What about the knife wounds?

Were the wounds consistent with different knives or not?

If they were,

and if it is true that the bathmat print was Raff's, and other prints were wiped off the floor, then:

Is it theoretically possible that Raff walked into the room and stabbed a dying woman? - that would not lead to leaving DNA only on the floor and the knife - which may have been a different knife, from the one in the flat, and was discarded and never found?

Surely, if the jury convicted on the basis of the prosecution's story then they must have gone into detail like that in order to examine the plausability of the reasoning?

With all the uncertainty about the many disparate bits of evidence and/or red herrings, I don't see how one can judge the judgement without reading the whole proceedings.

Certainly I agree that there is no real evidence that Raff and Knox were tumbling around the room with Meredith. But I think what is on trial is how murders come about as much as the act itself. That may be a difference in Italian law.

I think some people feel that Knox and Raff may have been morally responsible, by their inconsiderate behaviour. Maybe they were bullying Meredith a bit and playing games that maybe Guede didn't understand.

Here's exactly how Knox arrived on the radar as a suspect.

By the way, as a point of information, do you have a cite for that? TIA.

(Of course my main question is whether I have understood you correctly. Are you saying that the initial physical evidence offered no reason to suspect Knox or Sollecito and therefore subsequent evidence developed against them should be discounted or even disregarded?)

It is natural in ANY investigation to first look at the people who live at the house, but >you can't let that give you tunnel vision to the physical evidence around you.

I agree, but so what? The issue of whether the police developed tunnel vision is a different question.

Anyway, please tell me if I misunderstood you. Your point seems to be that the initial physical evidence offered no reason to suspect Knox or Sollecito and therefore subsequent evidence developed against them should be discounted or even disregarded.

Did I get you right? Or did I misunderstand?

Whether to suspect her or not isn't the issue.

That's different from what you seemed to have been saying before.

Your position now seems to be that the police acted unprofessionally and focused on Knox without a reasonable basis. You are saying that they concluded Knox was guilty without a sufficient basis.

First of all, I am skeptical of your claim. I asked you to provide a cite for your claim about the source of initial suspicion of Knox and you failed to do so. I did my own search and found nothing backing up your claim.

But more importantly, your argument doesn't have much bearing on the ultimate question of guilt or innocence of Knox or Sollecito. If I were arguing that Knox and Sollecito are probably guilty because the authorities concluded they were guilty, then you might have a point, assuming you could substantiate your claims.

In that respect, it's a bit like the OJ Simpson case -- the police may very well have rushed to judgment against OJ. But even so, it seems very likely that he committed the crime he was accused of.