Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
Irrelevant evidence = any evidence that points to Knox's and Raff's guilt.
Ever noticed that? bra clasp DNA = irrelevant. double DNA knife found at Raffe's house = irrelevant Amanda's lamp in the victim's room on the floor = irrelevant Raffe's bloody footprint on the floor = irrelevant
and on it goes.
Funny how that works.
In the Lesley Molseed case, the police built up a dossier of several thousand pages of "evidence", all of which they claimed incriminated Stefan Kiszko. Every single bit of it fell apart under scrutiny though, because they had the wrong person and were desperately trying to build a case out of nothing.
In the Meredith Kercher case, the police also built up a dossier of several thousand pages of "evidence" which they claimed incriminated Knox and Raffaele. It all unravels under impartial scrutiny, however, because as it turns out they had the wrong people and were trying to build a case out of nothing.
It's not a coincidence, it's exactly what you'd expect based on similar misguided prosecutions. It's just very hard to find good evidence against people who are, in fact, innocent.
Also, can you please stop misrepresenting the facts? There is no "Raff's bloody footprint on the floor". No such thing exists.