I already know your view. The problem is that have very close to first hand experience with these realities so I know exactly what to believe. And this includes Amanda's description of her interrogation.
These realities include Perugia? They include Mignini or other people? Does it include Anna Donnino?
And Knox's description refers to, what, the narrative in her book, or the different narratives she offered - or failed to offer - on other occasions?
Does your belief extend up to Knox's defence claim that she suffered a false memory syndrome? That she mystariously recovered her memory later? Does your belief include Knox's maintaining that she didn't lie, that she had these memories of blood on Raffaele's hands, that she actually remembered about Lumumba in her apartment?
I won't add things but there are some many other elements on this topic. I ask myself how a rational person could approach this and find something Knox said "credible", or even "consistent".
You also may like to consider that Knox and Sollecito told an infinite series of inconsistencies days before and after the alleged "interrogation".
I've seen convincing proof in this forum that DNA results were hidden in some instances.
Where? And how did it happen that no judge noticed it?
It's also very easy to see the contrast with the work done by the Carabinieri.
Yes, but the Carabinieri were working in 2013, as judge-appointed experts outside an investigation, and on the analysis of just one DNA sample.
This argument does not make an investigation be unreliable. If you wanted to develope a rational analysis, then you should collect data about DNA investigation performed on a large number other cases, by both RIS and Scientific Police, maybe over tha same years, and you would need to use that as term of comparison.
The TMB test is not a confirmatory test, the problem is that she didn't bother (or did she?) to perform one. I personally think she did perform one but didn't like the results, but it's impossible to be sure. But regardless, you can also look at not performing the test as the same thing as hiding the test.
If you consider the investigation, you actually cannot account any single action and choice to the investigators alone, because the defence experts were there on Dec. 18. when the footprint analysis was performed, and should have attended all the laboratory tests (and may have required them to be done, if they were missing).
The truth is the TMB tests were just performed, but not written down in the final report. However, their records was made accessible when the defence requested it.
You may think people here are very naive but not all of us are. Amanda and Rafaelle were being interrogated as suspects, not witnesses. The formal classification is irrelevant.
When I hear this claim I can hardly understand what people mean exactly. The "formal classification" has a content, and has to do with what determines something to be lawful or not. Whether the police subjectively suspected about them, to me, is irrelevant. What is relevant is if there were good reasons to interrogate Knox as a person infrmed about facts before 01.45, and if it was correct to stop the interrogation at that time, and if it was lawful to collect a spontaneous statement.
To me, these things were all done properly and the choices and papers demonstrate a high quality - in terms of compliance with rules - of the investigation work. Many police investigators would have not stopped the interrogation at 01.45. They would have gone forward. Several prosecutors would have not considered Knox a potential suspect before 05.45. Some prosecutors would have not considered Knox a suspect of murder from the beginning, but just charged her for covering up for the murderer. Instead these investigators made the right choice with the right timing.
I don't believe the budget excuse.
It is actually obvious if you know a little about the Italian system. The fact that interrogations are not recorded is verifiable, it is a fact. It is normal. Therefore, it is not suspicious. Recording all police interrogations would carry a foolish expense, because of the beaurocratic rules of the Italian system: whenever there is a verbatim recording, there will be someone who will request a transcript. Imagine if all parites could require transcripts of all investigation activities.
The most interesting aspect in this post of yours is, in my opinion, your reasoning regarding the body temperature measurement. You are saying that the measument would be imprecise. I think the only way to interpret what you are saying is that it was late for the measurement to be usable to estimate tjhe TOD (I mean, there's no reason why the measurement itself would be imprecise). But how would you know that without knowing the actual TOD?
Your reasoning seems circular. It looks like you require knowing the TOD as a pre-requisite in order to calculate the TOD. You say "how would you know that without knowing the actual TOD?". It makes no sense. The temperature measurment is the only datum (together with environmental temperature), the TOD is only a probabilistic deduction along a curve. But when you are at a distance of 12 hours or more from the probable TOD, the error is so big that it becomes useless to the effects of this case.
Meredith's body was discovered at least 12 hours after her death, and temperature could not have been taken before 16.00 - 16.30 in any event (time of arrival of scientific police). So the temperature that they would have taken at that time, we don't know what exactly that would be, but what we can deduce is that it would have been anyway too low to calculate TOD with any reliable useful margin. You could only calculate an indication over a 5-6 hours frame like something between 20.00 and 2.00.
