Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

The problem is, you need to provide a combination of such answers, that would be possible when taken together and would fit the known facts. Apparently it's not that easy because neither Massei nor any guilter achieved this feat to that day.

Let's start with Toto, he sees AK and RS at 21:28. Why have they left the flat, and why (or aren't they?) are they carrying a 30cm kitchen knife? Where is Guede? What is Meredith doing? Why isn't she calling her mother?

Let's try the following combination (just one).
Curatolo doesn't see AK and RS (he mistakes the day and the charachters). They do not carry any knife with them. Amanda goes out alone and meets Guede at an early time (like 21:00). They walk home. Sollecito comes only later. As Sollecito comes, Guede is sent away. He is drunk, goes to the bathroom, then Meredith enters the scene and there is a quarrel. In the quarrel, Guede harasses Meredith and the other two don't stop him, maybe because Amanda and Meredith are now in an agressive mode one against the other. So Amanda - drunk and smoked, not exactly lucid - doesn't stop the sexual harassment. However, Guede is too drunk to control his movements and she gets wounded in her neck. She utter a very loud scream but someone keeps her arm tight and puts a hand on her mouth. Somebody else runs out. Then somebody makes an awkward attempt to rescue her, brings towels. But someone else wants to kill her. And they finish her.
Meredith's phone call gives its ping to the cell in the area of via Sperandio at around midnight, and what causes the phone to ping this cell, is that the phone is transported at that time (not at 22:13 as the defence says, which is not in between the cottage and via Sperandio and does not locate the phone in Parco S. Angelo). The phone pings the new cell as a consequence of having "lost" the signal of cell 30064 becoming too weak, enters roaming mode and catches the best signal. This is the actual phone record clue.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well, this is the whole point of asking for the stains on the pillow to be tested, since they argue there's a possibility they belong to this second person. In which case, he would have left some pretty definitive DNA evidence.

I wonder though if this is just an additional argument to get the Court to agree to the testing. If the theory is they belong to Rudy, the Court could just say it's pointless testing them anyway, since it wouldn't absolve Amanda and Raffaele. Whereas if the defence argue they might belong to a second person, that would change the whole theory of the crime, and so it would be important to test them.

From the defence's point of view, if the stains were tested and found to be Rudy's I think it would help their case, even if in theory it wouldn't absolve them. It would mean very strong additional evidence against Rudy in the bedroom, and would highlight the weak to non-existent evidence there against the other two.

That is a very good point - as long as they are positive it is not RS's they can't lose. Thats very good thinking on their part for once but wouldn't it be a hoot, if it did come back RS's......

 

[Fine]

Mountaineering in Perugia

Sure, but that's expected.


He has no grounds for most things he say. Prosecution never argued it was impossible to climb to that window. If they were so sure about it (and they weren't) they would order an experiment to nail the defense, but it would be an obvious failure for them.



A guy standing on the grating has the windowsill at armpit level. Rudy's arm reach would be 70-80 cm from the armpit. There's more then enough to reach the latch with his fingers without straining himself. If his arms are remarkably short he still can extend himself on his toes or place one foot on the ridge above.

__________________

Thanks for your considerate response, Katody Matrass.

In trying to get some accurate measurements for the wall and window I strolled over to Bruce's site and there read Jon Hendry's analysis of Rudy's alleged intrusion. In turns out that Hendry, a flagrant Innocentisti, agrees with Massei! ....Rudy couldn't have reached the latch while standing on the iron grating of the lower window. See Hendry.

For what it's worth, at that point Hendry would have Rudy (vigorous, gymnastic he-man) pull himself up with one hand---his left hand, on the window ledge--- until high enough and then stick his right hand through the broken window to reach the latch. (Don't try this at home.)

///

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

It seems like everyone on the pro-guilt side is shuffling their feet and waiting for someone else to put forward a theory than they can then champion, but nobody has any idea what that theory might be.

