But that doesn't make it
probable without evidence and rational argument. Let me put my bunny suit on and I'll give you a theory of how
you're potentially involved in this murder. Nothing personal, I've done it for myself as well, it just illustrates what one can do with a nasty suspicious mind and being able to turn 'possibles' into 'probables' without anything more than than psychobabble and sophistry for the evidence and argument stage.
What partial clean-up? Is there a lamp in the future of this argument? How can there be a clean up when there's bloody shoeprints and
invisible 'footprints' discovered with luminol in the hall, bloody shoeprints all over the murder room, and things like bloody handprints, putative seminal stains and blood all over the murder room that might well have contained DNA of anyone else being involved in the assault? I'll allow that Rudy tried some half-hearted sopping up with towels because there's
evidence of that, but you don't get anywhere without
evidence with me, unless you have a really good
rational argument. This does not mean accounting for one improbability by inventing another implausibility!
And it was
blown completely out of the water! The original case was exposed through the Massei Report, the appeals documents just wasted the rest of it away, to those of rational cognition. Think of what you're reduced to arguing? It would be easier to make a case Rudy was innocent than Amanda and Raffaele are guilty, wouldn't it?
However, the burden of proof is not reversed for the appeal, it's still innocent until proven guilty and beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial of the first instance for strategic and historical reasons often doesn't reflect this it appears.
That wasn't a scratch, it was a hickey, not a bleeder. The ear wasn't bleeding anymore either, otherwise the police would have noted that when they did their examination. They take those extremely seriously in Italy, if you've followed Frank's blog you know they have records from way back and they go looking for evidence of wounds to solve other cases, and occasionally exonerate the innocent. If there's a murder, they--like Steve Moore--know that odds are there will be evidence of such on the attacker; like there is on Rudy for instance on his hand.
You've seen the crime scene photos, that bathroom looked clean by college student standards even
with the mess made by Rudy. Before that you could barely see the blood on the tap. Bright lights and a close up were needed to make it apparent, and it wasn't that much anyway. It could easily be missed, and obviously was, or she didn't care that much. Don't you contend she was a slob anyway? Thus she'd have had lower standards of cleanliness than someone expecting a white-globe inspection.
The evidence proves at some point Rudy went from the murder room to the front door while the bloody shoeprints faded to nothingness along the way. Rudy's lack of DNA in the bathroom is interesting, but as Massei points out in the passage I quoted above to Sherlock, not improbable. He was also
cleaning thus less likely to leave DNA. It's not like he was involved in a death struggle in the bathroom! I will allow there might have been a minor clean-up here, though it's not necessary.
If he didn't come in the window, then why'd he stage the break-in?
