Skip to main content
  1. News
  2. Crime & Courts

Amanda Knox's guilt is not simply about DNA evidence

See also

Convicted killer Amanda Knox has a lot of friends in high places, including DNA experts who have used her case as examples in their books. This Tuesday afternoon report shares details about the latest expert who believes the forensic evidence against Knox was "contaminated." Dr. Peter Gill, famed DNA expert from the United Kingdom, says that two important pieces of evidence used against Knox could have been contaminated and therefore "cannot conclusively point to Knox and Sollecito as murderers." Gill insists that there is a possibility that one of Sollecito's fingerprints could have somehow been transferred to Meredith Kercher's bra clasp due to the "fumbling" of Italian investigators. Claims of cross-contamination have been made in the past against the investigators who gathered the evidence against Knox, Sollecito and Guede, but these claims have always been contested by forensic experts in Europe. These latest reports have Knox's support-base (which is large in the U.S.), declaring that Gill's words are "proof" that Knox did not participate in the slaying of her former roommate. However, that is simply not the case. Peter Gill did not declare that this contamination completely cleared Knox of involvement, even if the case is discussed in a book about "miscarriages of justice."

No group of so called experts can seem to agree one way or the other about Amanda Knox's case, but the official court documents prove that the conviction of the American woman along with Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito rested on far more than just DNA evidence collected from the scene of the crime. Knox's trial lasted nearly an entire year with a case file of at least 10,000 pages. The evidence that was used to convict the three suspects in Meredith Kercher's murder included physical evidence, testimonial evidence and -- of course -- forensic DNA evidence. Even if the knife and bra clasp were contaminated -- and again, not every expert can seem to agree on this concept -- then what about the rest of the evidence that has been used against Knox, Sollecito and Guede? After all, there was a staged break-in along with the fact that Knox knew how Meredith died before anybody else did. There was also Knox's strange behavior as she attempted to persuade officers to not open Meredith's bedroom door minutes before her slain body was discovered. All of the evidence that rests on Knox, Sollecito and Guede doesn't seem to strongly rely 100% on DNA, as useful as it can be.

There is something else that seems to be frequently ignored in Knox's case, especially when it comes to American coverage of the case: If Amanda Knox is innocent, then is Rudy Guede innocent as well? The very same DNA evidence used to convict Knox and Sollecito was also used to convict Guede. So does this mean, if Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent, that Rudy Guede was also the victim of a so-called "kangaroo court?" There is no doubt about the fact that this case divides people and stirs debate, because there is just so much to discuss pertaining to the evidence against the convicted killers along with the civil rights aspects that surround Knox and Sollecito.

As for whether or not Knox will be extradited back to Italy to serve her sentence: She claims that she will not go back willingly. She is appealing her conviction again in hopes that she will be released from this conviction and the stigma of being called a convicted killer at large.

Advertisement