On December 2nd, Amanda Knox was found guilty of murder and sexual assualt on her British roomate. After months of testimony, Knox was sentenced to 26 years in prision. Ever since Meredith Kercher was murdered, there has been controversy surrounding the evidence shown that points to Amanda Knox as the murderer. Personally, I don't know if Amanda Knox is innocent or guilty, but I don't understand how the judge and jurors can make a decision based on the information given for this case. Most of the facts presented are always changing or they are just assumptions. How can they convict someone of murder with all of the lack of evidence presented? The evidence that is against Knox is her finger prints on a knife. A knife that isn't even for certain that was used. This is just another example of the weak evidence presented for this entire trial. Again, I don't know if she is innocent or guilty. However, I do think that they should have gathered more evidence, information, and facts that actually prove that Amanda Knox is guilty. Justice for Meredith Kercher won't come with flawed evidence and lack of facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment