Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

I have read Mignini's latest predatory defamation claim against Maori and the journalist, and in it he basically re-argues the case he lost on March 27 2015. He has that right to hold the opinion he does.

It is simply unconvincing, though, that he just asserts the old-tired bits of fantasy - staged break-in, etc. - when his claims/assertions have long since fallen apart.

But they haven't. And by my understanding, the defamation lawsuit appears as a preparatory work for further legal actions.

So.... you are signalling notice that Mignini will continue his predatory lawsuit campaign. It is incredible that anyone supports him, but he obviously retains some levers of power that he will use against others.

Good for him.

The claims within that defamation suit are simply long since discreditted assertions Mignini has always made. Your recent posts here are simply drawn from that. There is no traction within Italy for Mignini's position on these matters - in fact the Supreme Court of your country has dealt Mr. Mignini the final blow.

Simply restating them - as represented in your last couple of posts - is great - you are allowed your opinions. But this is yesterdays news; which has not found traction outside of hardcore Mignni-supporters in Italy.

On another matter - to what do you make of the delay of the Marasca/Bruno motivations report?

 

[Machiavelli]

In Guede's trial didn't the defense stipulate that there were more than one person involved and a staged break in? Knox and Sollecito could not challenge prosecution witnesses (because there weren't any) and they were not allowed to put their own witnesses on the stand. The articulate defense arguments were irrelevant because the prosecution and Guede's defense agreed with each other.

Whether you like it or not, the judicial finding is definitive, and valid, as well as the finding of guilt on the charge of calunnia.

To complain that someone "could not challenge by calling own witnesses" those witnesses who admittedly "did not exist", is quite beyond idiotic. It astounding to me that someone could articulate such thought. Somehow, I am not surprised that this "someone" endowed with such logical skills happens to be a pro-Knox supporter.

It's not finished. There's another delicious piece of logic next: that "the articulate defence arguments" would be "irrelevant" because... the prosecution agreed with Guede's defence. Well, first of all let's say that Guede's defence in fact had an entirely diferent scenario, based on a single male assailant, while he placed Knox on the scene having an argument with Meredith. But besides this detail, imagine now what would happen to your argument if applied to a standard, non-fast-track trial: basically, you are saying that if Guede and the prosecution happened to agree with each other, well, in that event, what the other defence says would become irrelevant. Your argument would be equally applicable to a non-fast-track trial. And equally nonsense.

 

[Machiavelli]

So.... you are signalling notice that Mignini will continue his predatory lawsuit campaign. It is incredible that anyone supports him, but he obviously retains some levers of power that he will use against others.

Actually I didn't say "Mignini" will continue. You add things to my statements (as usual). I said I think there will be legal actions, not that I think they will be carried on by Mignini, or even less by Mignini alone.

Good for him.

The claims within that defamation suit are simply long since discreditted assertions Mignini has always made. Your recent posts here are simply drawn from that. There is no traction within Italy for Mignini's position on these matters - in fact the Supreme Court of your country has dealt Mr. Mignini the final blow.

You are a bit ignorant about Italy.

Simply restating them - as represented in your last couple of posts - is great - you are allowed your opinions. But this is yesterdays news; which has not found traction outside of hardcore Mignni-supporters in Italy.

I'm afraid you don't have any clue about concepts you try to make up. What's a "Mignini-supporter hardcore"? Do Chieffi's Supreme Court section belong to them?

On another matter - to what do you make of the delay of the Marasca/Bruno motivations report?

I expected that. I expect an even longer delay, actually.
Their position is not that comfortable. They are careful. And they must be so.

 

[Machiavelli]

That's the way I understand that it went down.

Italy recognizes that they need to make drastic judicial reforms - they apparently went thru this back in the 1980s, but those earlier reforms didn't fully take since their judiciary resisted the reforms.

Recently, Italy started to once again reform their legal system, but apparently decided to reform their CIVIL code sections first before tackling their CRIMINAL code sections, apparently, because their antiquated CIVIL laws were scaring away foreign investment.

As for Amanda's conviction for libel/slander during her late night (unrecorded) interrogation, Italy's laws in that regards seriously needs to be amended.(...)

Calunnia is not libel/slander.

Calunnia is a malicious type of obstruction of justice.

It's a crime based on malice, and expresses the intent to pervert the course of justice by placing false evidence.

 

[Bill Williams]

Actually I didn't say "Mignini" will continue. You add things to my statements (as usual). I said I think there will be legal actions, not that I think they will be carried on by Mignini, or even less by Mignini alone.



You are a bit ignorant about Italy.



I'm afraid you don't have any clue about concepts you try to make up. What's a "Mignini-supporter hardcore"? Do Chieffi's Supreme Court section belong to them?



I expected that. I expect an even longer delay, actually.
Their position is not that comfortable. They are careful. And they must be so.

I note you are attacking the arguer. But I do agree with your last statement, yes they must be careful to get it right. There is no mechanism of which I am aware that can hold ISC to account for the length between decision and publishing of the M.R. As you said, it may be a matter of praxis, but nothing more.

Can you point to anything that demonstrates any traction fr Mignini's views outside of a small group of Mignini-supporters?

 

[Machiavelli]

If you're correct, then it seems like this case was a perfect opportunity to CREATE a new precedent, NO?

But let's say that this makes it suspicious, at least. It reeks of politics, to start. But not only that: if you don't like "it's not in the code" and you prefer to say "the code has been interpretad in a way in which it has never been interpreted before", well that's basically equivalent. What makes it more suspicious is that the panel which may be called to "create" unusual precedents - the United Section - was not summoned. If someone decided to create a unique precedent, well they did so without asking the appointed organ, and they may have issued a ruling contrary to another SC ruling (Chieffi).

Similarly, our SCOTUS recently decreed (on a 5 to 4 vote) that homosexuals had a constitutional right to marry, and many Americans have likewise argued that our SCOTUS has overreached in their (binding) legal opinion.

Whether right or wrong, it appears that a court of last ditch is a 900 lb gorilla that does what it wants to do, regardless of minor legal technicalities.

Amanda Knox is now officially INNOCENT, so deal with it.

No. She is not. She is acquitted on 530.2 which rules out the possibility to find her innocent. She an obvious liar, she is guilty of voluntarily and maliciously planting false evidence agaisnt a person she knew was innocent, she is currently under trial for repeating such offence, she is an object of another trial involving her lies in Bergamo, and she will be the object of further legal actions soon.

 

[Bill Williams]

Do Chieffi's Supreme Court section belong to them?

It is interesting you would bring up Chieffi, implying he is a Mignini supporter.

On the face of it, Chieffi's court remanded three items to a second, 2nd Grade court for review. All three of those issues went the defences' way. You can, and will, arge that this is not so.

Nencini then convicted (provisionally) based principally on evidence his court did not hear. Significantly, his interpretation of some items was at variance even from the Massei court in 2009 - and Nencini's court did not hear that evidence.

Further, Nencini took issue with Conti & Vecchiotti's work, where no court other than the Hellmann court had that before them, and any criticism of it could be addressed by the defence. Nencini, in essence, simply had the trial after he'd declared them guilty, by convicting them within reasoning found in his motivations report which had not made it to trial.

The Marasca/Bruno court has plenty of room to justify its total acquittals, and complying fully with the remand from the Chieffi court, namely that those thre items were herd, but that Nencini proceeded to illogically convict anyway.

The point being, that is not a criticism of the Chieffi court. That court had issues with Hellmann, enough in their opinion to overturn the original acquittals, enough to remand to the Nencini 2nd Grade court..... so far so good.

Marasca/Bruno will more than likely harmonize Chieffi's concerns into their own complete acquittals. There were questions raised, they were answered, but then Nencini illogically convicted. That's not Chieffi's fault.

 

[Machiavelli]

I note you are attacking the arguer. But I do agree with your last statement, yes they must be careful to get it right. There is no mechanism of which I am aware that can hold ISC to account for the length between decision and publishing of the M.R. As you said, it may be a matter of praxis, but nothing more.

Can you point to anything that demonstrates any traction fr Mignini's views outside of a small group of Mignini-supporters?

Well, I don't know what you mean - you employ strange concepts, as if "supporters" of the other side existed in great number - I can tell you for example the most famous Italian journalist, Marco Travaglio, wrote a commentary the following day where you can understand his opinion, where he stated "we don't know what the judges will write, what we know about is what they cannot write about Knox and Sollecito: they can't say they are innocent". Personally I don't happen to know in person someone who thinks they are innocent.

 

[Bill Williams]

But let's say that this makes it suspicious, at least. It reeks of politics, to start. But not only that: if you don't like "it's not in the code" and you prefer to say "the code has been interpretad in a way in which it has never been interpreted before", well that's basically equivalent. What makes it more suspicious is that the panel which may be called to "create" unusual precedents - the United Section - was not summoned. If someone decided to create a unique precedent, well they did so without asking the appointed organ, and they may have issued a ruling contrary to another SC ruling (Chieffi).

There you go again. "May have issued" is what is at issue isn't it? Even you cannot say with certainty that the Marasca court has issued a final-verdict incompatable with the Chieffi court. Indeed, it is the Nencini court which is incompatible with the Chieffi court. The hieffi court wanted three things reviewed, they were reviewed and none of the three indicated guilt.

That is it in a nutshell.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well, I don't know what you mean - you employ strange concepts, as if "supporters" of the other side existed in great number - I can tell you for example the most famous Italian journalist, Marco Travaglio, wrote a commentary the following day where you can understand his opinion, where he stated "we don't know what the judges will write, what we know about is what they cannot write about Knox and Sollecito: they can't say they are innocent". Personally I don't happen to know in person someone who thinks they are innocent.

You are entitled to your opinion.

My suspicion is that most everyone has simply moved on with their lives.

Now I am asking you for a second link. Can you provide a link to Marco Travaglio's commentary... as well as (in the interests of fairness) can you esitmate the ratio of guilt/innocence among Italy's journalists? In the two weeks leading up to the March 27 decision, there was a lot on Italian TV which was generally available on the internet.

None of it supported guilt, esp. for Raffaele. The one woman on one of the programs who tried to argue by citing Curatolo and Nara, plus trying to slide into the conversation, "the reality of the staged break-in" was openly mocked.

 

[Machiavelli]

It is interesting you would bring up Chieffi, implying he is a Mignini supporter.

On the face of it, Chieffi's court remanded three items to a second, 2nd Grade court for review. All three of those issues went the defences' way. You can, and will, arge that this is not so.

Nencini then convicted (provisionally) based principally on evidence his court did not hear. Significantly, his interpretation of some items was at variance even from the Massei court in 2009 - and Nencini's court did not hear that evidence.

Further, Nencini took issue with Conti & Vecchiotti's work, where no court other than the Hellmann court had that before them, and any criticism of it could be addressed by the defence. Nencini, in essence, simply had the trial after he'd declared them guilty, by convicting them within reasoning found in his motivations report which had not made it to trial.

The Marasca/Bruno court has plenty of room to justify its total acquittals, and complying fully with the remand from the Chieffi court, namely that those thre items were herd, but that Nencini proceeded to illogically convict anyway.

The point being, that is not a criticism of the Chieffi court. That court had issues with Hellmann, enough in their opinion to overturn the original acquittals, enough to remand to the Nencini 2nd Grade court..... so far so good.

Marasca/Bruno will more than likely harmonize Chieffi's concerns into their own complete acquittals. There were questions raised, they were answered, but then Nencini illogically convicted. That's not Chieffi's fault.

There is no argument here. This is waffling. I don't know what you are trying to say.

I stated clearly a few points of law, which you just can't disprove.

You made an egregiously false statement, when you asserted that Knox and Sollecito's legal representetion in Guede's trial ended the moment he choose the fast track trial. You should acknowledge your error and change your assertion consequently.

