Amanda Knox is more likely innocent than guilty

.-== My case ==-.The evidence that places Amanda at the crime scene (specifically Meredith's bedroom) is on very shaky ground (I'm being generous here). No one disputes that this is where Meredith was killed and yet not shred of reliable evidence shows Amanda was in that room. The independent investigators found that regarding the supposed murder weapon, the double DNA knife:1) Tested negative for blood2) Tested positive for vegetable matter3) DNA sample on blade could not be positively confirmed to be from Meredith Kercher [3]The evidence that isn't in dispute is that Rudy Guede left DNA and prints all over the murder room. There is no evidence that Amanda was ever in Meredith’s room where everyone agrees the murder took place.John Douglas, a former FBI agent, and one of the first criminal profilers and the basis for the character Jason Gideon in Criminal Minds, stated [9]:“From the profiles created, none of the behavioral or forensic evidence leads to Amanda and Raffaele. There's no history or experience related to violence or mental illness in their backgrounds. None of the behavioral or forensic evidence leads to them. This is not a case of serial killers, cold blooded murderers. They used marijuana, but that’s not some hard core drug that will change a normal personality. They should’ve walked out of there.” [8]On the type of behavior one would expect the killer to display he stated:“Well, fleeing for one, which only Guede did. They would’ve been nervous, may drink heavily, or become rigid in their personalities, behaviors along that line – certainly not buying underwear and kissing. The fact that they were kissing - people looked at this as a sign of guilt, if anything; I look at it as a sign of innocence.” [8]On Rudy Guede (currently serving 16 years and having exhausted all appeals):“Behavior reflects personality. And that behavior fits only Rudy Guede. Guede has the history; he was an experienced criminal, he had the motive and all evidence points to him. It was a brutal, bloody homicide, and it’s a reflection of his personality. And that behavior was exhibited at the crime scene. That’s his “canvas”; the result is his “artwork” of the subject (victim).” [8]As Sherlock Holmes famously said, "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. [10]" It is impossible that Amanda was in the murder room and left no trace or magically only removed her DNA when Guede’s DNA and prints were everywhere in the room. .-== Clarifications ==-.I re-read what I had said and I don’t see where I said that Con had to prove her guilty without doubt. Neither of us could fulfill that burden and not even the prosecution has that burden. However, we should have make a good case of what we believe is more likely so the readers can decide. What I meant by culpable was whether she had anything to do with the murder such as being an accessory, covering for someone else, etc. I meant it as in Amanda herself took an active role in the killing such as making the knife wounds.For the most part the definition of luminol is correct except that it also reacts to the following things besides blood: iron, iron compounds, copper and its compounds, horseradish, bleach and potassium ferricyanide [1]. .-== Rebuttals ==-.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]In the same Massei Report, Inspector Finzi said the knife was the first one he saw, was extremely clean, was on top of the other tableware so it was the one he grabbed [2]. I don’t know about you but it seems awfully convenient to just grab the knife on top because it looked clean. Nowhere is it ever stated that the police used ANY investigative technique other than a hunch to choose the murder weapon. Furthermore, this knife was shown to have cut rye bread, tested NEGATIVE for blood, and was NOT cleaned with bleach (it’s illogical to think blood was removed but vegetable matter and DNA were left) [2][3]. Of course Amanda’s DNA was on the handle of the knife, she cut bread with it. This was verified in the Conti-Vecchiotti Report [2]. However, due to the extreme low amount of DNA found on the knife blade it is difficult to determine if it came from contamination or definitively from Meredith. Remember, the knife was tested with Tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) and returned a negative result [2]. Conflicting statement: Raffaele's TestimonyI agree this was a boneheaded move on Raffaele’s part. His lawyer should have told him not to speculate. But that’s hardly convincing evidence that Amanda killed Meredith. Even if the DNA had not been returned yet, the police very likely lied to him and he stupidly made an excuse instead of remaining silent. I think the whole reason this case got this far is because of lies by the police and prosecutor. 2nd incriminating evidence: The victim's bra-clasp and the braOh, but the appeals jury did buy it because the DNA evidence during the first trial was rubbish [5]. It’s ironic isn’t when the DNA is reviewed by third party, as requested in the original trial, that the two incriminating items fall apart (knife, bra strap) [2]. The bra clasp was left at the crime scene for 45+ days before being collected. During that time, items moved around the room and numerous investigators came and went (according to the police’s own video) [2][4][6]. I don’t buy that Amanda’s DNA was on the bra clasp, source please. However, even if Rafaele’s DNA was on the clasp that would not place Amanda there and you’ve provided no evidence her DNA was claimed to be on the clasp.So, are you saying that the contamination coincidentally caused Amanda's DNA to appear at both the bra and knife? Yes, that’s what the experts are saying [3]. What are the chances of only having the suspects DNA on those evidence if the evidence was contaminated as the defense argued? With the Perugian investigators, probably pretty high. The courtroom broke out in laughter when watching their investigative “technique”. They have been thouroughly discredited [3][7]. 3rd incriminating evidence: The bathroom and bloody footprintsYou should stop reading so many tabloids. To start Luminol reacts with many things including many common household items and is used by police as a place to start NOT to rule in/rule out blood [1]. A further test is needed to see if the source is from blood, such as TMB. However, Stefanoni testified that the prints were NEGATIVE for blood [2]. The rest of your claims simply don’t fit the investigative findings. Sources:[1] http://chemistry.about.com...[2] http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com...[3] http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com...[4] http://www.metacafe.com...[5] http://www.seattlepi.com...[6] http://www.injusticeinperugia.org...[7] http://news.yahoo.com...[8] http://www.groundreport.com...[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...[10] http://rense.com...