The issue of whether or not Guede was an unsavoury character is a complete deflection
Hardly. The cottage appeared to have been broken into, Guede was linked to multiple B&E events, and Guede was in the cottage that night. I find that very relevant when trying to determine if the break-in was real or staged.
The point is, Knox chose him and Sollecito as her flying monkeys, according to the trial evidence, which was upheld by Massei and Nencini after having heard all of the evidence.
And Massei and Nencini were both subsequently overturned. Further, Hellmann and Marasca disagree with this. So what's your point?
Bongiorno got the pair off by fair means or foul but not based on any evidence that came out of the trial, just some garbled nonsense that the forensic police's sterile latex gloves might have transfered Sollecito's full DNA profile onto Mez' bra-clasp.
A gross violation of protocols and procedures designed to minimize the risk of contamination. You're attempting to shift the burden of proof onto the defense. The prosecution has to show it followed all protocols and procedures throughout the collection and testing process. If the defense can show it failed to do this, the evidence should be disallowed, regardless of whether a clear path to contamination can be shown. In this case the visibly dirty gloves more than showed that, even though it wasn't necessary.
That doesn't make Sollecito and Knox heroes.
No one said they were.
If you want to solve a crime you have to look at the nature of the crime. When you do this, it is apparent that it was not a bog standard burglary or theft at all. The average burglar or thief doesn't cross over to sadistic killer and rapist; that is a different crime all together.
Ah, I get it. Your basic burglar or thief doesn't turn into a sadistic killer, but two young college students with no history of violence or anger... THEY can become sadistic killers. Makes sense to me.
It was obvious to the police and the detectives that here was a long-drawn out torture and hazing of a young 21-year-old student away from home, subjected to the gravest depravity of being hazed by a knife point (thirteen knife point jabs), her dignity and modesty ripped away from her by an act of cruel undressing. Zero to few defence wounds indicate being forcibly restrained whilst the torture was ongoing.
...or victim compliance with attacker demands, or immediate immobilization by the attacker such that the victim can't resist, or...
This was a group of people having fun. Where do we see a history of enjoying hazing people? Not in a burglar, drug dealer or thief. We see several reports from Knox' own peers in Washington of her penchant for what she calls 'pranks' - they call it distressing bullying - and short stories describing exactly what happened to Mez.
What unadulterated ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Seriously. One prank, committed by multiple roommates, on another roommate. This was a prank, not bullying.
This was not a theft or a burglary, it was a sadistic cold blooded murder performed for the pleasure of a deeply disturbed and controlling set of individuals. Yes, two were young adults, the other, a fully grown 23-year-old man - described by the prosecutor as 'icy cold' - was adult enough to know it was wrong and to have called the whole thing to a halt when it got out of hand, but instead let it continue to its grisly end.
Pure Vixen fiction, contrived in your own head, perhaps for your own pleasure? The evidence, including the injuries to Meredith, are also consistent with a burglar who gets caught by a resident coming home, and who turns violent to avoid being identified to the police.
Then we had the theatre of the staged burglary and positioning of the body to make it look like a stranger killing.
There was no evidence that proved staging of a burglary, that was just an opinion, and not a very good one. Further, there was no evidence of deliberate positioning of the body beyond how Guede left it.
Mignini was absolutely right when he described Knox as manipulative, narcissistic and transgressive.
No, he was completely wrong. There is no evidence of Amanda having any of those characteristics, either before or after the murder.
She has kept up the facade all the way through knowing that her fans would never believe a young woman like herself would ever torture and stab her own roommate in the throat in such a cruel and deeply despicable crime.
I am no fan, but I am someone who can decide on whether someone committed a crime based on evidence, not on who that person is or what they look like. Interesting, I can think of another young, attractive, white, American female - Casey Anthony - who I think is completely guilty of murder. But then, maybe I just wasn't one of her fans, huh?
So, yes, you keep up with the 'it was a burglar who did it and Guede was the burglar' and I'll go with what the evidence proven in court shows,
I'll keep up with the facts.
- A cottage with signs of a break-in
- A known burglar is proven to be in the cottage at the time Meredith was murdered and no reasonable explanation for being there.
- After an extensive forensic search of Meredith's bedroom, ALL of the forensic evidence belonged to Meredith and Guede.
- Meredith was sexually assaulted and Guede's DNA was inside her.
- Guede flees the country after two nights of drinking and dancing.
- Police completely screw up the collection of the bra clasp - the only think linking Raffaele to the crime
- Police completely screw up the knife - first removing it from it's sterile collection bag and later, for numerous forensic errors and omissions.
- Bonus: We now know this sexual assault and domestic violence wasn't an isolated event, now that he's back in trouble with the law for the very same crimes.
You can keep your evidence of Amanda and Meredith living in the same cottage, sharing the same bathroom, to yourself. I find it of little use.
Oh, and BTW, as you already know, Amanda and Raffaele were definitively acquitted because they "did not commit the act", which was also proven in court. Oh wait, I remember now... you get to pick and choose which courts to accept - Massei & Nencini good, Hellman & Marasca bad. What an incredibly effective way to prove your impartial, neutral and entirely objective.
