Amanda Knox - Guilty Or Innocent? She is innocent!

Intro Pro has allowed me to restate the resolution in a clearer way as; "On balance it is more likely that Amanda Knox is innocent of the murder of meredith Kercher than guilty". (Which is probably beneficial for him, as the previous resolution was worded such that it was open to semantic arguments) Rebuttals 1. Bloody footprint Con argues that it is impossible to identify someone from a footprint. This is i fact incorrect. Footprints are not as reliable as fingerprints, but are still strong peices of evidence. [1] 2. DNA on the knife I concede that this peice of evidence alone would not be cause to suggest that Knox is guilty. However, it must be taken into account as certainly suspicious. When it is taken into account with other peices of evidence, it is quite incriminating. 3. Time imprisoned for. This argument is irrelevent. We are not arguing whether how much time in jail she deserved, but whether she was innocent or not. 4. Under influence While this may mitigate her sentence, as some would argue she is less responsible for her actions (a standpoint I disagree given that she took the drugs willingly), being under influence does not absolve her of the crime. 5. Character Pro argues that it is very unlikely an honour student who plays many sports and has never been away from home would murder anyone. Pro has failed to show how someone with these traits is incapable of murder. 6. Close relationship with Kercher Pro argues that because of Knox's friendship with Kercher murder is unlikely. However, statistically murders are very likely to be done by someone known to the victim. [2] Arguments 1. Staging of a break-in The prosecution showed that Knox and Sollecito staged a break-in in an attempt to make the murder look like a third party. Hardly the actions of an innocent woman. 2. Perjury Knox had two seperate accounts of the events. First she claimed that she had gone to Kercher's apartment with a colleague, without Sollecito and Guede. She then claimed that this colleague, Lamumba, killed Kercher whilst she was in the kitchen. Lamumba has since been exonerated completely of the crime as it was shown he had not ever been in the flat and had a strong alibi. This false accusation heavily implies guilt. Later she claimed that she had spent the night with her boyfriend. Two witnesses showed this to be false. 3. Guede The third person convicted of the murder, who was trialled seperately, attests to Knox's assistence in the murder. However he refused to be a witness at the Knox and Sollecito trial. 4. Forensic evidence The footprint made with Kercher's blood was shown to belong to a woman. No other woman has been implicated forensically or through witness testimony. [3] Also the footprint could not have belonged to Kercher A sufficient amount of Knox's DNA was found on the knife as was Kercher's demonstrating it was the murder weapon. As stated before, this alone is not enough to suggest guilt. To conclude the evidence is very incriminating. The footprint shows she was there at the scene of the crime. Her attempt to cover it up by staging a break-in strongly suggests guilt, and the fact that she lied twice about the course of the events, even attempting to incriminate an innocent party, is the nail in the coffin. It has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that she is guilty. Sources [1] http://www.legalmatch.com... [2] http://top5ofanything.com... [3] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [General for those interested] http://en.wikipedia.org...