Every once in a while, some fact about this case becomes clear. One thing which is clear as a result of the Nencini motivations report, is the importance of sealing in the "multiple attacker theory" as a judicial fact.
As Luca Cheli notes in his commentary on the Italian-language, original version of the Nencini report, Nencini simply concedes that the multiple attacker theory is a "judicial fact", found so at Rudy Guede's fast track trial, a trial-process at which neither Sollecito nor Knox had representation.
The reason this needs "sealing in" as a judicial fact, is that letting the evidence be evaluated by independent experts is dangerous, as even the Massei trial showed. At that trial, six of the seven experts who gave testimony on the subject said there was no particular reason to favour a multiple attacker theory over a single attacker - namely, Rudy Guede.
Even Massei in his 2010 motivations report concedes what the experts say, coming to his own wrongful ruling in favour of multiple attackers by, as he says, looking at the "overall evidence", in short he lets the conclusion determine his opinions about a piece of evidence. But be alert - Massei does not rule that multiple attackers is a fact on the grounds that the evidence surrounding that determination says so. The evidence surrounding it is inconclusive.
Added to this is Hellmann's 2011 motivations report, which neither confirms nor denies multiple attackers. All Hellmann ruled was that his court was charged with ruling on whether or not AK and/or RS had been involved, which his court ruled they were not.
Hellmann's problem, then, was being indifferent, really, to the multiple attacker theory.
But is is so important for Nencini's report, that he has to lead with it, and even Nencini's concedes he does so because some other court has told him he has to - the ISC which has signed off on the Borsini-report, which now enshrines in Italian law that Rudy did not act alone.
JREF poster Stilicho comes out of hibernation upon the Nencini report release to proclaim, "at least multiple attackers is now established as factual."
More nuanced observers, Luca Cheli included, go Stilicho one better - Nencini has simply ruled that this has long since been established as a "procedural fact". Stilicho is wrong - Nencini did not rule it on any merits found at the Florence trial in 2013, Nencini said it had been established years earlier with the Borsini "finding". It was done so as a result of Rudy's process - not at any process involving Amanda and Raffaele.
At trials involving them, this is a fair summary of how they have proceeded:
- Massei hears 6 of 7 experts say single attacker is entirely possible
- Massei rules on multiple attackers because of his own "global" view of the evidence, not because of any evidence which by itself necessitates such. (In short the evidence of multiple attackers is not found in looking at the evidence!!!!)
- Hellmann says that it is immaterial if multiple attackers happened, his court is only to rule if Amanda and Raffaele were involved, which they were not
- The ISC quashes Hellmann's acquittals partially on Hellmann's agnosticism about multiple attackers!
- Nencini says multiple attackers is a judicial fact, and since AK and RS are the only ones ever to have been suspected of being those additional people, it must be them.
At no point in any of the processes involving Amanda and Raffaele is ANY evidence submitted which points to them as these mythical extra attackers. At best, 7 experts say that injuries on the victim do not rule out multiple attackers, while six of those same experts also say that the same "facts" do not rule out a single attacker.
Finally, going back to the fast-track, trial-phase-missing Guede process, by definition no evidence in that process was entered either; the conclusion of multiple attackers comes mainly from mutual prosecution/defence stipulations; which obviously the defence (ie. Rudy's defence) will claim to mitigate his involvement.
Therefore the importance of sealing this in as a "procedural fact", to then to make it incumbent upon AK and RS's defence teams to prove the multiple attacker theory false.
Repeat that. In Italy, the defence teams for AK and RS have now to prove the multiple attacker theory false. That's what one needs to do to combat a "procedural fact", even one arrived at by a trial one was not involved in, and at that same trial where it became fact with no evidence presented.
If this is not "sealed in", then the prosecution would actually need to prove it. Which they have never done.
As always in this case, the very burden of proof is reversed, with the various prosecutions and their various theories being entered without supporting evidence.
