Is a narrative of the crime necessary? There's always going to be loads to chose from, particularly when we can't agree what half the facts of the case are that we are trying to fit the facts around.
I suspect that a prosecution narrative would necessarily seem unlikely. The odds of them getting involved in a murder, prior to the murder, are very low, so necessarily the odds of whatever event caused them to be involved (assuming they were) is many thousands (I'm probably a few orders of magnitude too probable here) to one against. Once the murder has happened the odds increase enormously of course.
If you want me to make up a theory of the crime whose a priori odds are thousands to one against I can, but I don't see it helps any as I won't be the least bit bothered if it gets shot down. I'll just come up with something else.
The problem is that so far none of the pro-guilt posters have even managed to come up with
one that passes the sniff test.
The problems none of them have managed to solve are these:
Firstly, the arguments against the Massei time of death are scientifically irrefutable. Meredith can't have died at 23:30 with 500mL of chyme in her stomach from a 18:00 meal, no food matter in her duodenum, and identifiable vegetable fibres and cheese in her stomach. It's as crazy as saying a four metre tall man did it.
Secondly, once you accept the earlier time of death then Nara becomes irrelevant and Curatolo is either irrelevant or actually proves that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. If you abandon Curatolo entirely Amanda and Raffaele have an uncontested alibi for the actual time of death, and if you don't abandon Curatolo then Curatolo is their alibi witness.
Without Curatolo to contradict their alibi we have evidence that the prosecution accepted at their first trial that Amanda and Raffaele were at home until 21:10. We have defence documents to show that someone opened a Naruto file at 21:26, which if watched would run until 21:49. We have the fact that Amanda and Raffaele claimed to have watched Stardust after that, and that they made this claim
before the police destroyed the evidence that could have proved or disproved this alibi. We also have defence documents that purport to show that Raffaele's computer was in use throughout the entire time from Meredith's earliest possible time of death (21:05 or so) to the latest possible time of death (maybe 22:00) and even on past the pants-on-head irrational Massei time of death (23:30).
To set against that alibi evidence we have exactly nothing from the prosecution in terms of time-sensitive evidence that proves that they were in the murder house around the time of death. They have luminol results that could have gotten there any time and are ambiguous to boot, they have DNA on a bra clasp and a knife that could have gotten there any time and were not handled satisfactorily to boot, but nothing that contradicts the alibi evidence except Curatolo, who (as I said earlier) exonerates Knox and Sollecito if you believe him.
So we've got strong evidence that Amanda and Raffaele were at home at the time of the murder, a dearth of evidence in the murder room, absolutely no evidence of blood on their clothes, or of missing clothes, no remotely plausible motive, no remotely plausible story about how they teamed up with Rudy to sexually assault and murder Meredith in the tiny possible windows you can open up by disputing the computer evidence, no positive evidence of a staged break-in, no positive evidence of a clean-up, and in fact no remotely coherent pro-guilt narrative.
This is why people like Capealadin are reduced to repeating "Why haven't they done X!? From my totally uninformed perspective I am super incredulous! If you can't explain this they are guilty somehow, it's good enough evidence for me!". Tabloid psychology, trivia and uninformed incredulity are all the pro-guilt side have left.
I would be very happy for a pro-guilt poster to prove me wrong by presenting a coherent pro-guilt narrative that makes sense of the facts, but nobody has even made a decent attempt.
