I do not hold any firm views on whether the pair are innocent or if they were involved. As various details in the case get reviewed, they generally fall into either support for the defense, support for the prosecution, or inconclusive. I also attempt to not make the dichotomy of guilty vs. innocent; in this case the two sides are either innocent, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the pair were involved. One article I’d read indicated that under Italian law, there is little distinction made between accomplises and those who commit the actual crime; if proven, they’re all equally guilty in the eyes of the law. I’ll have to go back and see if I can find that, or find another reference that supports that argument.
What follows are some preliminary thoughts of a case for the defense, based on what I’ve read up till now. I’m not putting them forth as what I believe- just an interpretation of what I’ve read that could be built to argue for the defense.
I have no doubt that others more familiar with the details can provide a counter-story. In coming days, I’ll work on an argument for the prosecution that would counter these claims. I’ll also extend this to look at the other testimony and evidence provided.
There are some things that are uncontested. Its uncontested that Knox & Sollecito were getting high the night of the muder. The next day was a holiday; they apparently had plans to go out of town
In arguing for the defense, the conflicting statements of time can easily be explained by the effects of the drugs; simply, you lose track of the passage of time. The conflicting stories about when something happened are thus easily explained away as confusion about time resulting from the use of the drugs. Depending on the usage and the quality of the drugs, this effect can be quite pronounced.
Questions on taking a shower both at night and at her home in the morning can be countered by the fact that they did have sex; it is not atypical for people to have showers after sex. Knox and Sollecitio’s relationship was a recent thing, so Knox needing to go home the next morning for a change of clothes is understandable. It is also understanable that she would wait to take a shower at home when she can put on fresh clothes. I’ve done the same thing when staying over at other people’s houses. Tell me which of you like to put on the same old dirty clothes after taking a shower?
I have not seen a statement about their mental state on the morning of the discovery, nor have i seen any statement about smoking hash again that morning. It would not be difficult to put forth the argument that the heavy usage of drugs the night before (supported by Sollecito’s prison diary), the quality and the mix of the drugs, or a session of smoking drugs when they woke up extended the effects of the drugs into the discovery of the scene. This was a holiday, it would have been a fairly typical thing to ‘party’ heavy the night before and/or again the next morning.
Uncontested too is the night of Knox’s “interrogation”, she went to the station willingly with Sollecito; it was sollectio that was being questioned. With the drug-induced confusion experienced the night of the 1st, Sollecito couldn’t accurately recollect the events that night. At some point he expressed his confusion and stated that Knox may have gone out.
At this time Knox was pulled in for questioning; she was still a witness. I believe these first statements were made as a witness, and thus without a lawyer and inadmissable to use against her. In the reporting i’ve seen so far on this, there is confusion as to whether ‘Patrick’ Lumumba had said the bar was going to be closed on the 1st, or if she wasn’t needed because it was slow. Reviewing Knox’s phone, the police discovered a text where Knox seemingly indicated she was going to ‘see him later’ that night. It was apparently only in the phone contact list as ‘patrick’. Knox had deleted his incoming message. If she believed at this time that the bar was going to be closed and had stated it to the police, its not unreasonable to think the police in finding out that Lumumba had closed the bar that night, pressed her hard to remember the events of that night. Knox too was under the drug-induced effects of a hazy memory, so the questioning on Lumumba started.
At some point, Knox turned suspect, but the police didn’t stop their questioning. This is the statement that is inadmissible against her in the murder case, but brought to the court due to the defamation charge. Eventually her court-appointed defense showed up.
Much of this questioning was done in italian, and knox spoke it only haltingly at the time, probably a first grade level if that. She decided that since the Italian police were apparently misinterpreting her statements, she wrote down something in english to give to them so that someone could appropriately translate her statement. It seems a reasonable thing to do, but her haziness on the events meant the statement wasn’t decisive enough to change anything; she now had to sort out two memories- the night of the 1st, and the statements of the all-night questioning and what the police were interpreting. At some point, Knox may have started believing the Police’s suggestions that she was at the house but couldn’t remember because she was traumatized, and they were looking for something to pin on Lumumba.
Knox may have initally believed the police had other evidence against Lumumba. It wasn’t until later that she realized they were going based off her statements during her interrogation, statements that she herself called into question in writing the note the morning of the 2nd. At this time, she still didn’t know who was guilty; she neither had any evidence for or against lumumba.
The absense of Knox’s fingerprints in the house can be partially explained by a possibility that the victim had cleaned after getting home from her friends house on the 1st. It is fairly typical behaviour to clean up after a night out, or to want a clean house prior to studying, as the prosecution puts forth as one of her activities that evening. Thus, most of the shared living spaces may have been cleaned of Knox’s fingerprints by the victim herself.
The argument thus far establishes sufficient reasonable doubt for an acquittal.
There are problems, however; witness testimony is one. The second is Sollecito’s firm statements that the door in the bedroom that had the window broken was open when they got there, but Knox’s testimony never states that she opened the door or looked in the room; her testimony was that when she took a shower, the door was closed.
The other problem is with the cleaning of the apartment; despite Knox taking a shower, only one of her fingerprints were found- in a glass in the kitchen. Since blood was found in the bathroom and on the bath mat, but nowhere else around the hallway or bathroom, it is inarguable that blood was cleaned off the floors in the hallways and bathroom. The prosecution’s belief (and that of many of the judges who reviewed the case over the last two years), is that Guede had left the house, did not have time to clean, and had no motive to come back to clean, and would not have left his own evidence around if he did clean. Also is the prosecution’s argument that the body was moved post-death, to arrange the scene to look like an attempted rape. Guede surely would not have arranged it thus, particularly if you believe his argument that he had consensual relations with the victim.