The thing that bothers me far more than anything Amanda does on her blog, is being confused about the
evidence.
I was just reading John Kercher's book, (
Meredith: Our daughter's murder and the heartbreaking quest for the truth; 2012, Hodder and Stoughton)
and there is a point where he is talking about the
police telling him that if luminol shows blood, but no blood was evident to the naked eye, it is a near certainty that a clean up occurred or was attempted. I can see why he became
convinced that Knox and Sollecito were involved in his daughter's killing. With the things he was being told by police and legal authorities - such as that his daughter's blood, mixed with Knox's dna, appeared in Filomena's room, and that no traces of Guede were in that room - how could he come to any other conclusion???
Then I hear things from people with far more expertise than I - I have none - who say the luminol traces are not evidence, because they may have been reacting to cleaning agents or fruit juice and the prints and traces may be from prior times. That the crime scene was not staged. That blood droplets in the small bath were probably menstrual, and from prior times.
Halkides is a man respected in his field, so how can I just discount what he says? And C & V - how can they come to such different conclusions from Stefanoni?
It is impossible to overestimate the importance of the mixed blood or DNA or the crime scene simulation:
To me, nothing in this case matters as much as whether or not the forensic evidence holds up.
If it does, then I can imagine many scenarios involving Guede, Sollecito, and Knox, which might have unfolded. We all know truth can be stranger than fiction. BUT: If it does not,
then none of these scenarios has any real relevance or meaning.
If I were on the jury, I would need to
know, beyond a reasonable doubt that:
- a clean-up occurred
- a burglary was simulated/staged
- that dna/blood mixed traces revealed with luminol (in the small bath, Filomena's room ) were legitimate by protocol standards of forensic science
- that Sollecito's footprint is on the bathmat, positively
These things matter FAR more than any behavior on Amanda's part. They are the solid reality of the crime scene. They should not be mere speculation.
Is it too much to ask, in the 21st century, that these things be definitive? If they are, then they are guilty - no matter how sweet they seem. If not, this is simply a waste of time.
As I have said time and again, I am just SO frustrated that I cannot determine this. If the convictions are upheld, I want to
know whether or not I should be glad of this. Conversely, if they are acquitted, I need to know if this is
justice or farce. Just really frustrated :tantrum:
