Well I'm not that prejudicial.
It's not prejudice, Curatolo is simply an unreliable witness. People's memories do not get better with time, and anyone who claims to "recall" new, important, detailed facts long after the event and long after they are questioned might as well be claiming to have unbroken an egg.
It's also worth repeating yet again that once the evidence-based time of death is established, Curatolo gives Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito an alibi. Curatolo is a no-win game for the guilters, but you have to be capable of logic to see that, which is why they keep going back to that dry well.
No, but there is an important rule in play her about the processo indiziario and the definition of reasonable doubt.
The concept is, the defense may not consist in a series of alternative explanations that are all remote, weak or unlikely. One improbable explanation is acceptable, but not a series of explanations that all employ weak, improbable and/or remote alternatives. The defense cannot be "made" this way.
That's all well and good. The problem occurs when people with an agenda or who just aren't capable of reason start handwaving away perfectly plausible, and in fact
far more likely explanations, as "remote" or "weak".
The luminol footprints are an excellent example. Absolutely nothing about the footprints ties them to the murder. They were not made in blood as far as the police's most sensitive tests can detect, they form no trail to or from the murder room or the bathroom where Guede washed Meredith's blood off himself, and they do not match anyone's feet in particular.
However the guilters remain adamant that any explanation other than "Amanda and Raffaele danced around in Meredith's blood barefoot, then miraculously cleaned up all the other footprints along with all of their DNA and other traces from the murder room using a clean-up method that left absolutely no trace" is "remote" and "weak". Their story is hilariously remote and weak, but as long as they keep a straight face when they tell it they can keep pretending that it's better than the alternative explanation: "Nobody knows what those footprints are about, but there's no evidence they are linked to the crime".
A "small" cleanup is enough.
There incontrovertible evidence of cleanup in the small bathroom, since the bathmat is entirely spattered with blood, while the floor is totally clean.
Stop making things up. The bathmat is not and never has been entirely spattered with blood.
There is evidence of clean up of the external of the doo because of "L9" trace, a residual smearing along the door frame left by a cleaning.
There is also the fact thet the luminol footprint were latent. They were probably diluted blood iyet at the origin, but they became completely latent and, together with them, also one shoeprint disappeared (was enhanced again with luminol).
We've already dealt with the luminol. Any remaining "cleanup" could just as well have been done by Guede as anyone else. He's a disorganised killer, they do all sorts of things that aren't well thought out.
No but, actually, not all the mops were found and tested. If Amanda was at Quintavalle the next morning, this was not to buy bleach, but to buy (a) new mop "head/s".
That's not evidence, it's speculation. Can you prove that
you did not buy a mop head that morning?
Massei remarks that the stained bathmat on the clean floor is itself an obvious evidence of cleanup.
Massei is an idiot, we've established that beyond any doubt.
By my studies, they are absolutely not compatible with both. But I don't know if its' the case to show openly material about this; for sure not on this forum.
Oh boy, the "secret evidence" is back. What's next, [413]?
I strongly suspect absolutely nobody buys your claim to have secret inside information which the police could somehow not present in court but which proves that Raffaele did it. If your secret evidence existed Mignini would have brought it up a long, long time ago.
The fact is Amanda's blood was in the bathroom, on the faucet and on a plastic box. This, itself, cannot be dated. But contextually, it can be: Amanda dated it by saying it was not there the day before, and she did not provide possible explanations for why it could have fallen there in the morning. It was in a very visible place, where it would have been cleaned by Meredith if was there before, and we don't have memories by Amanda about blood losses (blood gets on finger, body etc) even the day before. We have all elements to define "unlikely" that this blood stain is unrelated to the context, since there is no element that would make it likely outside the context. It is not normal that one doesn't know, did not realize, if he/she had a blood loss the day before, it is not likely to have no clue about it; and it is not normal that one does not realize if is bleeding at the moment as amande recalls t have done in her e-mail: a normal person checks immediately on his/her body if thinks a blood stain comes from his/her ear face or or body; that would be the first thing, not calculating the size of the stain to conclude it's not yours because too big.
Since the police agree that Amanda had no wounds or any other sign she was involved in a struggle, what does this pile of speculation get you?
The idea that Amanda bled in the murder room and miraculously cleaned it all up, bled in the bathroom but forgot to use her magic powers to clean it all up, and then remembered her magic powers and used them to to heal the wound seems "remote", "weak" and "unlikely".
. And he was unable to explain what they did in the evening, what they ate, if they made sex, at what time they went to bed and got up. Knox at first was unable to establish if they ate at Raffaele's or at her cottage, then she postponed dinner until after nine or ten, while we know it was over by 8:40. Maybe you say it was easy to agree a workable story, but the fact is they failed to do so. They were unable to produce a story in agreement. They had a crappy alibi because they had no alibi: a true alibi is always better than an invented "coordinated" alibi, and it is not always obvious and easy for two murderers to quickly agree and remember even on a simple timeline. Especially considering that probably they don't even agree on the murder: it happened, and maybe they had to deal with it quite caotically.
