Once again you are evading the issue by whataboutism. If Italy is of the same brand of racism as the U.S.A. how come it prosecuted all three defendants regardless of ethnicity? Note the campaign to 'free Knox!' comes from the U.S.A., furious and uncomprehending that they didn't 'just pin it on the Black guy'.
You keep claiming the evidence gathering was deficient and the DNA evidence contaminated. WAIT_! The forensics team who collected the evidence, finger, foot and hand prints and D.N.A. that convicted Guede are...exactly the same forensic team that collected the scientific evidence against Knox and Sollecito at the same time as Guede's and used the same laboratory and same scientists. So this was all right and proper for Guede but bent for Knox and Sollecito!!! The total lack of logic and contradictory claims either indicates you cannot see your own lack of logic or, more likely, you see it only too clearly but heck, who cares. Sentimentality, patriotism and a fantasy about corrupt prosecutors are king. **** truth, logic, facts, chronology, scientific evidence and reality.
Cue sophistry and semantics.
You're still (astonishingly, but paradoxically not surprisingly) obviously entirely unaware that there are different grades of forensic evidence, with differing levels of ease-of-collection, ease-of-analysis, sensitivity, ease-of-matching, and reliability.
A latent fingerprint left on a smooth glass surface, for example, is extremely easy to collect, extremely easy to analyse, extremely insensitive (to things such as contamination), extremely easy to match to a given individual (and to exclude other individuals), and extremely reliable (as evidence of the presence of a particular individual at that particular scene).
By contrast, something such as low-copy-number/low-template DNA is extremely difficult to collect (that is, to collect correctly), extremely difficult to analyse (that is, to analyse correctly), extremely sensitive to contamination, often extremely difficult to match to a given individual, and therefore often potentially extremely unreliable (as evidence of the presence of a particular individual at that particular scene).
Regarding Stefanoni: I have no doubt that in 2007 she was competent and qualified to lift latent fingerprints from a smooth surface, analyse them properly, and reliably match them (or exclude them). I also have little doubt that she was competent and qualified in 2007 to collect relatively high-copy-number amounts of DNA from a scene, analyse them properly with standard PCR methodology, and reliably match (or exclude) that DNA.
However, I have total confidence that in 2007 Stefanoni was neither competent nor qualified to collect low-copy-number/low-template DNA, nor to analyse it correctly, nor to protect it from contamination properly, nor to match it reliably. She had no idea what she was doing, and worse still, she lied about her competency levels in this area.
Now, here comes the important part, Vixen. Ready? OK. So.... the forensic evidence of Guede's presence at the murder scene was very reliable, because it was the form of evidence that was relatively easy to get right. His easily-identifiable and reliably-identifiable palm print was found, made with the victim's blood, on the pillow found under the victim's body. His high-copy-number DNA was found on the victim's handbag. His shoe (trainer) footprints, made with the victim's blood, were found in the hallway of the murder scene. And his high-copy-number DNA was found on/in the victim's genital area. Together, this forms more-or-less empirically-incontrovertible proof that Guede was intimately present at the scene at the very time of the murder.
I won't rehash the "evidence" of Knox's/Sollecito's presence at the scene at the time of the murder.... because there isn't any. All that was ever offered to the courts (and shame on the Italian lower courts for having no idea about this either - relying instead on the mendacious Stefanoni and Mignini/Commodi to assure them everything was kosher....) was minuscule trace-evidence DNA that had been horrendously incompetently collected/stored/analysed/matched by Stefanoni - who clearly had no idea what she was doing.
That's the difference, Vixen. I appreciate that you may not have the scientific knowledge/ability to understand the difference, but your lack of understanding really isn't important at all in the real world. Although if you care to look into the matter, you'll notice that competent, expert forensic scientists all over the world pretty much laughed open-mouthed at the extreme incompetence and utter unreliability of Stefanoni's work on the "evidence" linked to Knox and Sollecito. And incidentally, had the forensics linked to Guede similarly been a) of the super-intricate low-template-DNA type, and b) analysed in the same incompetent manner by Stefanoni, you can be sure that global experts would have driven a coach and horses through that as well.
Guede was correctly convicted, based in part on forensic evidence that was correctly handled by Stefanoni and others. Because the nature of the forensic evidence of his involvement meant that it was relatively extremely easy to get right. Knox and Sollecito were correctly acquitted and absolved, based in part on the fact that the nature of the forensic "evidence" of their involvement was such that it was outside Stefanoni's area of competence, knowledge and experience. As a result, Stefanoni (and her team) completely botched the way she treated that "evidence", leading to results that had a total lack of credibility or reliability.
Hope that's clear.
Sheee-eesh.
