I've been following this case, like most people, since RS and AK were arrested. I remember at first feeling that AK was probably guilty because of her actions around the arrest and all the press portrayed her as a whore with the face of an angel.
I read so much more into it, and was then completely convinced of their innocence. I understand why people say they just have a 'feeling' that AK is innocent. She did strange things after the murder and acted in a strange way. Usually when you read about or see murder cases reported in the media, it's often committed by a friend or family member, and often their cover is blown by their behaviour after the crime, but then there ends up being a wealth of compelling evidence against them as well.
This case just isn't as open and shut as that. I find it so hard to get my head around the fact that there's no DNA presence of Amanda in the room where Meredith was killed, and the only DNA evidence of RS has been proven to be flawed by independent court appointed experts. This is harder to believe still because Rudy's DNA is everywhere - on and in the victims body, all over the room, in the toilet. EVERYWHERE. Rudy also ran immediately and I think I've read that he was found with the keys to her room too.
The knife the prosecution claim is the weapon, has also been shown by another expert to not be the weapon, but the court still accepts that is.
There's also the distinct lack of motive. Many people dispute whether of not MK and AK were as close as she is now trying to make out, but I'm not sure that they hated each other the way the prosecution are trying to make out either. While living with people at university there's always fights about cleanliness and petty things like heating and loo roll. These aren't things that make you want to rape and murder someone. It's just not a motive. MK may have found AK annoying, but they certainly didn't hate each other - they went out together too much and the texts they exchanged just don't suggest a deep hated of either for the other.
When convicting someone of a crime you must do this BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, and doubt just pervades the case against AK and RS. I cannot understand how they have been found guilty. I really can't.
Yesterday's verdict has made me question myself somewhat, because I just don't get why a court would convict people where there seems to me to be nothing COMPELLING enough to convict beyond reasonable doubt.
I'm reading Death in Perugia by John Follain because I've read that it's supposed to be the most unbiased view of the case, because I really truly do want to understand how this verdict has come about.
This case is just so sad - MK was killed in such an awful and brutal way, and from what I can see two people have now also lost their lives in a way. No one involved will ever get over this. Worst of all, Rudy has had a much shorter sentence imposed, and I hear he is eligible this year for day release.
This just isn't justice.