I affirm the situation is this: there is evidence of their involvement, but I don't know their degree of involvement and what exactly they did. And I think it is be better to keep in mind multpile possibilities on parts of the stories. I don't know at what point, for example, Raffaele Sollecito comes to the cottage. I don't know what purpose originates the use of the kitchen knife, but there are possible purposes though (a prank for example).
I think instead, many theories are possible, and they are very different, simply too diferent one from each other to be just chosen as the best working model. It is certainly possible to build a theory based on a kind of prank organized with the complicity of Sollecito. it is possible to build a different theory based on acasual murder, originating as Rudy and Amanda are having sex at Amanda's home. It is possible to build a theory based on the purpose of stealing Meredith's keys to the downstaris apartment, and a maybe a bad prank involving the cat living at the downstairs apartment (that was found with a deep cut at his ear). It is possible to build a theory based on a small drug fueled party. Several scenarios could lead to a quarrel and a decision to kill Meredith in a more or less planned manner.

 

[Machiavelli]

Every print would be coincident with that blob.

Not mine.

 

[platonov]

I understand the demographics and the editorial slants of those UK newspapers, I use to read those fairly regularly along with the Daily Express up until about five years ago for overseas news. Maybe they've changed somewhat, but I doubt it. I also know The Mail at least has mellowed somewhat since it was the favorite of a fellow called Mosley way back in the day. I'm betting in a later era it was pleased with that "rivers of blood" speech, and that's the sort of thing you're getting at. I find the irony sublime, but I've been told I have a twisted sense of humor.

I suspect you've got a hammer, and you're looking to nail what you can see with this big 'X' without realizing that it might mislead you in this issue. That's not what's motivating people here, it's a byproduct of confronting a risible injustice from a bizarre situation. That narrow focus caused you to misjudge someone for a Mail reader, when if you look back a week or so ago you'll find his post about superheroes and colonialism or whatever it was that strongly suggests he's not.

If you think about it, someone who is actually a 'FOAKer' (I'm not) is probably from around Seattle, which is kind of a glittering jewel of the 'Left Coast' over here--it's not a hotbed of xenophobia to put it mildly. What you should wonder about is 'what would cause people normally not like that to sometimes breath fire like they were regular Mail readers.' Just once, for the intellectual exercise if nothing else, perhaps you might stop accepting every ridiculous excuse for a brutally botched investigation complete with CYA and stonewalling to this day, and stop to think what it might mean if you subjected the police in this matter to the same scrutiny you would if this had happened in Texas. If you put the work into looking then perhaps you will get a peek behind the curtain.

Or you could just stay 'in the flesh' and keep 'waiting for the worms.'

It appears you have yet again misinterpreted [the fault is mine no doubt] a simple & discrete point (and its further development), as indeed both you and Withnail did regarding the line of his I later used.
I really cant make it any simpler.

Briefly : as to your historical analysis [which is OT] suffice to say you have the relationship between Moseley etc and Rothemere & co confused at best & possibly back to front - and whatever irony you think you now see is based on your misunderstanding of the current pitch of the Mail and the popular press generally.

Your definition of FOAker is geographic in a narrow sense - mine is not [more physiological or cultural & in a broader sense not confined to any one nation] which might explain your argument and consequent belief that its immune to this analysis.

I was hoping you'd like that, now you have something to go with 'hottie' and 'Dreyfus'--collect them all and impress your friends!

I have already done so - see my earlier ideas for new thread titles; it was but the work of a moment, this 'stuff' is hardly original so it comes to mind easily.
I have to admit London Johns ideas and suspicion over the new thread were much funnier

Your faith in the 'FBI guy on the TV' [and rationalizations surrounding some (several/many) basic mistake regarding the facts of the case] along with Withnail's gratitude to some deity or other for having won life's lottery make this debate somewhat surreal and probably futile from my point of view.

.

 

[Katody Matrass]

__________________

Thanks for your considerate response, Katody Matrass.

In trying to get some accurate measurements for the wall and window I strolled over to Bruce's site and there read Jon Hendry's analysis of Rudy's alleged intrusion. In turns out that Hendry, a flagrant Innocentisti, agrees with Massei! ....Rudy couldn't have reached the latch while standing on the iron grating of the lower window. See Hendry.

For what it's worth, at that point Hendry would have Rudy (vigorous, gymnastic he-man) pull himself up with one hand---his left hand, on the window ledge--- until high enough and then stick his right hand through the broken window to reach the latch. (Don't try this at home.)

///

I'm sure Hendry is very conservative in his estimations.
Whether Rudy would have to raise himself on his elbow a bit or not is questionable, what is sure is that reaching to the latch is easy.

