Well first of all, there is evidence, that RG paniced (see his bloody hand smears).So should I believe in a scenario, where a person, whos`s transforming within a few seconds from a brutal butcher into a panicing and scared person,
who, in his state of panic, is doing an intensive washing of his trousers and body, with no evidence to back that up, just for the sake, that the bloody footprint on the bathmat must be his, because, if it wasn`t, that would contradict the basic assumption, that he alone is responsible?
Or should I believe in a scenario:
-
in which multiple attackers participate, which was suggested by the coroner, backed up by, though highly contested, forensics and accepted by the judges and jury, of which the one, who wasn`t responsible for the fatal stabbing panics and tries to "stop" the bleeding by using towels. If you take a look on how bloody these towles were, it is hard to believe, that these were just used to clean up some blood, but rather to stop blood, which came from a serious wound.
-
in which RG didn`t go to the bathroom, as there`s no evidence to suggest that. There was a bloody footprint on the bathmat, which was attributed to RS in terms of dimesnions and not RG and there`s other evidence, that suggests, that this footprint isn`t RGs:
- there were luminol enhanced bare footprints (which didn`t match RGs) found in the cottage, which suggests, that there was a clean-up of bloody bare footprints. This would be consistent with the fact, that there was someone with blood on his barefeet, as seen on the bathmat and that there was obviously a clean up. Evidence for that clean up, for example:
- Where is the heel print of the bathmat print, that must be on the floor?
- I think noone here denies, that the murderer/s washed off blood in the bathroom (blood on the light switch and on the tap, for example). The bathmat print is suggesting, that the amount of blood to be washed off wasn`t small. I can`t see, how it is possible to wash off that amount of blood and just leave that little blood smear in the sink. This, and the fact, that the blood smear in the sink had a sharp edge leads me to the suggestion, that the sink was also cleaned from blood.
- The break-in, which, in my opinion and also in that of the jury, was staged, is also consistent with covering tracks (i.e. a clean-up for example)
- In conclusion, I can`t see, why the covering of tracks in the way of shown above, would make any sense for the panicing RG, but rather for RS and AK.
- Then there are four samples of mixed DNA from AK and in the form of blood from MK. Well I`m not a DNA scientist and I don`t know, what a common amount of DNA spots is of a person, who regularly uses a bathroom. I also don`t know, how easy it is, that DNA from blood, that accidentally falls on an other DNA spot got mixed with it. But somehow I have the feeling, that the probability, that blood which gets cleaned off the body of a third persons falls four times accidentally on four different DNA spots of a person, who regularly uses the bathroom, and gets mixed up four times with it, isn`t that high. So, this, for me, is another indicator, that RG wasn`t in the bathroom, but two others.
For me, the second scenario makes much more sense and I`m not willing to spin the facts around and create implausible theories just for the goal, that RG is the only responsible person.
I understand what you're saying, but I'd make the following observations (dealing with each of the highlighted parts in order):
1) If Guede did indeed commit the murder, regardless of his state of panic, he would clearly realise that it wouldn't be a good idea to run out of the murder house with blood all over his hands, and most likely with visible blood on his clothes too. After all, someone walking or running down a public street at 9.30pm with bloody hands and clothes
tends to arouse suspicion. So it's perfectly logical that he would have sought to clean blood off his clothes and body before making his escape.
2) As I understand it, the coroner testified that the wounds were
consistent with multiple attackers. This, however, is very different indeed from the coroner testifying that the wounds could
only have been inflicted by multiple attackers.
3) I personally believe that the prosecution (and by extension the judicial panel) may be wrong on this crucial piece of evidence. I don't think it's possible to positively attribute that footprint to Sollecito - and in fact I think it's more possible to attribute it to Guede, but again not to the avoidance of reasonable doubt. So, to me, the footprint places Guede in the bathroom at least as much as it places Sollecito there. Plus we have Guede's (admittedly unreliable) testimony, in which he himself says he went into the bathroom twice. Why would he say that unless he was trying to mitigate any possible physical evidence indicating his presence in the bathroom being found?
4) luminol enhanced footprints (none of which, incidentally, tested positive for blood) do not indicate the prior presence of blood-soaked footprints. If bloody footprints had indeed been cleaned up, there would just have been smears on the floor. The luminol footprints are no more than exactly that - footprints that reacted to luminol, but which tested negative for blood. And if the prosecution claim that the whole floor was cleaned (miraculously avoiding dust and all of Guede's prints), then the whole floor should have lit up under luminol testing. It did not.
5) The heel area of the footprint on the mat was, as you say, likely cleaned up. But this clean-up could clearly have happened very shortly after the print was deposited - i.e. it doesn't require a separate organised clean-up operation. Why, for example, couldn't Guede have simply wiped the bathroom floor with a towel while he was still in there?
6) My view is that the shower (or possible the bidet) was used for the main washing-off of blood from the perpetrator's hands, arms, clothes and weapon. And after the blood had been washed off, I believe that the perpetrator washed down the shower and/or bidet extensively to remove all but trace elements of blood. Maybe the sink was used to rinse off, say, the knife - which would help explain the small amount of blood left on the taps (faucet) and in the bottom of the sink.
7) I don't share your belief that the break-in was staged. However, even if it was staged, there is a logical explanation as to why it would be in Guede's interest to stage a break-in even if he were the sole attacker (if, for example, he'd been let into the house by Meredith, and he subsequently wanted to mislead the police away from suspecting the narrow group of people who Meredth would have been comfortable letting into the house).
8) Whilst I can understand your "feeling" in regard to the so-called "mixed DNA" in the bathroom, I don't agree with the random chance element to your analysis. The points where Knox's DNA were found were not random areas of the bathroom (e.g. behind the door, somewhere in the middle of the floor, etc). They were in the places where someone who regularly used the bathroom would be expected to deposit DNA: round the plughole in the sink, on the sink taps (faucet), round the plughole of the bidet, around the light switch etc.
Lastly, this is not a case of "spinning the facts" at all. It's a case of looking at the evidence and the prosecution's interpretation of the evidence, and seeking a plausible alternative explanation for this evidence. It's not incumbent upon the defence (or upon any people studying this case) to prove these alternative explanations in order to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's interpretations of the evidence. It is, however, incumbent upon the prosecution to provide proof beyond reasonable doubt of guilt, and this necessarily involves providing proof regarding key pieces of evidence. I don't think the prosecution has met its burden of proof with regard to the evidence in the small bathroom. But I respect your right to disagree. It will be interesting to see how the appeal court sees it.
