Amanda Knox is more likely innocent than guilty

It would be strange if you DIDNT notice any of these things if i had left out the 2nd part, but saying i picked all those stuff from tabloids goes a bit far. At this point, im going all out.Im gonna put the stuffs here again and explain them in case you arent familiar 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.Bleach: Name of a group chemicals that can remove color and disinfect things. Can be shown with Luminol.=== Rebuttals ===1st incriminating evidence: The Double DNA knifeNow, you keep saying that the DNA knife does nothing to prove Amanda Knox's guilty just because it tested negative for blood and also has signs of bread cut. Now nowhere and i mean nowhere does it state that there was no sign of Bleach found on the knife. With the low amount of DNA found on the knife, the other explanation other the contamination is... Bleaching. This evidence wouldn't be enough to convict Amanda on its own, but it will come up quite incriminating if combined with other evidences.[1][2]Smells of bleachFinzi, the chief inspector and a couple of others went into the house and their first reaction was that there was a huge smell of Bleach. Bleach, as we know, are used at disinfecting and removing colours. Bleach can wipe, all/most blood and remove most of the DNA in the area. Not to mention how strange it is that there was no DNA found casually around the house, the very same place where Amanda Knox has lived for a few months now.[1]2nd incriminating evidence: The victim's bra-clasp and the braAmanda Knox's DNA is on the bra itself, not on the clasp, its your own source i used, go look it for yourself if you dont believe it. I never brought up the point with the Bleach at the previous round, but now after i did, it changes a few things. The bra clasp with Raffaele's DNA, like i said was found UNDER the victim's body. It was proven that there was Bleach in usage, so contamination was darn near impossible as the DNA left on it was far too much for a contamination.(Not to mention that it was also under the victim's body.) As for Amanda Knox's DNA on the bra itself, the chances of it being contaminated is even reduced lower. [1]3rd incriminating evidence: The bathroom and bloody footprintsYou should be the one needing to stop reading tabloids, the facts came from the case reports itself, hardly tabloid, eh?Back on the subject. Indeed, there was a negative result on those so called bloody prints, but like the professionals stated, it doesnt mean that those substance aren't blood. The substance had insufficient material for the indication of blood. There was a positive reaction though from the Luminol so the substance in the bathroom had to have Human DNA on it.[1]As for the footprints, a few more were on the scene. One of them seems to confirm that its Rudy Guede (the footwear confirmed the owner) while the other one confirms its Amanda's by just following where they lead to. Amanda's DNA was found on the hallway, in Amanda's room and at the door to Romanelli's room. The explanation from the experts were that Amanda went into the bathroom, flicked on the light and washed off the blood on her feets while holding onto something with 1 hand. After that, she walked back to her room dripping DNA all over the hallway. And by chance, all those spots I mentioned were smirked with Meredith's blood.[1]==Incriminating actions/arguments==Aside from the evidences that points them towards the crime scene, there are tons of other things that are pointed against them.1. Perjury and slanderNo truly innocent person would constantly lie about themselves and even up to 3 times. Raffaele was lying about the knife, TWICE. Amanda accused his boss at work, Patrick Lumumba who was without doubt, innocent. She also stated that she was at Raffaele's home all the time, until Raffaele himself told them that he wasn't sure where Amanda was when he was sleeping. She changed the story then admitting that she was at his home, taking a shower, ignoring all the blood. Raffaele on the other hand, kept saying that he was on his computer all the time at his home, but the logs proved otherwise as well. Neither of them has a credible alibi, even at this point.[1]2. Rudy GuedeFor some reason, Rudy Guedes's bloody handprint was found on the crime scene. He has confessed and seems to be willing to testify against Amanda as well.[1]3. Phone TrafficIsn't it odd especially if both Amanda and Rafaelle's mobile phone turned off nearly simultaneously and right before the murder? Not to to mention that Amanda called Meredith Kercher, ending with her not picking up the phone while all of the girls knows shes home and Amanda not telling Romanelli about the calls.[1]4. Discovery and suspicious activity After the door got broken down, Rafaelle was the only one staying behind the group of people, not even looking into the room. Romanelli later testified that she heard Amanda and Rafaelle laughing and talking about something moments after her body was discovered. They were also seen using drugs.[1]Rafaelle and Guede's guilt will actually heavily imply Amanda's guilt. Guede can provide testimony against Amanda and if Rafaelle was found guilty, Amanda's alibi will fall apart and his involvement at the crime will be undeniable as well.Sources:[1]http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com...[2]http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com...