No logic will ever convince Machiavelli, because he has his own interpretation of what the facts are, i.e:
- Curatolo is a reliable witness insofar as he breaks Amanda and Raffaele's alibi, but unreliable to the extent he seems to give them an alibi by placing them in the park at the alleged time of the murder.
- Stefanoni's test results are reliable, and any problems with her work are either imaginary or unimportant. Scientists who say otherwise are incompetent or corrupt.
- Amanda's statements represent a devious attempt to manipulate the police rather than a capitulation to pressure tactics.
- The footprint on the bathmat matches Raffaele but not Guede.
- Luminol produced reliable evidence that Amanda and Raffaele tracked blood around on their bare feet, whereas the TMB and DNA results that seem to contradict this are unreliable.
- The break-in was staged, as proved by Filomena's testimony about glass on top of the disturbance in the room, police testimony about no glass outside the window, and the sheer impossibility of scaling the wall to get through the window.
To anyone who believes all this, no logic can overcome the conclusion that Amanda and Raffaele must have been involved in the murder.
Conversely, if none of these beliefs is true, then there's no meaningful evidence against them and logic is superfluous.
I comment on this, since it means to represent what I think.
I don’t know if you do that on purpose, but I think there is a bit of strain in wording the logic on some of your points above; there are true elements, it’s true that we have different interpretation of facts, but there is also a degree of twisting my point of view, and I think twisted wording appears an intent to not deal with the actual positions.
The topics you list (as you correctly point out) are not all points that I consider evidence, they are only some. But let’s see.
- Curatolo: it’s not correct to say I consider him reliable or unreliable depending on whether he is unfavorable or favorable to the defendants. He is reliable in the same degree and in the same extent for all parts of his testimony (some parts of a testimony are more likely to be subject to some error, but that’s a different story). No, the logical point about Curatolo is different.
The point is: Curatolo could not provide an alibi to the defendants, in any event. It is a different logical assumption, that has nothing to do with his reliability.
The alibi of the suspects is: they were at Sollecito’s home that night, and they never ever sat on the location where Curatolo spotted them.
The testimony of Curatolo is: they were together in Piazza Grimana for quite a time that night.
The testimony, if reliable, in the worst scenario denies their alibies, while in the mildest scenario it demonstrates they are lying. In no event the testimony can support their alibies.
Anyway it’s academic, because from other testimonies (Dramis, Capezzali, Monacchia) we know the murder did not take place before 22.30.
- It’s correct to say my finding is the bathmat print matches Sollecito but not Guede.
In addition to this, also the dynamic and other aspects can be logically consistent only with Sollecito and not with Guede (there is no consistent scenario for Guede leaving that isolated print).
Hellmann-Zanetti could be a good example of what happens to your logic (blood from flat surface, etc.) when you try to attribute that print to Guede.
- As for Stefanoni, the test results are indeed reliable, this also represents correctly what I see. However the second part of the point is rhetorical twist: the problem of “scientists who say otherwise” is not that they are incompetent or corrupt. If you mean Vecchiotti & C., that’s another story, I think their corruption shows off quite independently from their opinion on the test results. But for the “other scientists” (forensics) , meaning people who criticize Stefanoni from abroad aka Hampikian, Budowle etc., the problem is not their being ‘incompetent’ or corrupt (albeit some of them did also play a part in a corruption scheme).
The few problems with them are: 1. they are not cross-questioned; 2. they didn’t access the trial files and don’t even understand them; 3. they are actually incompetent, because they simply are not trained in the system, they don’t know the law (a forensic consultant must know the law; some mistakenly think that it’s all “science” and law has nothing to do with it; but not understanding the system is a big mistake); 4. The last problem – related to the third – is that these scientists have the mentality of Chris Halkides; they mean to bring that ideological stance, i.e. asserting where the burden of proof lies on their self-defined details, rules, etc. (and the peculiar version they bring crafted in another system and in another reality).
- Amanda’s statements: they are a problem because of what they are, not because of what they represent.
- Luminol produced reliable evidence that Amanda and Raffaele performed a staging, and shuffled towels and bathmat on their bare feet by doing so; the fact is that, contrarily from what you say, TMB and DNA results do NOT seem to contradict this at all.
In order to ‘contradict’ something (to place significant doubt) you would need to put forward a plausible alternative dynamic for producing that pattern of prints, and a likely alternative substance.
- The break in was staged, but this – to me – does not depend on the glass on top of clothes. It depends, firstly, on the inherent illogicality of the point of entry. Simply statistics show that all burglars chose the easiest way in, and there was another very easy way in, and much safer, and absolutely not exposed to view. Moreover, physical evidence shows there was no rummaging of drawers, and all burglars look search into drawers
first, they take money from Amanda's room too, they do not lose time tossing cumbersome useless things from a cupboard. And very important, whenever someone climbs in from a garden, you find soil, obvious dirty prints. The glass shards on the sill are also untouched, hence nobody balanced or crawled on that sill. There is no DNA nor fingerprints in the room. Shutters were half closed. The trail of bloody prints walk straight out (he didn't turn to lock the door; neiher he took care of washing himself). There is mixed DNA of Knox/Meredith on the only luminol spot in the room. And actually you know all the rest.