The Marasca/Bruno court have factually issued something which is not in the Code. They don't have a power nor to acquit neither to convict.

It's obviously your own delusion that there were "three items" and that "went the defence's way". I don't know what you mean by "three items" btw. We all know Nencini convicted them so nothing went quite in the defence's way.

The lower courts instead had a power to decide in the merits. They way they used their power of assessing evidence on the points they were requested to judge, may be an object of opinions. The fact that they had a power to call any witness they wanted and assess evidence, is out of question.

The SC does not have a power to question witnesses and assess evidence. Obviously they may not acquit nor convict, and never did that. Before.

 

[MichaelB]

Wow!
There are lots of early Italian newspaper articles here MichaelB!
Small request, but can you find any of the Oggi magazine articles and link them too?

They covered the case pretty well from what I recall,
even bringing up the unknown CCTV eye or ear-witnesses recently...

I'll see what I can find but a lot of Oggi articles from 2009-2011 were removed from their website. Dunno why.... Last year the links were working fine then checked 6 months later they were gone. Even all the crime scene videos they use to have were removed.

We have this one: Crime in Perugia: The “collapse” of the prosecution during the appeal process by Giangavino Sulas. Oggi Magazine, April 2011

http://amandaknoxcase.com/crime-in-perugia/

 

[Bill Williams]

The SC does not have a power to question witnesses and assess evidence. Obviously they may not acquit nor convict, and never did that. Before.

If you draw on the fact that SC does not have the power to question witnesses and assess evidence, then you are, de facto, implying that the Nencini court had no business assessing evidence, except the evidence it was remanded to consider.

It's impossible to follow your logic.

 

[Machiavelli]

You are entitled to your opinion.

My suspicion is that most everyone has simply moved on with their lives.

Now I am asking you for a second link. Can you provide a link to Marco Travaglio's commentary... as well as (in the interests of fairness) can you esitmate the ratio of guilt/innocence among Italy's journalists? In the two weeks leading up to the March 27 decision, there was a lot on Italian TV which was generally available on the internet.

None of it supported guilt, esp. for Raffaele. The one woman on one of the programs who tried to argue by citing Curatolo and Nara, plus trying to slide into the conversation, "the reality of the staged break-in" was openly mocked.

Frankly, I am not interested in this discussion. You made a statement mentioning a supposed "group of hardcore Mignini supporters". I am only interested in pointing out that you are postulating the existence absurd and nonsense things. Your statements are unsupported. I don't have any burden to show something. It's up to you to build yourself a view of reality less prejudiced and less subjective.

 

[Machiavelli]

If you draw on the fact that SC does not have the power to question witnesses and assess evidence, then you are, de facto, implying that the Nencini court had no business assessing evidence, except the evidence it was remanded to consider.

. ?

 

[carbonjam72]

I happened to pass by and see this post.



Thecnically incorrect. Normally, "life" means complete freedom after 26 years (whilst usually inmates obtain to work outside prison after about 18 years).
Instead, "30 years" usually means complete freedom after "only" 19-20 years.
(the benefits above however are awarded only on good behaviour, and not to mafiosi or terrorists).



In fact the defendant does not "concede" the evidence. Accepts that the discussion will be on the evidence that has been already collected and that no further evidence will be entered (unless the "fast track" is "conditioned" to a defemìndant request to enter some particular evidence, call some witnesses etc.)



It's correct.



This was the first reduction that he had obtained after Micheli found him guilty of multi-aggravated murder without mitigation.



No. This is incorrect.
The mitigation ("generic mitigation") he obtained was a cut from "life" to "24 years". (NOT a cut from "life to 30 years"). Be carful not to make this calculation mistake.
"generic mitigation" gave him a time cut off bigger than you think; it was directly from "life" to "24".
Pay attention to the fact that this (life-24y) was a true "mitigation", NOT a "reduction" (or "discount").
This is exactly the same mitigation obtained by Knox and Sollecito.



That one was instead just the usual "reduction" (an automatic discount).



