidence shows that she can't be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The victim's dad said it was a disgrace because it couldn't just have been the guy already serving time, citing the two knives and 40-odd stab wounds. Sure, this shows there was probably more than one killer but doesn't prove it was Knox.
All that said, the people cheering her on seem to have conveniently forgotten the slander conviction, which at least shows she's a nasty piece of work, murderer or not. |
Because she admitted it, after which she changed her testimony several times, and tried to frame an innocent man (who she now has to pay for slander).
|
Didn't she say she was abused and coerced into confessing involvement? And as I said in my first post, being guilty of slander doesn't mean she's a murderer. That's just silly.
|
Yeah, abused and coerced, exactly what her lawyers told her to say.
|
So in other words you're guessing she's guilty? Not that there's any problem with that in itself, nobody but the accused will ever know exactly what happened. I just don't see how you can be so convinced, or surprised she was found not guilty when so much doubt exists.
