May I make a general point about the writings of the pro-guilt commentator Machiavelli/Yummi ("M/Y"), as I see them?
I believe that M/Y has little or no legal training, as (s)he clearly does not seem to grasp the fundamental tenet of criminal law: that the defendant be presumed innocent unless and until found guilty beyond all doubt based in human reason. I find it abundantly clear that M/Y has "analysed" this case backwards: (s)he has come to the conclusion that Knox and Sollecito are guilty, and has then interpreted all the evidence (and even invented evidence which doesn't exist) through that lens of guilt, in order to support his/her prior belief in guilt.
I would agree that some of the evidence is NOT INCONSISTENT with Knox and Sollecito being involved in the murder, but that is totally irrelevant. The ONLY two points which are of direct relevance - both legally and ethically - are these:
1) There is no evidence that either Knox or Sollecito were involved in the murder, which cannot be reasonably explained in the context of non-guilt/innocence.
2) There is a totally reasonable and plausible explanation of the crime which purely involved Guede (of whom there WAS incontrovertible evidence of guilt), and POSSIBLY some other persons who remain unidentified.
I repeat, these are the only two points that matter. The first point, in and of itself, is all that is required to acquit Knox and Sollecito. The second point only serves to reinforce the first point, and adds further to any belief that Knox/Sollecito are both totally uninvolved in the crime. I would, however, also like to repeat that it is logically IMPOSSIBLE to declare someone "innocent" of any given crime, unless that person has a cast-iron, unimpeachable alibi. There is, for example, no way that I could ever be declared "innocent" of the late-night assault that took place two nights ago a few miles away from where I live - I was at home alone that night, and cannot provide a cast-iron alibi for the time of the crime. Suppose that the attacker was wearing a black baseball hat and black sweater, and was of my general height and build. Suppose the police searched my apartment and found a black sweater and baseball hat. In that case, the fact that the attacker was reported to be wearing these items would be CONSISTENT with me being the attacker. However, my lawyer would correctly assert that these are somewhat common items for an adult male to own, and that they in no way constitute solid evidence against me in particular.
In the Kercher case, there are many pieces of evidence which fit the above pattern - that is to say, they may be CONSISTENT with Knox/Sollecito being involved in the murder, but there is a totally reasonable alternative explanation that is consistent with non-guilt/innocence. M/Y seems to believe (or simply want others to believe...?) that "is consistent with" equates to "proves that" - this is simply not the case, either legally or ethically.
Oh, and all the psychology stuff about "killers wanting to direct the investigation" etc might have some limited validity, but M/Y needs to understand that they do not constitute any sort of proof whatsoever. They are often useful in directing police towards suspects, but they could never, ever be used to convict anyone of a crime. These sorts of "soft" factors are often spectacularly wrong: here in the UK, the Rachel Nickell murder was a classic case in point, where an eminent (up to that point!) criminal psychologist confirmed the police's suspicions about a particular suspect (Colin Stagg) to the point where he was charged with the murder, despite there being no proper hard evidence against him. The judge quite correctly threw the case out of court and strongly criticised the police investigation, and it turned out that he had had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder: crime scene semen DNA later proved that a totally different man was the killer. Likewise, the FBI produced a criminal profile for the Washington sniper that turned out to be wrong in almost every respect, and which actively prolonged the killing spree by the real two assailants.
The only things that can convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt are proper pieces of evidence which cannot be explained by the defendants in a way that is reasonable and consistent with non-guilt. In Guede's case, for example, his DNA and palm print was matched conclusively at the crime scene, and his faeces was found in the toilet. He could not provide a good explanation of why he was in the girls' cottage at all: his fable about being invited in for sex by Meredith was a disgusting lie. Furthermore, his fable about "discovering" Merdith dying and trying to help her is utterly inconsistent with his provable failure to notify the emergency services, his provable, nonchalant behaviour after the crime, and his provable flight to Germany within 48 hours. So there is easily enough to convict him of the murder. The same simply CANNOT be said for Knox and Sollecito, and what's more, there is every reason to believe that neither of them had anything to do with the murder.
Lastly, as a small point of clarification, there was a discussion of Meredith's phones above where M/Y asserted that neither phone was switched off. This is not the case. The Italian Vodafone phone WAS switched off at the time it was found in Sig.ra Lana's garden, but the UK phone was left switched on. The Italian phone was found by sight (it had landed on the open lawn), whereas the UK phone had landed in shubbery and was only found when it was heard ringing (almost certainly from one of Knox's calls to the handset - good way to delay discovery by the vicious sex killer Knox, eh?!).