The window height could be measured with the help of the big O marker visible in some photos. The width of the window looks like 75-80 cm and it's height is around 150 cm, 160 cm max. The latch handle is noticeably not in the center of the window height but slightly lower. I would estimate that height at about 70 cm from the sill. And you don't need to put your whole arm inside to unlatch it - if you can reach with your fingers it will unlatch effortlessly - that kind of latch gets loose when worn off and that window is old.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Not mine.

I think so, but every woman's of similar size.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Let's try the following combination (just one).
Curatolo doesn't see AK and RS (he mistakes the day and the charachters). They do not carry any knife with them. Amanda goes out alone and meets Guede at an early time (like 21:00). They walk home. Sollecito comes only later. As Sollecito comes, Guede is sent away. He is drunk, goes to the bathroom, then Meredith enters the scene and there is a quarrel. In the quarrel, Guede harasses Meredith and the other two don't stop him, maybe because Amanda and Meredith are now in an agressive mode one against the other. So Amanda - drunk and smoked, not exactly lucid - doesn't stop the sexual harassment. However, Guede is too drunk to control his movements and she gets wounded in her neck. She utter a very loud scream but someone keeps her arm tight and puts a hand on her mouth. Somebody else runs out. Then somebody makes an awkward attempt to rescue her, brings towels. But someone else wants to kill her. And they finish her.
Meredith's phone call gives its ping to the cell in the area of via Sperandio at around midnight, and what causes the phone to ping this cell, is that the phone is transported at that time (not at 22:13 as the defence says, which is not in between the cottage and via Sperandio and does not locate the phone in Parco S. Angelo). The phone pings the new cell as a consequence of having "lost" the signal of cell 30064 becoming too weak, enters roaming mode and catches the best signal. This is the actual phone record clue.

But this way you've thrown Massei to the trash. No Toto and no kitchen knife...

And you created new questions. Why Amanda left Raffaele alone? How did she meet Guede? It wasn't a preplanned appointment, or was it? How Raffele knew where to go if both of their phones were not active? Was it planned too?

A lot of such questions spring out, for which you need to provide answers and not far-fetched ones...


I think this is a fascinating problem and not an easy one.

Good night (morning), see you later

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Let's try the following combination (just one).
Curatolo doesn't see AK and RS (he mistakes the day and the charachters). They do not carry any knife with them. Amanda goes out alone and meets Guede at an early time (like 21:00). They walk home.

While we know that Amanda knew Guede by sight, there is no evidence I am aware of that Amanda was close enough to Guede that she would invite him home. It's also not clear why Amanda is going home in the first place - why leave her new boyfriend's nice warm apartment at 21:00 to go out in the cold night in the first place?

Sollecito comes only later.

This doesn't work - someone was using his computer from 6pm to 1am.

As Sollecito comes, Guede is sent away. He is drunk, goes to the bathroom, then Meredith enters the scene and there is a quarrel. In the quarrel, Guede harasses Meredith and the other two don't stop him, maybe because Amanda and Meredith are now in an agressive mode one against the other. So Amanda - drunk and smoked, not exactly lucid - doesn't stop the sexual harassment. However, Guede is too drunk to control his movements and she gets wounded in her neck.

Why does Guede even have a knife out in the first place? Plus Amanda and/or Raffaele (if he could have been there, which he couldn't) have absolutely no motive to protect the psycho who just stabbed their housemate in front of them.

She utter a very loud scream but someone keeps her arm tight and puts a hand on her mouth. Somebody else runs out. Then somebody makes an awkward attempt to rescue her, brings towels. But someone else wants to kill her. And they finish her.

Then Rudy rapes her as she dies, and both Amanda and Raffaele decide that instead of screaming, running, or calling the police on their mobile phones that they should protect Rudy instead... is this really a scenario you find plausible?

Is this supposed to be the scream that Nara heard, and if so at what time could this possibly be, given the truck outside from 22:30 to 23:30 while the house was dark and silent?

Meredith's phone call gives its ping to the cell in the area of via Sperandio at around midnight, and what causes the phone to ping this cell, is that the phone is transported at that time (not at 22:13 as the defence says, which is not in between the cottage and via Sperandio and does not locate the phone in Parco S. Angelo). The phone pings the new cell as a consequence of having "lost" the signal of cell 30064 becoming too weak, enters roaming mode and catches the best signal. This is the actual phone record clue.

