Of course there's a plausible motive. Meredith was murdered because after what had been done to her she couldn't be allowed to live and report it and then any doubts on the matter were settled because she screamed. That sounds perfectly plausible to me.
But where's the evidence that they had any motive to do something to her in the first place? If you can pile supposition on supposition then you could equally well call it plausible that anyone did it.
Why does there 'have' to physical evidence of Raffaele's presence in the room? There was no physical evidence of Amanda's presence either, yet she had lived in the cottage for two months...why would physical from the pair be a requirement simply because they'd spent a mere half hour or less in there?
Because there was a brutal struggle and someone got their throat cut. Plus there was that unspecified awful something-or-other that you reckon they did first that they had to kill her to cover up, which presumably involved someone touching her at some point.
In any case, a good explanation for the lack of it is that some of the evidence they left are some of the many partial fingerprints and footprints in the room that are too damaged to match to anyone and so remain unidentified.
I don't see how that counts as evidence for or against anything at all. I imagine there are smudged fingerprints and footprints all over my house too.
As for Guede, he only left evidence because he came into contact with fluids (both with his hands and stepping in them) and then went about touching things in the room. Had he not done so, there wouldn't have been very much evidence of him being in the room either.
Just offhand he also left multiple DNA traces on Kercher's brassiere, didn't he?
Except it wasn't 'nearly perfect'. If it was nearly perfect they wouldn't have been arrested after a mere three days, faced a whole heap of evidence against them in a trial and then been found unanimously guilty. They made a great many mistakes.
You can't have it both ways. You can't have them be superhumanly good at eliminating virtually every trace of themselves from the murder room, leaving only the traces of their accomplice, then have them be totally incompetent at covering up everything else.
What 'Satanic cult' theory? There isn't one, never has been.
Once again you are directly contradicting sourced, factual claims made by others earlier in this thread and all I can do is flag that contradiction and move on.
You could 'argue' it, but you have no evidence for it. It therefore, would be no more then an assertion.
Hang on, I think something's amiss here. You asserted that to be consistent I would have to argue that every single case ever where forensic evidence appears late in the day to make a prosecution possible was dodgy. I explained that I had no such obligation. So now you're saying that I have no evidence for my lack of obligation and that I'm just asserting it?
Sorry, but you don't get to define other people's positions for them and I simply am not committed to making any kind of general claim about Italian investigations or any others. I'm perfectly happy to say that this case may be unusual, and if you prefer to think otherwise you can think what you please.
No, you are incorrect. Shed skin cells are dead, therefore keretinised. Whilst it's possible to extract some small segments of DNA from them, it is not possible to extract complete profiles:
Telltale DNA sucked out of household dust
I'm afraid that throws out the 'dust' idea (if you read back through the thread you'll see this was done a long time ago).
I'm not sure that actually proves what you think it does but regardless, there are other reasons we've already discussed to cast serious doubt on the proposal that because Raffaele's DNA was found on the clasp that he therefore was in on the murder of Kercher.
Not when the 'Lone Wolf' theory is disproved by all the other evidence, as it is in this case.
I just don't see where it has been disproved at all. There's just a hole where the evidence that should disprove it ought to be. Either Amanda and Raffaele cleaned it up with supernatural and uncharacteristic effectiveness, or it was never there in the first place.
You don't have to 'prove' the substance, just some 'evidence' for it would be nice...like showing it's presence somewhere in the cottage and then offer a logical and plausible scenario of how it came to be on the feet of two different people and left prints only in certain areas. Evidence must be undermined with a 'plausible' alternative.
One more time for the peanut gallery: We will never know what caused the luminol result. There are many different plausible contenders, it was a long time ago, and we don't have the information needed to solve that puzzle.
However luminol is not a conclusive test for blood, as has been explained before. Followup tests must be done before you can conclude that you are looking at blood. Followup tests did not show that the substance that set off the luminol was blood. Therefore it is not rational to assume that it was blood.
It's evidence for a clean-up. Since Rudy Guede had no reason to clean-up (the only person who would have had a motive to do so would have been someone who lived there) and since by the wealth of evidence he left he patently wasn't interested in cleaning up, it is evidence against the lone wolf scenario and against the two students.
I'll see if the person I asked comes through with more details than just asserting that it's evidence of a clean-up. However as has already been stated, even if we accept it as God-given truth that it's evidence of a clean-up it's not evidence that Amanda or Rafaelle wiped off that heel-print and the claim that Rudy had no motive to clean anything up is simply baseless. He had excellent motive to clean things up, however being a disorganised killer who fled the scene he had very little time to do so.
He did other odd things too like take Kercher's phones then throw them away. He clearly wasn't pursuing a well thought out, rational plan. If the only explanation for a missing heel print is that someone deliberately wiped it up, Guede can perfectly well have been the one who wiped it up.
Only all the evidence disproves the lone wolf scenario and shows Raffaele and Amanda to be involved. There you go with this Satanism nonsense again. What trial have you been following? Certainly not this one.
Once again you are either ignoring plain facts, or other people have been posting blatant lies as fact both here and on a variety of other sites. Everyone but you seems to agree that the prosecutor was a nutter on the verge of professional collapse and that he started with a three-way conspiracy theory involving Lumumba and then switched to a three-way conspiracy theory involving Guede instead.
The three-way conspiracy theory with Lumumba was pretty stupid, because Raffaelo would have to have agreed to participate in some kind of group rape deal that led to murder after being Knox's girlfriend for only six days, which would be moving pretty damned fast, and then keep quiet about it. The three-way conspiracy theory with Guede was pants-on-head crazy because Raffaelo and Amanda didn't even know Guede.
You refer to that theory as "plausible" at the beginning of the post I'm replying to, but I simply can't see how any rational person could do so.
I also have to say that your repeated claims that "all of the evidence" proves this and that when the evidence manifestly does not are rather tiresome. If all of the evidence proved Knox's guilt we wouldn't be here at three-hundred-and-forty-something pages of discussion and counting.
