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.
Well, it is proven, that he had blood on his hands and he obviously paniced. It is also proven, that, at some point, he grabbed a towel. So, what can be drawn from that evidence? He first paniced, shown by the fact, that there were no bloody footprints leading in the directions, where his bloody hand smears were found, then he went to the palce, where the towel was located (I don`t believe, that he went in the bathroom to clean up, as I`ve shown in my last post and the fact, that his shoes obviously weren`t bloody at that time and that there`s no evidence, that his clothes were bloody leads me to the belief, that
only his hands were bloody
at that time). So, what did RG do with his bloody hands and a towel in his hand? He either grabbed the towel to wash the blood off his hands or he immediately tried to use it to staunch the stream of blood (I firmly believe, that he used the towel for that purpose, see my post above) or maybe he thought of both things. As the evidence shows, RG left the scene at a point, where his shoes had blood on the soles. When did this happen? Obviously, when he was near the bleeding body. And when was he near the bleeding body? Yes, when he used the towel and if you take a look on how bloody this towel was, he was there, when the stream of blood was very high. So, highly likely, at this point, he got his shoes bloody. Now, as it`s proven, he left the room, with bloody shoes. And as I don`t believe, that:
-his shoes had
only blood on his soles but also some small amounts on top of it
- knowing the fact, that he must have been near the body and, as pointed out above, highly likely used the towel at this time, it is plausible, that he did get blood on at least his hands again.
So this tells me:
-that he left the scene, with at least parts of his body/clothes in blood.
-that it wasn`t a necessity for him to leave the scene clean from blood.
And as there is no forensic evidence and as I see it, no circumstential evidence, that he ever did a clean up in the bathroom, I, again, don`t believe in it.
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.
I think, you can never prove a piece of evidence with 100% certainity. It`s also possible, that aliens from a remote galaxy were, though extremely unlikely, responsible. I think it comes down to a high probability of the validity of a piece of evidence in combination with the conistency of that evidence with other pieces of evidence with high probability to back it up. I think, that`s what the judges and jury did with the evidence of multiple attackers to accept it.
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?
Well, I`m also very curious about the judges` explenation of why they came to the conclusion, that the footprint must, in terms of dimension, RS`s. As other evidence is consistent, with the footprint being RS`s, I for the present (maybe I change my mind, when the English version of the Massei report is released; but this obviously can take years) believe the judges`s opinion.
Yes, maybe RG was really in the bathroom to get a towel. This would be consistent with the fact, that the part of the light switch in the bathroom, that is used for turning on the light had blood on it, indicating that one with a bloody hand turned it on. But does this necessarily put AK and RS out of the bathroom? No.
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.
Yes, but didn`t the judge explain that, with AK still having some particels of blood on her feet after her washing, which still reacted with luminol!? So, this would explain, why there were no smears.
But to give you some credit. Where are the luminol enhanced footprints, that would lead out of the bathroom? The luminol prints were only found in the corridor, weren`t they?
Well, we`ll see how the judge explains that.
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?
[\QUOTE]
Well, I see no sense, why RG would transform from a bloody butcher into a panicing, scared person, into a cleaning-lady. Btw, was a towel found, that only had some blood smears on it, compared to that towel found, that was fully soaked with blood?
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.
I don`t believe, that a panicing RG, would want to clean up some blood thoroughly from the crime scene, when the crime scene in general was very bloody.
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).
I think, it`s much more plausible for a resident of a flat involved in a serious crime in that flat to stage a break-in, than it is for an unemployed man, who was, though he hadn`t a criminal record, known to the police.
And by the way, since the crime, a lot of people have wondered about the coincidence of RG having broken into a house before this crime in Milan and the break-in, which wasn`t attributed (prosecution/judges) to him though he was at the crime scene. I would explain this "coincidence" as follows:
If you believe the judges, that RG was the instigator/mastermind of this crime and only got AK and RS on board, then it becomes plausible for me, that AK and RS, who were by now also part of a crime, would do things like a criminal, say RG, (though he actually wasn`t one concerning his criminal record) would do. This means, that, for example, AK, who had good reasons for that, staged a break in. She just, as she became a "part of RG`s actions", (though AK`s actions following that became much more serious than RGs ever before) acted in ways, that RG would do.
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.
Wasn`t there a mixed DNA spot in
Filomena`s room, too?
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.
For me, as a neutral person, it isn`t interesting to think about, whether the limit of sufficient evidence is crossed to convict in terms of a jurist.
What matters for me is, to find a conclusion for myself, based on what I know about that case. Though I`m not in the position to be able to say,they must have been convicted in terms of a court as I`m neither a jurist nor do I know all the evidence, I, with my view of the evidence available to me, have the opininon, that AK and RS were involved.
