acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 40,983
Of course it's absurd. It's a lie they told to the press to make it look like there was a clean-up.
Here's my post about it from 2010:
....Barbie Nadeau wrote, "But the lack of fingerprints has raised eyebrows. Those who believe Knox is guilty say this points to a cleanup. Those who defend her, including her attorney Carlo dalla Vedova, say that the police weren’t doing their jobs. He asked one of the investigators why fingerprints were not taken from other objects in the house, such as her books and guitar. “It is me and the officer responsible for the inspection who decides what should be analyzed,” testified Antonino Francaviglia. “We decide based on our investigative experience."
You will recall that the police also relied on their investigative experience and intuition to recognize that Amanda was guilty of the murder, before they had collected ANY evidence. Steve Moore's discussion on injusticeinperugia provides a good description of the massive quantity of evidence the police "decided" NOT to analyze.
Original article:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/04/25/amanda-knoxs-bloody-footprint.html
As I said, you can't raise eyebrows that you didn't find many of Amanda's fingerprints if the investigation was selective and not comprehensive. But it doesn't surprise me that Nadeau would write that. This has been her MO since the beginning.
Last edited: