Well, obviously she wouldn't kill you, because she has never killed anyone. Apparently we know that as a fact, with no room for doubt.
I don't think anyone is saying there is
no doubt that she is innocent.
But at least in the US, the burden of proof is not on the defendant. There is certainly very much reasonable doubt that she is guilty.
There is
no physical evidence placing Knox in the victim's room even though there plentiful physical evidence and Guede's own testimony placing Guede in the room.
The only physical evidence placing Solecito in the room is DNA on Kercher's bra clasp which was recovered from the flat 46 days after the murder after the place had been greatly disturbed.
The knife that the prosecution claims was the murder weapon was found in Solecito's apartment so supposedly Knox and Solecito brought the weapon back to Solecito's apartment after murdering Kercher with Guede.
The prosecution supposedly found Kercher's DNA on the tip of the knife, but the sample was too small for the DNA test to be repeated by analysts for the defense and the knife tested negative for blood.
Defense experts testified the bloody footprint elsewhere in the flat was more consistent with Guede's foot than Solecito's.
The existence of stains of Kercher's and Knox's blood in the bathroom while there was none of Knox's DNA in the murder room is more consistent with two menstruating women sharing a bathroom than Knox being injured in the scuffle in the bedroom and then leaving her own blood and Kercher's blood in the bathroom.
The blog post quoted by Agatha makes many unsubstantiated claims. Any statement made by Knox or Solecito that is not verified by the prosecution is claimed to be lie rather than a mistake or confusion from a night in which they admittedly smoked pot. It assumes the broken window in the other flatmate's bedroom was due to a faked break-in and that Knox was the person that faked the break-in.
That the apartment could be broken into without neighbors noticing is proven by the fact that the empty apartment has been broken into at least twice since the murder and the mattress from Kercher's bedroom has been stolen.
The blog post makes extraordinary claims about Knox's and Solecito's characters that are contradicted by their friends and families and academic records. It even places significance on the nickname Foxy Knoxy which according to friends and family dates back to her childhood and described her soccer skill at the time, not sexual prowess.
What the hell is with that anyway? Are there a lot of Puritans here? Even if Knox had sex with multiple men, that's not evidence she'd murder someone in a drug and sex game.
Some people seem to be assuming the Perugia jury must have been reliable and no more prone to bias than a US jury.
The Perugia jury was selected from the general Perugia population with no attempt being made to screen the jury member for biases or prior influences as would have been done in a US jury trial.
The jury was not sequestered from news reports and outside discussion of the case during the months long trial.
Apparently the burden of proof is far weaker in the Italian courts, bacause only a majority of jurors is required - not unanimity.
I could go on, but I'd be repeating more of what I put in my long previous post that was apparently ignored by those who have cited evidence that has been repeatedly discredited earlier in the thread.
I could maybe understand how some posters from countries with a far weaker burden of proof by state in their legal system might say they're suspicious of the defendants hence the posters would convict the defendants, but I don't see how any US poster could say "The defendants had inconsistent stories and behaved in a manner I wouldn't have, so I would declare them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
And yes, you can find cases in the US where juries have convicted persons based on flimsy evidence too. Those convictions were also travesties of justice just as the conviction of Knox and Solecito is a travesty of justice.
