Umm, having followed the case I don't find there was sufficient evidence to find her guilty in a court of law, let alone declare her guilty (as far as being an observer of the case goes). I think everyone here who thinks she's guilty should maybe explain why.
The evidence shows that Rudy Guede was the likely killer, his DNA was all over the murder scene, and there was no forensic evidence to say that Knox or Sollecito were there during the murder. Guede was on a string of break ins and burglaries that much fit the description of events that took place at the location of the Knox/Kercher flat. He was found with stolen items from multiple break-ins, including knives taken from one of them. He also has a history of brandishing a knife when caught in the midst of one of those break-ins. There's clearly much more support to say Rudy Guede and Rudy Guede alone killed Meredith Kercher. Furthermore, Guede initial statements about the incident made no mention of Knox or Sollecito.
The evidence used against Knox and Sollecito come from a botched investigation. From the get go they came to the conclusion that the evidence of a break-in was not that of a break-in, and that someone with a key (given how the door worked) must have let Guede into the flat, and they ruled out the possibility that Kercher would have opened the door from the inside (even though Guede was a familiar acquaintance of the group). Mishandling and contamination of evidence placed Sollecito's DNA on Kecher's bra strap, but that was determined due to forensic mishandling. The alleged murder weapon they claimed they found in Sollecito's flat had no DNA traces on. The main evidence they relied on was Rudy Guede's testimony which he used to avoid prosecution.
How is it some of you think Knox and Sollecito are guilty? There's no solid evidence pointing to either of them. And again, evidence clearly points to Rudy Guede.
Log in to comment