Firstly, thanks for the response.
Secondly, have at it. I'd be interested to hear it. I may not read it til tomorrow though, about to go to bed.
Thanks again.
I've already got you off topic. You asked for bullet points for the guilt case, I'm about to give you 11 points which seemingly argue for innocence, from the 400+ page motivations report (reason for judgment) of Judge Massei, who convicted them in 2009. Here it goes:
Judge Massei in his 2010 motivations report, finds as factual:
1) there is no psychopathology in the two students. Massei says the problem is that they were immature and outside of the normal checks and balances of family, away from which they had no reference to check their behaviour.
Both defendants are very young, and were younger still at the time the events [took place]. The inexperience and immaturity characteristic of youth were accentuated by the situation in which both found themselves because it [the situation] was different from that in which they had grown up and did not have the usual points of reference. Massei p. 391
2) there is no bad relationship between Meredith and Amanda
One of the motives advanced by the prosecutors was that Knox killed Meredith out of revenge or jealousy.
3) There is no trace of forensics attributable to Amanda Knox in the murder room
Instead, Massei talks about Amanda's forensic traces in other parts of the houe: "Even the traces highlighted by Luminol therefore show the existence of evidence against Amanda, making [the Court] consider that she, having been barefoot in the room where Meredith was killed and having thus stained her feet, had left the traces highlighted by Luminol (which could have resisted the subsequent action of cleaning, on which more will follow) and found in the various parts of the house which she went to for the reasons shown above (her own room, the corridor, Romanelli’s room)"
If Knox had been barefoot in the murder room - why was it not seen? Massei says nothing about a clean-up in Meredith's room, only in the space in the hall between Meredith's room and the bathroom... but once again, there is no forensics to support even this clean-up. Massei admits he simply has to assume one was made, or he could not reason why nothing was found!.
4) there is no "mixed blood" which combines Amanda's and Meredith's.
Massei describes repeatedly, "Knox's biological material found mixed with Meredith's blood," but fails to see why finding Knox's biological material (hair, skin flakes, etc.) is suspicious in the very cottage in which she lived and in the very bathroom she shared with Meredith.
5) there is no motive for Knox and Raffaele to have been involved in this.
Therefore it may be deduced that, accustomed to the consumption of drugs and the effects of the latter, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito participated actively
in Rudy’s criminal acts.... A motive, therefore, of an erotic, sexually violent nature which, arising from the choice of evil made by Rudy, found active collaboration from Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.
Where's the "sex-game gone wrong"? Or the "Amanda was jealous of Meredith"? Massei simply says they got caught up in a momentary "choice for evil".
6) Rudy Guede had no contact with Raffaele prior to the murder, and Amanda Knox and Rudy probably met up to three times in the most casual sense possible and always in groups.
7)Raffaele called the carabinieri before the postal police arrived.
Raffaele called the Carabinieri to whom he describes the situation and specifies that there had been no theft, and we have already pointed out the inconsistency of such statement the inconsistencies in Amanda’s and Raffaele’s subsequent behaviour on the arrival of the agents from the Postal Police
8) There is no constant changing of stories by Knox with regard to the murder.
The recollection by Amanda Knox of the period between the afternoon of November 1 and the morning of November 2 presents some variations [i.e. changes or fluctuations in the story]. However, one constant is the affirmation of her non-involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher.
9) The climb in through Filomena's window is very possible, the report rules it out only on the grounds because Massei assumes no one woud risk going up three times.
This scenario appears totally unlikely, given the effort involved (going twice underneath the window, going up to throw the stone, scaling the wall twice) and taking into account the uncertainty of success (having to count on the two favourable circumstances indicated above), with a repetition of movements and 50 behaviours, all of which could easily be seen by anyone who happened to be passing by on the street or actually coming into the house. (p. 50)
10) there is no scientific elements arising directly from forensic science which could rule out the injuries having been caused by the action of a single person.
to actually answer this question, of whether the criminal action which determined Meredith's death was the action of one person alone or several people acting together, it is necessary to take into account, not only the contributions of forensic science, but also other elements which have emerged and which are relevant to this point, and to evaluate the situation in a way which takes the comprehensive picture into account. (these other elements, Massei claims, are Meredith's stature, Meredith was awake and lying on the bed, she lacked defensive wounds, and that one person would find it difficult to remove/
To be clear, Massei, in fact DID rule multiple attackers and actually named AK and RS as two of them. But he did not rule out that theoretically speaking this could have been a single attacker.
11) Massei only discusses a theoretical clean-up in the hall way, not in the murder room.
See above.
All these are gleaned from Judge Massei's motivations report, the one supposedly justifying their conviction.
