True I don't spend all my time doing that (and i'm afraid it would be wasted, given the interlocutors).
But some pages ago I just reminded a few of the contradictions. For example: the inconsistencies when you get to Guede stepping on the pillowcase and the alleged semen stain, the absence of drips of bloody water out of the shower and along the corridoor, the lack of shoe tracks of the alleged walk back of Guede, the bruises on genital area incompatible with post delictum sexual violence, the lack of bloody handprints on Meredith's body, the inconsistency when you try to explain the timing of the stepping on blood with his shoe (before or after washing his trousers in the bathroom?), etc.
Not to speak about the impossibility to fit ("equally well") a one assailant scenario with the autopsy report and the blood splatter analysis. Or the contradiction with Capezzali and Monacchia's testimony of a scream and (Capezzali) steps on the gravel path immediately after.
The obvious existence of two sets of prints, showintg two sets of opposites (two modus operandi): assailants who are wearing shoes, are "dirty" and don't clean the scene, have bloody hands, leave traces in full blood, don't care about leaving tracks, leaves prints that are in a complete trail, used the big bathroom, walked directly away from the room to the exit, and leave tracks belonging to a single individual; and traces of people who are "clean", are barefoot, leave traces in diluted blood (or diluted luminol positive substance), wash themselves in the bathroom, do not walk away towards the exit but remain inside within an area of the house, used the small bathroom, leave tracks that are isolated and not in a trail, they didn't walk but shuffled using a rag or a towel, and apparently took care about cleaning the corridoor floor (attept to wash bathmat, washed away Guede's print), and they left traces from two different individuals.
The above sets of traces are a "two logical sets", there is an orderly series of dychotomies, a polarization that defines two different sets of findings: two different "kinds" of activities, two kinds of perpetrators (two modus operandi).
These are examples, about what "evidence" means to me in this case.
All those are concrete arguments.
The bathmat print and the luminol prints are other arguments themselves.
The illogical point of entry - a scenario where the alleged burglar doesn't care about taking the easiest way in - does not work "equally well" than a common scenario of burglary, thus not equally well as a staging.
And so on.
The elements are so many.
And their probative power is massive.
