But Guede was found guilty of participating with a group in a murder. The victim had almost no defensive wounds which suggests that someone else held her down. Also, there is DNA evidence that ties Knox and Solecito to the crime.
For example: The victim’s DNA was found on the knife in Solecito’s apartment. He claimed that he’d accidentally cut the victim while she and others were having dinner at his apartment. Does that sound likely to you? Plus, it’s believed that the victim never went to his apartment.
As for Knox’s implication of the bar owner, which sounds more likely: That she was really confused but seemed to have images in her memory of being at the apartment when her boss murdered her friend? Or that, when the police mentioned the bar owner, she suddenly saw a way to implicate someone else?
Then why is only Rudy's DNA and fingerprints on the victim and at the crime scene.
The victim had almost no defensive wounds which suggests that someone else held her down.
or tied her up with her own clothes.
Also, there is DNA evidence that ties Knox and Solecito to the crime.
Not true -- the prosecutor when confronted with the absence of their DNA or prints at the scene said that Knox and Solecito cleaned up their own DNA but left Guede's -- LOL.
For example: The victim’s DNA was found on the knife in Solecito’s apartment.
Nope -- at best poor testing protocol. Even they are not stupid enough kill somebody and hold onto the murder weapon.
He claimed that he’d accidentally cut the victim while she and others were having dinner at his apartment.
Where did he say this??? Show me.
Plus, it’s believed that the victim never went to his apartment.
That's more than likely. Do you really believe that he would take a knife out of his drawer over to kill another person and then bring it back and put it in his drawer to use to then make sandwiches with? Who holds onto a murder weapon??? Even Rudy knew enough to throw his knife away -- and her keys away and her cellphones.
Anyway the testing they did on the material that they claim was taken from the knife defied their own protocol. When asked to reproduce the test they refused because there was no DNA there.
As for Knox’s implication of the bar owner ...
It was the police who suggested and pushed the bar owner as an accomplice because of deleted text messages to him on her phone. She didn't bring up his name -- the police did and kept pushing it. When she texted "See You Later" to him the police took that not colloquially but literally.
They spent two months trying to find DNA or anything trying to connect those two to the crime and found nothing -- nothing -- nothing.
The best they could do is find Knox's DNA at the hamlet where you would expect it to be because she lived there.