Could he have washed his hands, possibly? There was, of course, blood on the taps in the bathroom.
There was. As you are no doubt fully aware it was not Guede's blood. There was no trace of him in that bathroom. It is curious that you do not mention that in your response, because it is quite important. Fortunately this has also been extensively discussed here, and so your omission is unlikely to mislead anyone who has been reading this thread. And, as I said, we all make slips and forget things.
It is courteous in joining a board and a thread to read it before posting. And in your first post you described yourself as a "long time lurker".I know this is a very long thread, and that is something of a deterrent, but it is obvious you have spent time on this case and have read elsewhere. Yet you seem to assume we have not considered the things you raise, and that is just not the case: it is that impression, coupled with a combative style evident from your first couple of posts, which is perhaps leading to a hostile tone. I think the onus is on you to remedy that. Read the thread and then, if you have new facts to offer, I will certainly be interested in those: as will everyone else.
Yes I agree; since none of us were there, these are all simply theories.
Yes and no. Some theories fit the facts better than others, and it is a mistake to believe that all are equal. As was frequently noted at the beginning of the thread, anything
could have happened. The task of the court is to decide what they believe
did happen; and they do not put all possible scenarios into a top hat and pull one out. Once again it seems to me you import an unspoken assumption with this part of your post. It may be what you believe, certainly. But it is not what I believe because to do so negates the whole criminal justice system everywhere.
A sexual motive is, of course, a motive (some might say more of a motive than disagreements over cleaning). However as Mignini has told us, a motive is not necessary.
Well we would need to unpack that a little, of course. A sexual motive is indeed often put forward as a motive. So is it your contention that Guede entered the cottage with the intention of raping Meredith Kercher? I must confess I have not heard that before, so it is something new you have brought to the discussion. But if that is the case I am wondering why he didn't? Perhaps you are suggesting that he was incapable of doing so? Either impotent when it came to sexual violence, or perhaps unable to restrain her sufficiently? I suppose that could be the case, though given their relative size and the fact that he must have had two (or as some continue to argue, at least one) knife, I find it hard to believe he could not subdue her sufficiently to rape her if he could subdue her enough to remove her trousers. Perhaps that is a failure of my imagination only: but in my mind it is actually harder to forcibly remove someone's trousers than it is to rape them having done so.
If one enters with the intention of rape it hardly seems likely one would go so far if you couldn't get it up: that discovery might enrage someone, I suppose, and anything is possible, but I just find the idea unpersuasive. Has that been seen in other cases of murder with sexual assault?
I also struggle with the notion that someone intent on rape goes to the toilet first. I would have thought you would "go" before you left the house: at least that is what I was taught throughout my childhood especially if the outing was for something important: and raping someone is surely important?
Of course one might find one's bowels loose through excitement or other stress and emotion once one had embarked on a plan of rape: again I have never heard of this but perhaps it is one of the details which the press suppress when they report rape. Unless there is evidence to that effect I am afraid I am not buying it. I honestlycannot imagine anyone intent on rape, whether for lust or power, maintaing the right mindset while sitting on the toilet: course some find **** arousing in itself: but if you are one of those then I fail to see why you would bother with the toilet when you could include it in the rape scenario. And if you are angry or lustful enough to stayin the right mindset while moving your bowels then I fail to see why you would not flush: flushing is pretty much automatic for me: I imagine it is for most people. And I do not see the urgency on this scenario. I am not a sexologist though.
Alternatively you may be suggesting that Guede entered the house for robbery ( which is the more usual claim for "lone wolf" theorists, I believe). But I do not think that "opportunist rape" of the sort that would require is at all plausible, for reasons I have given upthread. YMMV.
I have argued all through that we do not know the motive and we will probably never know: I think that is generally the case in violent crime. To say there is a sexual motive is not to explain anything: it is merely to re-label something and it has virtually no explanatory value at all. We accept it because we are used to it but in fact it makes no sense whatsoever. Most murder and rape doesn't. We find that difficult to live with because of the way we are made; but I think it is true. So I agree with Mignini (and almost everyone who has to do with rl criminal justice): the motive is not relevant. The demand for it is relevant however, and this was also extensively discussed upthread
Even martial arts are no defence against a knife at your throat. Meredith did have defensive wounds on her hands, however.
I did not say or imply that such training would protect effectively: but as Alt+4's link shows I think you are simply incorrect if you are implying that dna under the finger nails is not to be expected. Even from women with no such training. This is in fact very unusual
"bag the nails." "Always find out if they bagged the nails," she said. "It's what the best detectives do right away." This was, of course, many years ago. Now, they teach it at the Academy, and it's the first thing all detectives, not just the best ones, do. Or, they better do.
"They literally tie small plastic bags around the nails to preserve the evidence," she said. "So that later, they can scrape under the nails, for bits of skin, hair --- DNA that can be tested." Remember, when we had this conversation, DNA was still a relatively new tool for detectives. But the courts already seemed to agree that it was a 99% indicator. "Because almost always --- a woman fights back."
Guede had already been linked to one theft because he'd been caught with a stolen laptop. Is it likely he'd risk being linked to a murder in the same way? And as pointed out earlier, it would rather have blown his 'I was on a date' story if he'd been found with Filomena's stolen laptop in his backpack...
On the same reasoning, why would he take the phones?
Your belief that Guede didn't open Meredith's handbag is presumably that there was no DNA found on the opening.
No. It is because no blood was found inside it. The person who moved it had bloody hands and this is on the outside. It is not inside so far as I know. To me this can only mean it was not opened and searched.
By the same reasoning, can we conclude that since Knox's DNA wasn't found anywhere in the bedroom, she can have had no part in the murder? And of course, if her money was taken at all, it would seem somewhat more likely that the person who took it was the person whose DNA was found on her purse, don't you think?
No.
Guede's friends denied they saw him on the night of the murder. So no, he probably didn't arrive at his friend's house by 23:30. Whose flat was closer to the area the phones were found, Guede's or Sollecito's?
You may be right about his friend denying that. There is a lot of stuff which turns out not to be confirmed and I cannot remember my source for that. So ok: he has no alibi until 2 am in that case.
I do not understand the point of your second question. It seems to me you have a point to make and so I suggest you do so.
If you're not interested in discussing a particular aspect of the case, you are of course free not to respond. In my experience, new perspectives on an issue are always a good thing, and everyone has their own particular take on that issue to contribute. Given the drawn out nature of this case - the long wait before the imminent Judge's report is published, and the still longer wait for the appeal - new contributors play a part in keeping a thread going. Alternatively, we could all stop talking about the case until the Judge's report is published, and then cease discussion again until the appeal. Would that be preferable?
A new perspective is always welcome: it is just that you don't actually have one on current showing.