No. This is incorrect. Mignini had asked for life, but obtained 30 years.
It must be said that his request for "life" was an unrealistic demand under a fast track trial for a single muder. However there is a theoretical possibility to obtain "life" even with the fast track discount, because the maxiimum penalty under the code is not "life", a higher penalty actually exists, called "life plus isolation". Mignini attempted to ask for this extreme penalty to be obtained, that would have turned into a "life" sentence under fast track discount.
Such penalty however could not be realistically obtained for a one-time trivial murderer like Guede.
Mignini's request to obtain "life" as discounted from a formal "life plus isolation", was actually rhetoric aiming at obtaining "30 years" as discounted from a formal "life".
When Mignini/Comodi obtained that, they were satisfied and walked out from the trial (at that point the trial had finished, for them).



No. Absolutely false. Actually, Mignini and Comodi had no longer anything to do with the case. They did not take part to the appeal at all. The appeal was dealt with by the deputy Prosecutor General at the time.
The Prosecutor General (I think he was Petrazzini) actually did try to maintain the original 30 years, but he lost on this basically because Knox and Sollecito had managed to obtain "generic mitigation" for the same crime.



No. Absolutely false. Mignini (nor Comodi, nor any other prosecutor) had signed off absolutely anything.
Your assumption is completely made up.



Absolutely false and made up. See above. Mignini was not even part in that trial. And the PG had asked to confirm 30 years.



What you say is absurd and false under the law.

Welcome back Mach! Thanks for offering some missing details. I could swear I remember seeing Mignini saying in court that "Rudy had shown remorse".

In any event, whether Mignini would have appeared at the appeal, even as a witness, it would not preclude a backroom deal having been struck.

You must recognize Guede's story changed many times, including in the first skype call that was recorded with the police. Rudy went from saying Amanda wasn't there, to later implicating her an Raf. Why isn't that calunnia?

Anyway, good to see you back and as feisty as ever.

By the way, you said the cassation had never before found a party innocent before, that this was something unprecedented. Amanda's attorney also seemed to say the same thing, that the result was unprecedented. Maresca seemed shocked as well as called the verdict drastic, I think?

So in what way was the verdict a precedent here? Did Marasca actually say they are innocent? (even though you disagree with the finding, or the interpretation of the application of law). Didn't Marasca conclude Amanda and Raf "did not commit the crime"?

So is this case done now? The Kercher's seem to feel its over for them and they don't want to go to ECHR. There's no one else to pursue this case, and no where in Italy to pursue it to, right?

Lastly, Marasca was reported as saying that the section 1 ruling was "not binding"? Did you see that comment? What do you think Marasca meant? Do you think Marasca will revisit issues like, the staged break-in, and multiple attackers, whether the knife is the murder weapon, and endorse Conti & V's DNA report?

 

[Machiavelli]

There you go again. "May have issued" is what is at issue isn't it? Even you cannot say with certainty that the Marasca court has issued a final-verdict incompatable with the Chieffi court.

Obvious. We don't have the motivations. How can I talk about what's written in it?

Indeed, it is the Nencini court which is incompatible with the Chieffi court. The Chieffi court wanted three things reviewed, they were reviewed and none of the three indicated guilt.

Maybe you forgot few little details. The Chieffi court destroyed the logic and reasons employed in the Hellmann verdict, making at least 16 points of law about the case, all valid and definitive. The Chieffi court also discredited Conti and Vecchiotti calling them "intellectually dishonest". The Chieffi court did not ask to "review" anything at all, as for the evidence it asked to complete some operations only because they were procedures started by the Hellmann court that were concluded irregularly, which were to be finished because of due procedure, and were completely unnecessary for probative purposes. Those alleged things did not change the evidentiary picture in favour of the defendants of a iota, on the contrary they made it even worse (and were used by Crini).
The Chieffi court also said Knox was guilty of calunnia and that Hellmann's attempt to separate calunnia from murder was ludicrous. Chieffi also acknowledged that Amanda's calunnia did not occur during an interrogation or statement but was a "protracted behaviour".
And the Chieffi court urged the courts to re-think the evidence in the case "osmotically" in non-parcelled out manner, so in a way contrary to what Hellmann did.