If you have ever presented evidence that the 22:13 ping actually took place at midnight I missed it and I have to ask for a reference or a link to your original post. I was unaware that there was any evidence whatsoever that the computerised phone records were off by two hours.

Sorry, this attempt has major holes in it that make it worthless as a coherent theory of the crime.

I affirm the situation is this: there is evidence of their involvement, but I don't know their degree of involvement and what exactly they did. And I think it is be better to keep in mind multpile possibilities on parts of the stories. I don't know at what point, for example, Raffaele Sollecito comes to the cottage. I don't know what purpose originates the use of the kitchen knife, but there are possible purposes though (a prank for example).
I think instead, many theories are possible, and they are very different, simply too diferent one from each other to be just chosen as the best working model. It is certainly possible to build a theory based on a kind of prank organized with the complicity of Sollecito. it is possible to build a different theory based on acasual murder, originating as Rudy and Amanda are having sex at Amanda's home. It is possible to build a theory based on the purpose of stealing Meredith's keys to the downstaris apartment, and a maybe a bad prank involving the cat living at the downstairs apartment (that was found with a deep cut at his ear). It is possible to build a theory based on a small drug fueled party. Several scenarios could lead to a quarrel and a decision to kill Meredith in a more or less planned manner.

None of those sound remotely plausible to me. None of them explain a three-way murder where all three participants have sound reason to keep quiet, none explain why Amanda and Raffaele would be hanging out with Guede, none explain why they even left the house, none explain the computer activity, and none fit the time of death since there's no time for a drug-fuelled party between when Meredith got home and when she died.

None of these are fleshed-out theories. None of them come close to being a complete, coherent narrative. Yet already they're all incoherent or incompatible with the facts.

So the claim that there is even a single theory of the crime that makes sense, fits the facts as we know them and has Amanda and Raffaele guilty of Meredith's murder sinks still further under the water.

 

[Solange305]

My theory? Really?

Rudy swinging like a gymnast from window to window? Me? Really?

I was referring to one of the innocenti theory. I have not kept track of what everyone in this forum, individually, believes of each issue. But I do remember the general stances. The point still applies though, I didnt catch you telling Charlie Wilkes how unbelievable that sounds, unless I missed it, please point it out.

So, outline to me again the hypocrisy I'm showing please.


I thought it was clear, but let me try again. Both sides seem to have ideas about the crime that others find far-fetched. To try to act like only the guilters do is hypocritical.

And no, I'm not worried about the upcoming appeals. I'm not worried about whether Knox and Sollecito win or lose their appeal. The only people who should be worried about that are Knox and Sollecito, their families and friends, the people directly involved in the case, and the Kercher family (although one hopes that they are interested in the correct justice being properly applied). I am merely interested in the outcome. It seems that you and many others are more personally invested though. And for someone who (I assume) has never met the victim, the suspects or any of the direct participants, I find that strange, to be perfectly honest.

I personally do not believe that you are, and that isn't why I posted those words. But since you accused another poster of being defensive just for posting an adversarial comment, and accused them of being worried about the appeals, I thought it was pretty funny considering that almost every comment you make is insulting someone or belittling them, yet somehow if someone else does something similar, they are defensive and worried in your eyes. You know, pot calling kettle black and all that.

And why am I supposedly personally invested? Because I post on the case and argue about the merits of it? How am I any different than yourself in that respect? I only recently started getting involved in this case, unlike you who has been posting at several forums (and taking quite opposite stances) for quite a while now. It seems silly to accuse someone of being personally invested in something just for doing the same thing you do day in and day out: posting on a case.

 

[Solange305]

Around 21 they were relaxing at Raffaele's place, they had weed, food, a bed, a PC with movies and music and comfort of undisturbed intimacy and of a bathroom not shared with flatmates. So why did they decide to switch their phones off, take a 30cm kitchen knife and go outside into the chilly evening?

Who knows, just because Im not a mind reader doesn't mean there isn't a reason. It could be anything, maybe they wanted to get it on at Amanda's apartment for a change of scenery, maybe they wanted to use her toys this time, I don't know. It doesn't mean that there is no reason why they didn't. Are you saying that as long as you have food, weed, a bed, a pc, and a bathroom you would never leave your house again, for any reason whatsoever?


At 21:28 Toto saw them for the first time on the piazza. Rudy was not with them. Where and when did they meet him?

After that but before the murder?

