Just as a meta-remark: in fact you're now arguing that any discussion of the AK case would be CT, whichever way the truth lies. I don't think that's your intention, as you've argued before against that - and I don't agree, for both sides.
For the case that Knox and Sollecito are guilty, I find it a stretch to call it a conspiracy. This is of course semantics, but basically, if I understand correctly, the prosecution's scenario is that Guede, Knox and Sollecito colluded on that specific night in attacking Kercher under the influence of narcotics. To me, "conspiracy" would involve some modicum of planning and aforethought with a clear mind, neither of which are present. Feel free to disagree on the meaning of "conspiracy" though.
I
hate semantic games personally. Thus someone insists I call it a 'conspiracy,' I'll do so, as three people coming together to commit a crime is basically the definition, though as you note generally indicates premeditation. However it
is a case of three people who barely knew each other coming together to rape and murder someone for no discernible reason or some utterly bizarre ones.
As for the cops, bungling and covering it up corruptly suffices for me, with a little scapegoating of Amanda thrown in for flavor.
As for the prosecution theory, they kinda had trouble making up their mind, they couldn't get anything accepted by the Italian Supreme Court which would have lowered their burden of proof, not that it mattered as there was so much 'reasonable doubt' anyway the new Judge Hellman said the only thing the Massei Report really established is that Meredith Kercher died.
They had ideas for a satanic ritual murder, remember the day of death was All Saint's Day, and Mignini is a devout Catholic and likes his satanic conspiracies if you read those links. He lost that battle but tried to reintroduce it later only to be dissuaded by his co-prosecutor Comodi. They also tried 'choosing evil' due to getting stoned and reading Raffaele's manga comic books and deciding to go kill someone, the Supreme Court wasn't impressed. Frankly it's all theory anyway, anything anyone can come up with is just as good as what they decided on.
For the case they're not guilty, I think it's inappropriate to call it a conspiracy. The prosecution and police have as their job to find the perpetrator, and once they are convinced they have a credible case, they present that to the court. It is not expected of individual police officers to air dissenting opinions to the public. Sometimes the police focuses in on one suspect too early and devotes all its efforts in trying to prove that case ("tunnel vision" - is that also a term in English for this phenomenon?), and even then I wouldn't label it a conspiracy. Even in such cases, it is very rare for policemen to speak out against their colleagues (the
Enschede fireworks disaster is a case that comes to mind where this did happen). I'd reserve the term conspiracy for those cases where deliberately certain avenues of investigation are not pursued for ulterior motives - e.g., not going after the Iranian-backed terrorists
- or deliberately someone is railroaded against whom there was strong exculpatory evidence.
I was re-reading my first post on the board recently and noted I initially thought it was still possible that most mistakes by police could be explained by confirmation bias and incompetence, but you keep running into those lies and what happened to the three computers fried one after another. They also couldn't 'find' any evidence of computer activity on the last one after about 9:27 or whatever, however Raffaele's defense claims they can now show computer activity all through the possible times of murder with at most the screensaver activating for six minutes according to those logs.
I don't think you can make that case. There is physical evidence that puts Knox and Sollecito at the crime scene - you can argue about the quality of that - there is no physical evidence that puts them elsewhere and they have no alibis but each other. Still entertaining the "if they're not guilty" case, at most this is a run-of-the-mill miscarriage of justice.
Actually, there's
isn't physical evidence of either at the site--until 46 days after the murder when the mindless confirmation bias error is exposed on TV and it is revealed that a six year-old can spot patterns better than they can. That's where the video linked above comes from. They rush out to the crime scene and 'find' that bra clasp--which has mysteriously migrated across the room from where it was seen in the initial videos where they must have forgot to collect it--but until then there is absolutely no evidence of either in the murder room. For a while they just 'thought' they had some, but it was all Rudy's. That knife came from Raffaele's drawer and never left it that night, I re-wrote the whole stupefying litany of why out in the main thread.
As for outside the room, they threw everything they could find of Amanda at her they could possibly pretend might have had something to do with it, but in the end it's just evidence she lived there. Her DNA in her own bathroom sink where Rudy washed up is hardly a surprise, the footprints Stefanoni lied about not testing negative for blood for so long were never compared to anyone else, and being as they point towards--not out of--Meredith's room they're probably hers. Naturally they'd find evidence Amanda lived in her own house, but that hardly makes them have anything to do with murder, but they try to sell every bit as suspiciously as possible.
However, the Massei Report contains all the classic evidences of a conspiracy theory where the rubber hits the road. It tries to take isolated things out of context without being able to combine it into a coherent whole--or provide any damned evidence any of it happened. 'Suspicious' things that aren't that 'suspicious' upon reflection, and just ludicrous reasoning to try to paper over the fact there's nothing backing it up. Mignini had to extend the time of death an hour past the last scientifically possible time of death in his closing statement because of Curatolo's rambling on the stand, reading how Massei handwaves that away with out of context quotes is entertaining.
His favorite phrase, 'It is possible, indeed probable' and then going on to say something stupid like 'they decided to wait until morning to clean up because it would be easier (after the blood dried!) and there was no chance of the body being discovered.' Or his pretending Amanda was carrying basically a butcher's knife in her handbag for days as 'protection' when Raffaele had a little knife collection and if she really wanted a knife for 'protection' she wouldn't take one that would cut up her bag or fingers reaching into it, (for which there is no evidence of cuts or tears) she'd just get one from Raffaele.
Also the whole thing starts with Mignini, who comes up with the idea three people raped and murdered poor Meredith with absolutely nothing to support it outside those few items that certainly didn't implicate Amanda as being actually involved in the crime anyway--she was supposedly cowering in the kitchen with her ears covered when she 'vaguely' and 'confusedly' has her 'repressed memories' of Patrick killing Meredith.
Note that when they get done putting her through the ringer and arrest Patrick, Raffaele and Amanda they'll get the forensics back later, and find nothing but evidence of Rudy at the site. They have a cat burglar who recently was caught breaking into a second story window who leaves relative gobs of evidence at the scene and flees to Germany, but they arrested three people who left utterly nothing and who stayed and called police.
