GUILTY: AMANDA KNOX, at The Very least, Was Involved in the Murder of MEREDITH KERCHER

Summary of debate, My opponent has provided weak circumstantial evidence. My opponent has asserted that if someone can't be proven innocent then they are in fact guilty. This is a dangerous assumption that could potentially make anyone a criminal. My opponent has simply not proven her case. I will now number my rebuttals to coincide with my opponents statements earlier this round. 1. It's the only evidence you've provided anything that exists outside of what you mentioned is irrelevant. 2. It doesn't matter what is widely believed. What matters is evidence. Popularity doesn't equal truth. 3. My opponent admits a lack of physical evidence. The circumstantial evidence needs to be strong to convict and it's extremely weak and based on things such as Amanda's personality. (My opponent goes from numbers to letters so I'm changing my system here to correspond exactly. ) A. No it doesn't if it did you would have provided it. B. This statement doesn't change the fact that a lack of evidence exists. It's a mystery why this statement was even included. C. This is just ridiculous. You can't pinpoint your DNA and your boyfriends DNA to clean up and ignore the rest. It is an absurd statement. (Now my opponent switches back to numbering her arguments and goes back down to the number 2. I'm confused but will play along. ) 2. This is an incredibly mean statement. In order to ensure everyone gets a fair trial it is important that they get competent representation. There is nothing wrong with defending a person's innocence. 3. Not my job to provide citation for you. Your responsible for your own citation. 4. It's not impossible otherwise 2 experts wouldn't have came to that conclusion. If the crime for reporting corrupt officers without evidence is a 6 year sentence (whether your accusations are true or not), then I can only conclude perjury charges are something the defense experts would greatly fear. The lack of defensive wounds could be because she was attacked on her sleep and killed before she had a chance to defend herself. All types of scenarios are possible. 5. That's silly It is pretty common to open a knocking door without any second thoughts. It isn't uncommon to forget to lock your door. It's pretty easy to gain access to a pretty and naive girls place of residence. It's a scary thing but it's true. 6. Once again you can source your own stuff. I have neither the time nor inclination to do your job for you. 7. Refusal to speak isn't admittance of guilt. It is silly and if you look at the fact that Amanda is from America and it's very uncommon for a murder defendant to speak in his/her own defense and take that into account, then you can clearly see silence isn't indicative of anything. 8. It depends on the type of lock and a number of other factors that I have no way of finding out about without proper citation. 9. It's not obvious. I explained the reasons why. 10. I would hope after 4 years in prison she would speak perfect Italian. What about when she was first questioned and under extreme duress? 11. This is one of those things where she can't win. If she stretches because of the long hours of sitting it indicates guilt for some reason. If she smiles in court it means she is guilty if she cries it is because she feels guilt for murdering. This over analysis of a young girls behavior is silly. Even if she showed no emotion in court it would still be interpreted as proof of cold heartedness. 12. They have an alibi I cited my source for the alibi. You're just not satisfied with the alibi. 13. No I don't need to look it up. I personally think you just made it up. Without sources I don't know. 14. Everything you stated here is purely speculation, and I've only seen evidence Amanda smoked a little weed. 15. What are you talking about ? Hickeys are generally on the front or side of the neck. Who gives a girl a hickey on the back of the neck? 16. This statement of trying to paint the picture of Knox as a mature woman just doesn't make sense when you take into account the pot smoking and her behavior in this situation. Your final statement also is an attempt to switch the burden of proof. Amanda doesn't need to be proved innocent she needs to be proved guilty. My opponent has failed to bring compelling proof of Amanda's guilt.