the more i read about the case, the more guilty she seems to me.
if she wasnt at the crime scene why did she lie and say she was? if she was beaten/coerced why did the she give the same exact version at a later date? and if she wasnt there why did she implicate her former boss as the attacker? she then changed her story to being at her boyfriend's home watching a downloaded movie even though his computer was turned off. both their phones were also suspiciously turned off during the time of the murder.
she also admitted to taking a shower in the bloody bathroom which is bizarre.
i know if i were innocent, i would only admit to these:
1) i don't know what happened, i wasnt there. 2) <my alibi=""> alibi 3) i want a lawyer. i would never sign a confession like she did.
dna doesn't matter cause even if it doesn't implicate her, it doesn't exonerate her either. dont need dna to prove guilt anyways.</my>
if she wasnt at the crime scene why did she lie and say she was? if she was beaten/coerced why did the she give the same exact version at a later date? and if she wasnt there why did she implicate her former boss as the attacker? she then changed her story to being at her boyfriend's home watching a downloaded movie even though his computer was turned off. both their phones were also suspiciously turned off during the time of the murder.
she also admitted to taking a shower in the bloody bathroom which is bizarre.
i know if i were innocent, i would only admit to these:
1) i don't know what happened, i wasnt there. 2) <my alibi=""> alibi 3) i want a lawyer. i would never sign a confession like she did.
dna doesn't matter cause even if it doesn't implicate her, it doesn't exonerate her either. dont need dna to prove guilt anyways.</my>