Apply to GB if all else fails – she seems convinced that such evidence exists in the case of AK.
Am I being too subtle again.
If we take carbonjam72’s google powered translation /argument as accurate GB is, by the ToD argument, highlighting for Cassation that RS is not claiming that he upholds AK testimony before Massei w.r.t. the night of Nov1st. Quite the contrary.
Do you see?
Perhaps GB is not that subtle?
If cj72 can turn up the section where RS’s appeal definitively makes it clear that RS was with AK between 21.00 and 00.10 then obviously this argument is false.
The question of alibis is not, nor has it ever been, a substantive issue in these cases at trial. Your egregious failure to understand this simplest of points is demonstrated by you, almost daily.
The substantive issue at trial is that the prosecution contends, (and Massei and Nencini (but not Hellmann) accepted), that both Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito left his apartment and killed Ms Kercher with Guede, citing different evidence, the debate about which you carefully avoid, presumably because you cannot find an argument in support of any of it.
Nowhere in the trial record will you find any reference to any claim by the prosecution that Mr Sollecito refused to alibi Ms Knox. What you will find, on the contrary, is an acceptance by each trial court that both Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito provide alibis for each other.
Furthermore, you state that Mr Sollecito killed Ms Kercher - stabbed her to death, as part of a 3 on 1 attack. You have failed to produce any evidence at all in support of this contention, despite having been challenged to do so and the court doesn't even support you.
You have been incapable of looking at the interrogations of the 5th and 6th (from which most, if not all your comments originate) for what they are - illegal, lawyerless violations of the defendants' human rights, with illegally obtained, compelled statements, ruled inadmissible by the Supreme Court, used illegally, by Nencini in defiance of his superior court, to convict Ms Knox, as follows:
“It appears suitable to also point out how the statements made by the girl to the Police and then to the Public Minister during the night of November 6, 2007, are
of undeniable interest also in the context of the reconstructive evidentiary framework specifically pertaining to the murder.” (page 101)
and:
“And on the other hand, as it has already been said, it is Amanda Marie Knox herself who places herself, even if together with Lumumba and not with Sollecito, at Piazza Grimana on the night of November 1, 2007, after 21 pm.” (page 130)
and:
"One can hence assert not just that the statements given to the Police at 1.45 am and to the Public Minister at 5.45 am of November 6, 2007, by Amanda Marie Knox constitute a crime of calumny against Patrick Lumumba, but also that said calumny was fabricated with the specific aim of deflecting the suspicions of the Police from the defendants.” (page 142).
To quote from Luca Chelli's translation:
All of these statements make use of the content of statements whose use has been declared inadmissible by the Supreme Court already in April 2008, hence the Florence Court openly admits using against Knox documentary evidence the Supreme Court had ruled being totally inadmissible for use against its author (1.45 am statement) or against anybody (5.45 am statement).
Let's see, shall we, whether you have the integrity to consider and confront the wilful lawbreaking of Nencini and the wit and intelligence to wonder what, in the event these verdicts are confirmed, the ECHR will make of Nencini's illegality. This is on a par with the clearest evidence, I suspect the European Court will have seen in any case brought before them, at least for the last ten years, of a violation of Article 6.
