Check out Jazzed About Stuff for Updated Content!
“If those two are not the guilty parties, then who are the guilty people?” Lyle Kercher, a brother of the victim, asked.
The Italian appeals court threw out Knox’s conviction on Monday in the sexual assault and fatal stabbing of her British roommate under the international spotlight due to doubts over compromised DNA evidence. The court’s decision to remove the conviction that placed Knox as one of three people who killed Kercher stunned the victim’s family and angered the prosecution leaving everyone following the trial with no sure way of knowing what actually happened.
The victim’s family, at one point, was all certainly convinced that Knox, her former boyfriend, Raffael Sollecito, 27, and Rudy Herman Guede, a drug dealer, were all guilty of the crime. The family had answers and was ready to put the trial behind them, but they were left with daunting questions when Knox and her ex were exonerated by the appellate panel.
The original trial was so watered down with uncertainty that such things like Knox telling police that she was there in the room when her roommate was murdered and then retracting her statement and saying that she was never there will keep your head spinning. The way the fickle trials took place only adds to the opinions of the Italian justice system being not at all as it is cracked up to be.
It leaves everyone but Knox, Sollecito, and Guede only speculating as to what really happened. Everyone can cogitate as to what might have happened but they weren't there to see it come to pass and anything at the crime scene possibly pointing to any one individual had to be thrown out because it was mismanaged.
Knox’s home town is also populated with individuals that trust the Italian justice system and believe that she is innocent. They assume that she was just a young college student caught up in a difficult situation. But there are many people who have followed the case and still think that Knox is guilty like after the first trial had proved and think that she should have served the 25 years in prison she was originally ordered to do, but because all of the evidence and testimony were compromised there is no way of knowing who’s right.