Amanda Knox Case: Defense Of Fallacies Of The Guilty Verdict

The Amanda Knox Case: Defense of Fallacies of the Guilty Verdict.

The murder of Meredith Kercher would change the lives of so many people, like her roommate, Amanda Knox. Amanda Knox is a young American student who came to Italy, Knox was convicted of the murder of her roommate Meredith Kercher, and has sparked intense debates worldwide. Even though all the trials have been completed, Amanda continues to be thought guilty by some people. However, after a critical examination of the evidence revealed serious flaws in the case against her with lack of forensic evidence, lack of motive, and improper collection of evidence. One of the most important pieces of evidence in a court case is the forensic DNA evidence. At the crime scene, there was

Admand endured five days of questioning, at more than 10 hours per day, so she was under a lot of pressure and confused. The holes and changes in Amanda’s story were understandable because she went through a very traumatic event and did not get proper sleep. Knox also said, “It’s when you are so gaslit by police that you come to believe them,” Knox explained. “And it was only after they finally stopped the interrogation, they stopped yelling at me. They finally let me sleep. They finally let me eat, that I realized what had happened, that I had admitted to something that I did not have any memory of.” The police were trying to make Knox believe that things that are not true and things that did not happen. After going through something horrible, then being accused and getting told false things by police, it's understandable that her story has some holes. In conclusion, the lack of evidence, the pressure of questioning, misconduct in the investigation, and absence of good motive, it becomes clear that Amanda Knox did not kill Meredith Kercher. The case against Amanda was built on unclear evidence, relying on flawed interpretations of the evidence and incorrect judgments. I