Well, this is more evidence of the fact that you think with 'prejudice'. I have in fact previously said I do not think there is any evidence of the timing of sexual contact between Guede and MK. I do not think and have never argued he has a serial killer profile. That you think I do shows you are thinking emotionally. If I had to judge, I think this was situational. I think Guede's fleeing the scene is contrary to the behaviour of a 'serial' killer. In a way I think this shows remorse or guilt not an action of a 'psychopath'. There is evidence that he committed a burglary. You may not think it is insufficient evidence. You may think the evidence better fits an alternative explanation but to deny there is any evidence just shows an absolute blindness to reality. You cannot deny there is evidence.
Sorry, why "emotionally"?
It's simply, well, logical consequence. I suppose you are aware that, given the physical evidence, a scenario where Rudy was a lone perpetrator requires that he commits sexual violence on a dead body, or anyway dying person.
(in my opinion this is already contradicted by the presence of bruises in genital area, but never mind).
And if you assume that a crime is "situational", then you need a situation that would lead to rape and to that kind of violence, which is a kind of violence that contains in a way extreme elements, close to torture, physical restraint, escalation, savage wounds etc, and ends with raping a dying person.
A burglary itself is not a situation that leads to such consequence. The situation you are talking about must be unknown. It must be like some psychiatric condition, about which we don't have evidence.
You know, I think you simply cannot judge such crima as "situational", as if they were a wife and husband argueing, they are drunk and start raising hand one against the other and one brakes a vase on the other's head or stabs her with a kitchen knife. To see this crime like that it would mean, simply, to deny the reality of the elements of this crime. Rather than being emotional, you are denying the nature of this crime.
Here, the point is that there is no "situation", if you place Guede there as a lone burglar.
I maintain that there is
zero evidence of burglary. Evidence that fits one, consistent alternative scenario (that includes the common occurrence of crime staging on house murders), is not evidence. Evidence that you would have rule out as contaminated in a scenario of Sollecito's innocence, based on the principle that you employ for the decision, cannot be evidence of Guede's guilt at the same time.
So a broken window is not evidence, DNA on purse is not evidence. Missing cell phones is not evidence, look how it's more consistent in the alternative scenario: who is more likely to steal cell phones just to throw them away immediately, a burglar, or someone who lives in the apartment and needs to buy time for a staging, and needs that the phones to be not heared ringing in the apartment?
There is simply zero evidence of burglary.
On the other hand, there are many pieces of circumstantial evidence of staging that stend there independently, an array of red flags, that don't fit any other scenario but staging. When considered altogether, they only indicate staging, they are convergent.
No shoeprints on the ground below, no soil in the room, illogical point of entry, window sill not cleared from glass shard, untouched; drawers not searched; a tossing of items from the wadrobe that does not make sense for a burglar; rummaging only in one room and not in the others; the window left with the shutters half open; a very violent murder with sexual violence not explained by burglary and without apparent motive.
And not to speak about the overall imposibility of building a dynamic with Guede as lone perpetrator; starting from his shoeprints trail walking straight and not turning towards the victim's door, albeit the door was locked. Inconsistence between the fact that some murderer had bare feet that got wet with blood, while he was wearing shoes. Or between the fact that he had cuts on hands, and the murderer washed his/her hands in that bathroom, but there is no DNA of him in the basin (instead there is Knox's blood).
The fact that some murderer took care of washing himself, and evidently of having clean feet too, while instead he did not care about beling clean and about eaving a trail of bloody shoeprints. The fact that there are bloody footprints on the bathmat, but no trail of such print going or coming from the bathmat (is it likely that you have a shower and you only put down your feet on those two spots?). And the impossibility of explaining how he could have stepped on the pillow after the pillow was already under the victim's body (or otherwise, why did he put the pillow under the body if he had already finished his sexual performance; and if so, where did he step with his bloody shoe meanwhile). And why there is a gap of 270 centimeters between two of his shoeprints in the corridoor - by coincidence, in an area where a pair of luminol bare footrints was found (how could he take a 270 cm step? who cleaned the floor?)
These are not all, they are just some of the incnsstencies. It's not one or two illogical aspects. It's just catastrophic. There is nothing consistent. Thre is nothing like a lone perpetrator scenario.
1) We know Guede was present.
2) There is evidence of illegal entry (you may argue that a better explanation for this in the light of a murder is staging, but you cannot deny the existence of a broken window).
3) There was a theft of money and phones that were never recovered.
4) Guede fled abroad.
1 & 2 are clearly not evidence of burglary. Being present is not the same of committing a burglary, we know that. There is only a broken windo, which is not evidence of illegal entry, as long as, taken alone, it is equally good evidence of staging.
3 taking phones does not point in direction of a burglar, quite the contrary, because the tossing away of the phones indicates a motive for the theft that is not personal gain of the object, but rather staging. Money theft is something that could equally fit the opposite scenario and have the value of motive, insofar as that can be the cause of an argument and thus create, this one indeed, a "situation" that may lead to situational violence.
4 Guede fled: sorry, but first this has zero relevance as for evidence of burglary, since committing murder would be enough reason for fleeing, there is no need to add a burglary to that; second, Guede did flee but then he also decided to come back to Italy, he was caught when he was on his way back to Milan, here he intended to surrender himself to Italian police. He even asked Giacomo to pick him at the Milan station. The fact that he was coming back was one of the reason why he got generic mitigation.
PS you use the very emotional term treacherous liar. Who is she betraying? The use of terms like this show you are emotionally engaged; I hate to seem like T'Pol but emotion results in humans not being able to come to logical conclusions.
I don't agree with such analysis, and I don't even understand what do you mean with "emotional". I have a clear cut opinion about Knox's actions, I fail to see how they could change along with emotions. I can detail each one of Knox's actions, about how and why I see such actions are lies or why they have the quality of manipulative actions, I can talk about their features on factual basis. Emotions have little to do with that.
A man called Meir Ettinger this week is under arrest in Israel, as he is suspected of having attempted to torch a Palestinian home in 2014. The guy is 23 years old, always smiles in court, and is objectively a psycopath. You may Google pictures of him. I don't feel any emption, just my observation tells me that the behaviour of that person is that of a disturbed personality. I think this is a kind of observation that any neutral person could do, without feeling any personal involvement. I don't understand the observation of human actions should be seen as emotional investment. That about Ettinger may be an observation limited to the physchiatric sphere. As for Amanda Knox, the observation is mainly about the pattern of her lies. The record of her lies is so bad, that it qualifies her not only as a person with massive evidence against her, but also as a very dangerous person (so judge Micheli called her when he ordered to prolong cautionary arrest).
)
