Discussion with Alex about whether the case against Amanda Knox is strong or not.
[12/7, 12:04 PM] Winston Wu: Btw alex. Many legal experts in america say the case against knox is strong. For example harvard law professor alan dershowitz says so too.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DknxdHr64wk
So u see bro, qualified experts do think the case is strong. Lawyers and law professors are experts too and trained right alex?
[12/7, 12:15 PM] Winston Wu: Lawyers like richard dwyer also say knox is guilty and the case against her is very strong.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NORIo-k_RZA
So yes alex. Experts do agree with me.
[12/7, 12:15 PM] Winston Wu: Lawyers know how to weigh evidence too.
[12/7, 12:19 PM] Winston Wu: The legal experts also said that people in america have been put in jail on far less evidence than there is for amanda knox.
[12/7, 12:25 PM] Winston Wu: This list of evidence from the comments section is compelling.
"Knox and Sollecito are guilty. The evidence leaves no room for any doubt!
1- Faked burglary to throw suspicions away from people connected to cottage
2- Cleaning-up revealed by luminol and small spots of blood all over the cottage
3- Staging of victim's room and body
4- Knox's knowledge of details of murder long before police
5- Knox confession of being at crime scene
6- Knox's accusation of innocent man - how did she know Lumumba was innocent? Because she knew who committed the crime!
7- False alibis
8- Contradictory stories proven false by phone, Internet records, witnesses, and by her own letters, mails, memorials, all contradicting each other
9- Knox's DNA mixed with victim's blood on different spots
10- Sollecito's bloody footprint on bath mat
11- Barefoot prints with Knox DNA mixed with victim's blood revealed by luminol
12- Solleciot's DNA on victim's bra clasp
13- Knox DNA on handle of knife with Meredith's DNA on the blade
14- Wounds on victim's body prove she was attacked by three people"
[12/7, 1:27 PM] Alex From Venice: bro, you already told me such stuff... I don't have any attention disorder, and moreover, such things have been mentioned one by one in the last sentence of acquittal by the supreme court judges
[12/7, 1:27 PM] Alex From Venice: all such "evidences" have been opposed by the defence layers and found that weren't so "sure/reliable"
[12/7, 1:27 PM] Alex From Venice: they are clues of course and they work together to make accusations against Knox, but they can only ultimately point to the case of Knox being present or in the nearby of the place the night of the murder, they are not "strong" evidence for Knox to be the killer
[12/7, 1:27 PM] Alex From Venice: as I already told you, I don't dismiss that Knox is lying about where she was and what she was doing the night of the murder, but that doesn't prove she was the killer
[12/7, 2:07 PM] Alex From Venice: Besides the more qualified people involved in the trial are the judges. Such judges have come to opposite conclusions in different times... none of them have dismissed that Knox is lying, but they have came to different conclusions about if the clues are strong enough to sentence Know as being guilt of murder
[12/7, 2:14 PM] Alex From Venice: anyway, the supreme court judges are expected to be the more qualified and as they come for last, when all clues have been evaluated and debated between prosecutors and defense, they are also in the best position to make a "proper" judgment