In the meantime Meredith broke the phone call to her mother before connecting, and didn't try to call again. She is at home for half an hour already. She made no calls, send no texts, didn't even change her street clothes or take off her shoes.

I don't think that proves anything, we can speculate what she did and why she did it, but I don't think it is proof either way to prove anything toward any side. Like others have said, maybe she was waiting for her mother to call her back. Maybe she was in the living room when the three came home, and spent time talking to them before they murdered her.


The print ascribed to Raffaele was measured by Rinaldi as 245 mm long. Vinci measured it 215 mm (closer to woman's size). I'd rather bet on Vinci as he corrected ILE's errors multiple times. All the prints are rather blurry from overapplying of luminol and some photos are badly shaken (camera blur). No footprints of other tenants or Meredith's boyfriend were taken for comparison and there is no way to tell with any certainty to whom they really belong.

Thanks for explaining that, let me look into that more before replying, I am a little confused on the prints at this moment.


Ask him. Maybe he doesn't know you can easily reach to the latch and open the window while standing safely on the grating.

It's possible, but Charlie seems to know much more about this case than many others do, I have not seen him say that he agrees with our side that Rudy could not have climbed through that window (or that it was not an obvious choice of entry points for him), but I get the feeling that for him to believe a different scenario than you all, there is a good reason for that.

P.S. I forgot to address what you asked me about bringing the knife, that is something that bothers me, I don't have an excellent answer for that. I think there are possibilities, maybe Raffaele was going to use it to cook at Amanda's house and wasn;t sure what kind of knives she had, maybe there was a prank scenario they were planning, I don't know. I know you won't find any of those convincing, but I still think that the evidence points to them being involved, and the problem I have figuring out the knife isn't enough to convince me the court made an error in convicting them.

 

[Solange305]

Solange explicitly referred to this forum, not to you alone.
In your comments for example - it is just a random example from the latest posts - you addressed Kermit and the guilters saying they just devolved energy to an irrelevant issue (the police "parade") and it would be better to deal deal with "real" more fruitful topics.
And everybody here knows that the mentioned topics about the police alleged "unprofessional" behaviour - like the press conference, the "parade" etc - had just been brought up by innocentisti like you, Katody Matrass, for the umpeteenth time. They are always thrown in and "used", and higlhlighted, and called important, by the innocentisti like you and not others. These details that you want to abandon as irrelevant are always brought in by the innocentisti and not by the guilters, repeatedly, and on the repeated claim they are important (like your most recent one).

Thank you Machiavelli, Im glad someone understood.

 

[Solange305]

Hi, TomCH, with that strong foundation, could you help Solange with constructing the crime theory according to Massei^*)?



*) Only if you agree with Massei of course

Huh? I think you misunderstood. I am not taking up the task of responding to Kevin Lowe's demand, and I am not attempting to construct the crime theory with anyone here at this point. I answered some questions, and maybe that was my mistake, but I'm not going to start going round and round about this again, after all this time I think you know our theories about what happened (more or less) and have already pointed out why they don't fit your supposed "facts". The problem is, our theories will never match because we don't agree on the "facts" that you take as proven and absolute. I really don't need to hear for the umpteenth time about TOD and stomach contents and miracle ears, if I don't agree the first couple of times you say it, I won't agree now. You can call me stupid and ignorant and every name in the book, but no matter how hard I try, I cannot come to the same conclusions you guys do, and discount some of the evidence that points to them being there that night.

 

[Mary_H]

This shows you are reading what you want.

Amanda said on December 18. she "used the bathmat to go to her room". She mentioned this. I always said that he mentioned this the first time on December 18. It was still a in vague terms though.
But this was elaborated during the dialogue in court with her lawyers. Meaning it was made more detailed, more elaborate. In this dialogue Amanda and her lawyers higlighted further elements to stress that she produced the luminol prints right on that occasion.

There is no problem for Amanda with having her bloody footprints anywhere in the house. Rudy's bloody shoe prints were in the hallway in front of her bedroom door, and Amanda had to walk through them to get to and from the bathroom. When she opened the bathroom door after her shower, a rush of steam would have flowed into the hall, moistening the dried blood on the floor. Shuffling the damp bathmat through the hallway might explain why only two of Rudy's shoe prints remained visible on the floor in front of Amanda's room.

