Amanda Knox is more likely innocent than guilty

Hehe, so you think my only way to win is to prove that Amanda Knox indeed killed Meredith Kercher without doubt?The resolution is that "Amanda Knox is more likely innocent than guilty" and im the con, meaning all i have to do is prove that Amanda Knox is more likely guilty then innocent. (But again, if i manage to prove she killed her, it would be way better)Im starting by explaining a few things for those who are unfamiliar with it:Luminol: A chemical reagent that could show iron from the hemogoblins in the blood and gives a slight different reaction on some other things.DNA: Nucleic acid that contains instructions on the genetic build of all living organisms. Everyone's DNA is unique. DNA can be shown from things you touched, blood, your hair, etc.Now lets begin by reviewing some points.1st incriminating evidence: The Double DNA knifeI start with the knife, the so called murder weapon.Its true, its strange that there was no blood. The officer who found the knife also mentioned that it was extremely clean.[1]But the counterattack from the defense on this evidence is the DNA, which they claim that it has been contaminated because the evidence was left alone for a few days. Nonetheless, the DNA found on the knife belongs to the victim and our suspect, Amanda Knox. I stop here for now.Conflicting statement: Raffaele's TestimonyRafaelle has been questioned about the knife and he mentions that Meredith Kercher, our victim has accidently sliced her finger while cooking. This questioning happened even before the police has told them about the DNA found on the knife. If hes right, then it would support my argument that the blood was wiped and thus suspecting both Amanda and Sollecito, but if he was lying, then it wouldve also incriminate both Amanda and Sollecito as there was no reason to lie about the knife, unless you knew about the DNA on the knife as well. [1]2nd incriminating evidence: The victim's bra-clasp and the braFor some reason, Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was found on the victim's bra-clasp, and this piece of evidence was found under the victim's body. The bra itself has Amanda Knox's DNA on it. Of course the defense team could just bring up that those evidences were contaminated as well, but this time, even the jury didn't buy it. [1]So, are you saying that the contamination coincidentally caused Amanda's DNA to appear at both the bra and knife? What are the chances of only having the suspects DNA on those evidence if the evidence was contaminated as the defense argued? Moving forward...3rd incriminating evidence: The bathroom and bloody footprintsWith the use of Luminol, several traces of bloodstains can be verified in the bathroom. The blood contains the DNA of both the victim and our suspect, Amanda Knox. There were also bloody footprints found that led to the bathroom, meaning that the person who committed the murder was barefootted and that the murderer walked into the bathroom to wash away all the blood on the said person as cutting the throat will lead to alot of bloodloss. Everyone has dead skin cells on the outer layer of their bodies and by washing yourself, skin cells are also washed with it along with the blood. Blood is a sticky liquid, so it should also have caught some of those dead skin cells. This explain the DNA found in the bathroom.[1]Even without the use of the knife, Amanda Knox has already been put on the crime scene.------------------------------------------------------------------I will be stopping here for now, as i have the 3rd round for the rest.Good luckSources:http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com...