Amanda Knox is more likely innocent than guilty

.-== Final Rebuttals ==-. 1st incriminating evidence: The Double DNA knifeEither the knife had bleach on it, or it had DNA on it, not both. A 2-3% dilution of bleach is recommended by Promega for cleaning pipettes in PCR work. They also note that if one does not thoroughly rinse away the bleach, it will affect subsequent experiments [1]. There is also a 1992 article in Biotechniques which shows that a 10% dilution of bleach damages DNA within one minute [3]. Also, bleach is used to decontaminate (i.e. remove DNA where it’s not desired) [2]. It is commonly accepted scientific knowledge that bleach will remove DNA; Con’s argument falls on its face. Bleach is NOT mentioned in the Conti-Vecchiotti report except to say that it removes DNA and is only mentioned with regards to *possible* cleaning in the Massei Report [4][5]. Nowhere does it say that bleach WAS found on the knife, the argument is absurd to believe that Amanda used magic bleach that doesn’t remove DNA or vegetable matter, but removes any sign of blood. Really? To the argument that Amanda left no DNA in the house isn’t supported by any evidence, the Massei Report actually says the opposite [4]. With no blood on the knife and Meredith’s DNA attributed to contamination by court appointed experts, there is no evidence this is the murder weapon [5]. This “evidence” is really irrelevant since it doesn’t prove Amanda was at the crime scene during the murder.2nd incriminating evidence: The victim's bra-clasp and the braI did look for myself in the Massei Report, besides the bra clasp the DNA found on the bra belonged to Meredith Kercher and Rudy Guede [4]. You should re-read the report, no where does it say that bleach was conclusively used to clean either Raffaele’s or Amanda’s apartment. The police and prosecution’s insistence on bleach being used to clean despite not providing any evidence thereof is a case of confirmation bias. Furthermore, if Amanda’s apartment was cleaned with bleach as you describe, then the so-called “bloody” footprints you claim are Amanda’s wouldn’t exist. Remember, Luminol reacts to bleach as well so if used on the floor there would be no identifiable footprints. TMB was used to confirm there was no blood on those samples, pure and simple – NEGATIVE blood result [4][6]. This “evidence” is irrelevant since it doesn’t prove Amanda was at the crime scene during the murder and there isn’t even a claim of Amanda’s DNA on the bra by the prosecution.3rd incriminating evidence: The bathroom and bloody footprintsAgain, you can’t have it both ways, either the apartment was cleaned with bleach, thus no identifiable footprints/DNA or you have the “bloody” footprints that tested negative for blood. Luminol is NOT specific to blood, even Con seems to agree yet he buys the prosecution’s notions that it is. The mental gymnastics that my opponent has to use to reach these conclusions astounds me. As for the supposed scenario about the footprints, I really don’t care. It’s obvious the prosecution has a wild imagination with satanic orgies dancing in his head. Since, it’s speculation, who cares? The evidence says it tested negative for blood no matter how badly the prosecution wanted to believe otherwise [4][6]. And, where do you get the idea that Luminol detects DNA – it doesn’t. TMB is way more sensitive and specific to blood than Luminol – it can reveal blood at 1 ppm. This “evidence” is irrelevant since it doesn’t prove Amanda was at the crime scene during the murder, it doesn’t even prove when the footprints were made.1. Perjury and slanderI could go on and on how the alleged confession and slander occurred due questionable interrogation techniques but the fact remains the Supreme Court of Italy ruled it inadmissible due to its illegality. The “confession” that was typed up for her by police was also immediately recanted. Furthermore, the police bear more responsibility in Mr. Lumbaba’s imprisonment than Amanda. Why would they arrest him and hold him without any corroborating evidence? I think even Con knows that truly innocent people do “lie” when deprived of sleep and interviewed in a foreign language for hours on end. The logs that were spoken of in testimony actually confirm Raffaele’s story [4]. Raffaele said he couldn’t confirm Amanda was sleeping next to him all night, so what? Who could confirm someone else when they are presumably sleeping themselves? Con seems confused. She showered at her house, the morning after the murder. The only blood that might have been obvious was on the bathmat but that I suppose could be overlooked if you weren’t looking for blood or happened to toss clothes on it as you climbed into the shower. This “evidence” is irrelevant since it doesn’t prove Amanda was at the crime scene during the murder only that her confession and alibi weren’t 100% airtight. 2. Rudy GuedeRudy was the only one to run; he was arrested while on the run. He was the only one to fit the criminal profile of the killer, according to preeminent criminal profiler, John Douglas [7]. Why is Rudy’s changing testimony more compelling than Amanda’s to you? While not conclusive that Rudy acted alone is certainly compelling evidence that he had a big part in the murder but not really that Amanda had a part.3. Phone TrafficYes, it’s extremely odd for two people who spend the night together having sex to turn off their phones (sarcasm). There is a simple innocent explanation – they turned their phones off for privacy. The phone traffic has always been one of the least compelling reasons for guilt to me, because it only proves the approximate location and signals of the phone and really doesn’t tell us anything of value one way or the other. 4. Discovery and suspicious activity None of this is really suspicious – odd maybe but not particularly compelling. .-== Closing ==-.Rudy was found guilty both on original trial and appeal, and Amanda and Rafaelle were acquitted, “for not having committed the act.” [8] The appeals court could have acquitted due to lack of evidence but chose to acquit because the pair did not do it. If the prosecution had a good case to present it failed to do so. There is zero evidence that places Amanda at the crime scene. No one disputes that this is where Meredith was killed and yet not a shred of reliable evidence shows Amanda was in that room. The independent investigators found that the double DNA knife had only vegetable matter on it and that the DNA sample on blade could not be positively confirmed to be from Meredith Kercher. Furthermore, the independent investigators found the original investigation had been horribly botched and that the traces of DNA on the bra clasp and knife were most likely from contamination [5]. The evidence that isn't in dispute is that Rudy Guede left DNA and prints all over the murder room. Rudy is the only one for whom there is evidence that places him at the scene. There is no evidence that Amanda was ever in Meredith’s room where everyone agrees the murder took place. Rudy is also the only one to match the criminal profile of the murderer perfectly [7]. If Amanda wasn't in Meredith's room during the murder, she couldn't have killed her. She wasn't there. It's that simple. Sources:[1] http://www.promega.com...[2] http://public.wsu.edu...[3] A.M. Prince, L. Andrus, PCR how to kill unwanted DNA, Biotechniques (1992) 358–360.[4] http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com...[5] http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com...[6] http://blog.seattlepi.com...[7] http://www.groundreport.com...[8] http://www.vancouversun.com...