The luminol doesn't seem to have been very sensitive. Shouldn't it have picked up a lot more blood traces than just footprints?

 

[Solange305]

Of course Vinci cannot beat your professional 99% confidence assesment

Are you now arguing that Machiavelli is wrong because Vinci is the expert? Do I really need to point out the hypocrisy in that?

 

[Mary_H]

oh god sherlock holmes:I read the article you linked three times,if you can not see that it is a pro innocence article,there is not much point in attempting to have an honest debate with you

when the forensic results came back with no trace of Amanda or Raffaele in the murder room.Absence of proof should have being proof of absence

But by then Mignini had organised a doctor to tell Amanda erronously that she had aids,he was already under indicment for abuse of power and he was past the point of no return

that he has being able with the help of his close associates the judges to prolong this debacle thus far is a scandel that will shame Italy for a long time.But the game is up as far as the international media is concerned,and it has being for a long time for all independant forensic experts and criminologists

Very nicely said, billyryan. Welcome to JREF.

 

[Solange305]

I think you are right and Machiavelli is wrong

That statement was in response to Rose thinking that maybe Amanda invented the story due to hearing the prints might be hers, not anything directly said by Machiavelli.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>I suspect you've got a hammer, and you're looking to nail what you can see with this big 'X' without realizing that it might mislead you in this issue. That's not what's motivating people here, it's a byproduct of confronting a risible injustice from a bizarre situation. That narrow focus caused you to misjudge someone for a Mail reader, when if you look back a week or so ago you'll find his post about superheroes and colonialism or whatever it was that strongly suggests he's not.

If you think about it, someone who is actually a 'FOAKer' (I'm not) is probably from around Seattle, which is kind of a glittering jewel of the 'Left Coast' over here--it's not a hotbed of xenophobia to put it mildly. What you should wonder about is 'what would cause people normally not like that to sometimes breath fire like they were regular Mail readers.' Just once, for the intellectual exercise if nothing else, perhaps you might stop accepting every ridiculous excuse for a brutally botched investigation complete with CYA and stonewalling to this day, and stop to think what it might mean if you subjected the police in this matter to the same scrutiny you would if this had happened in Texas. If you put the work into looking then perhaps you will get a peek behind the curtain. <snip>

Of course, being from Seattle, I can't resist responding to this post with a comment or two. First, I don't know if there is anyone on this thread (or any thread) who is actually an official member of the Friends of Amanda, except for Charlie Wilkes, who does an admirable job of administering their website. Hence, the moniker "FOAKer" is technically not accurate as a way to identify any supporter of Amanda and/or Raffaele. Most of us don't object to being called that, though, as far as I know, since a rose by any other name smells as sweet.

Second, on the subject of racism, I object to this charge primarily because it puts the innocentisti (or FOAKers) over a barrel. I mean, what choice does one have when the black guy actually did do it? You can't pretend the black guy didn't do it just to avoid being called racist by those who want to play the race card.

So (platonov), unless you can find evidence of racism in other aspects of my life, you cannot assume I am racist because of my stance on this case.

 

[Kaosium]

Briefly : as to your historical analysis [which is OT] suffice to say you have the relationship between Moseley etc and Rothemere & co confused at best & possibly back to front - and whatever irony you think you now see is based on your misunderstanding of the current pitch of the Mail and the popular press generally.
.

I'm not going to pursue this as while I was writing it what I've been asking about since the moment I first registered to post occurred: an attempt is being made to square all factors and produce a coherent theory for guilt. Thus I'd rather follow that discussion. However I think I made my point poorly and would like to clear it up:

I believe it was the general law and order stance of the Mail and others that caused them to produce pieces so detrimental to the reputations of Amanda and Raffaele in the English-speaking press and caused so many to come to an early conclusion they were guilty. They were inherently less skeptical of police statements and failed to question things they damn sure should have, and some instead went way overboard when seeded with dis/misinformation--to put it mildly.

That's why I disagreed that the Mail was a natural 'ally' of the 'innocentisti'--because in the end what I suspect this case comes down to is the veracity of the Perugian police, especially regarding what occurred on Nov 5/6. The other issues you raised are simply extraneous to that in my mind, and I find it ironic that because of the stance of the Mail on what I find barely relevant you'd fail to see its stance on the one that damned them most.

However I'm starting to think that as long as we each think the other is thinking backwards, my mind is working the way I want it to.