After reading the last handful of off topic posts, can anyone wonder why this thread has regularly been put on moderated status?
So let's discuss the case and the trial then?
In my view of what should be proved to convict someone of murder you normally need to provide some very basic proof in some very critical areas of evidence put before the court.
Motive and oppurtunity and suspicious behaviour and all that is all very well, but what the prosecution basically has to do is to show how, where and by what means the crime was commited. (And of course things like that there has been a crime commited in the first place and that there is intent and so on. )
In this case, the prosecution has to show that Knox and Sollecito were present at the murder scene at the time of the crime, who they participated in the murder and who they were connected to Guede.
Without the knife, the bra clasp and Curatolos testimony there remains nothing to connect them to the crime in this way.
There is no murder weapon.
There is no witness to say other than that Knox and Sollecito spend the night at Sollecito's flat, and there alibi is thereby not disproven. There is no physical evidence of Knox and Sollecito in the room where Kercer was killed or on the victims body.
There is nothing to connect them to Rudy Guede, no communication between them whatsover that can prove they did meet up with him at the night of the murder and you need to add that to the fact that there is no known connection between them before that point either. All that is shown is that Knox and Guede had met socially, but not that they met when not part of a larger group.
This is enough to establish reasonable doubt in my opinion and you can add to that the testimony of Rudy Guede himself and that of Mario Alessi and som other inmates that Guede acted alone. The rest doesn't matter. Even if the staged break-in still seems likely to the court, even if the clean up seems likely to the court, even if the changing stories of Knox and Sollecito seem suspicious to the court, even if the mixed DNA and footprints can raise doubt of their innocence, even if the footprint of the bathmat could be Sollecito's and not Guede's; it's still not clear evidence of participation in the murder itself. Therefore they should be acquitted.
I can't imagine this Italian court to reason any other way. The main reason for Massei's court to come up with a guilty verdict was the DNA evidence, the bloody footprint of Sollecito and what they percivied as the suspicious behaviour of Knox and Sollecito. Everything else in the Massei report just followed from that.
All under the assumption that the knife, bra clasp and Curatolo have been thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the court.
