If you have listen to anything from the American media about the Amanda Knox case you would likely believe that there was no physical evidence at the crime scene linking Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to the murder of Meredith Kercher. However, with just a simple cursory review of some of the official sources it is easy to see that there is actually an abundance of physical evidence against the two convicts. Perhaps the best place to start is Judge Massei’s Report on the conviction of Knox and Kercher. Furthermore, it is imperative to read the Italian Supreme Court’s Reasoning on the case. Aside from the obvious four spots of blood found at the cottage (3 spots in the bathroom and one in Filomena’s room) mixed with Knox and Kercher’s DNA, there are also several pieces of convincing footprint evidence that was used to help convict the three accused, which includes Rudy Guede. Putting the plethora of circumstantial evidence and the other physical evidence aside and simply focusing on the footprint evidence gives us a very clear picture of exactly what occurred that fateful night.
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Perhaps one of the most controversial Supreme Court cases ever, if not outright the most controversial, is Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). It is certainly the most popular Supreme Court case of all time. It all started when Jane Roe, a.k.a. Norma McCorvey, a single mother of two in Dallas, Texas, got pregnant for a third time. Feeling that she could not financially support a third child, twenty-one-year old Jane Roe filed a lawsuit. At that time the Texas law on abortion was severely restrictive, basically stating that a woman could only get a “legal” abortion if the mother’s life was threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy. The defendant in the case was Dallas County District Attorney, Henry Wade, who represented the State of Texas.