More of your usual reading comprehension and logic. First, profiling, to the extent that it actually works, is used to attempt to
catch criminals who are currently at large. So how could anyone
possibly have known, based on the information that's currently publicly available, that either of these applied to the perpetrator? (I will grant that some of the evidence is currently sealed, but it's exceedingly unlikely that, for example, the perpetrator left a note at the crime scene detailing his extensive study of serial killers.)
Second, the relevance of Kohberger's interests and studies is far less than you're insinuating; most of those who pursue criminology degrees intend to go into law enforcement or related fields, such as corrections. As for his interest in serial killers, as you may be aware, books and movies about them tend to be extremely popular, so the correlation between interest and acting out is likely to be extremely low. Of course, that doesn't mean there's zero correlation, obviously. Say, Vixen, come to think of it,
you seem to have quite an interest in, and some might even say an obsession with, two people who you're unshakably convinced are murders. Maybe the police ought to be keeping an eye on
you. 
The ECHR ruled that the trial was
not fair, as has been explained to you
ad nauseam. And please don't start with the "they weren't suspects under Italian law," and "she wasn't coerced" BS again. First, as noted, Amanda was required to have a lawyer even as a "witness" when she started accusing Patrick. Second, they obviously were
de facto suspects; for reasons that, again, have been discussed
ad nauseam. Finally, and crucially, as Numbers has so ably demonstrated, the Convention language and ECHR caselaw on this point are deliberately intended to close such loopholes in signatories' laws governing police interrogations.
And several of the rulings against Amanda and Raffaele were transparently defective, in particular in their use of her coerced statement that was ruled inadmissible by both the Court of Cassation (except for the calunnia charge) and the ECHR (for all charges).
And they weren't sequestered, so they were exposed to all the highly prejudicial lies and sensational stories in the media, some of which were deliberately leaked by the police.
And we're back to the straw man argument that Mignini was solely responsible for the miscarriage of justice. I suppose that's at least an improvement over your other favored straw man on this point, which is that we're alleging it was a vast conspiracy by the Perugia police and the Italian judicial system to frame two people who were known to be innocent.