 

[acbytesla]

What I'm amazed about is how Italy can stomach the vexatious litigation that Mignini practices. My guess is that he is not alone as a PM that abuses his power in this fashion. My hope is that Ihe citizens of Italy fight against this judicial abuse. With a little luck something good can come from this farce. I've read his complaint and am left wondering specifically how he was defamed. He seems as if he is objecting to other people's opinion, not an identifiable falsehood.

In the US, this suit would be dismissed by pretty much any judge as frivolous and without merit. Mignini seems like he's whining to a referee over what he perceives as a bad call.No one cares and this usually results in the player being ejected,

But I guess they play the game differently in Italy. Nut jobs like Mignini don't get spanked, they get promoted. How sad.

 

[Numbers]

That's the way I understand that it went down.

Italy recognizes that they need to make drastic judicial reforms - they apparently went thru this back in the 1980s, but those earlier reforms didn't fully take since their judiciary resisted the reforms.

Recently, Italy started to once again reform their legal system, but apparently decided to reform their CIVIL code sections first before tackling their CRIMINAL code sections, apparently, because their antiquated CIVIL laws were scaring away foreign investment.

As for Amanda's conviction for libel/slander during her late night (unrecorded) interrogation, Italy's laws in that regards seriously needs to be amended.

While it may likewise be a criminal act in America to misdirect a criminal investigation, it seems like the lines were blurred by allowing Lumumba to pursue Amanda (civilly?) during her criminal prosecution?

I.e., logically how could Lumumba's attorney openly chastise Amandar as a 'SHE-DEVIL" during her criminal trial if Lumumba's part was only the civil aspect?

If Amanda was indeed CONVICTED of slandering Lumumba during the CIVIL portion of her trial, then how did her SLANDER conviction equate to a 3 year criminal sentence?

In America, a CRIMINAL trial can result in a prison sentence, but a CIVIL trial can only result in a monetary judgment! And, certainly both types of trials don't happen in conjunction!

Things are upside down in Italy, so venture there at your personal peril.

There is a seeming misunderstanding in your post, which may have its origin in a problem of translation and lack of information about Italian criminal law.

Amanda was convicted by Hellmann, and the conviction confirmed by the Chieffi CSC panel, of a criminal charge: calunnia. The legal definition of the charge is (approximately): giving false information to the police or other judicial authority (such as a prosecutor or judge) stating that someone has committed a crime. Amanda was sentenced to three years imprisonment for this conviction, and it laid against time she had already served in remand.

In particular, Amanda was alleged to have committed calunnia because of her statements about Patrick Lumumba having raped and murdered Meredith, in her interrogation Nov. 5/6, 2007 and possibly also because her statements attempting to show she wished these statements to be considered unreliable, her Memoriales 1 and 2 of Nov. 6 and 7, 2007, were interpreted as additional statements against Lumumba.

The civil action against Amanda by Patrick Lumumba resulted in the assessment of a monetary payment from her to be paid to Lumumba.

Amanda has filed a complaint against Italy for allegedly violating her Convention rights for her conviction of calunnia. IIUC, the rights violated include her allegations that her statements were coerced by the interrogation techniques, including being threatened and slapped. But also, the interrogation was conducted contrary to ECHR case-law, in that she was not provided with a lawyer during the interrogation nor informed of her right to remain silent; nor did she have a lawyer's counsel during the initial days of her custody.

There is voluminous ECHR case-law in this area about persons convicted on evidence gained by violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and/or violation of Article 6.3c (right to a lawyer, including during interrogation or during custody); in such cases the ECHR has ruled that the conviction and trial was unfair - a violation of Article 6.1 - and that therefore there mus be a retrial or rehearing if requested by the victim, but strictly in accordance with the Convention. That is, the evidence collected through violation of the Convention must be excluded.

Amanda continues to face a criminal charge of calunnia for stating in court that she was threatened and slapped during the Nov. 5/6 interrogation. In fact, this criminal charge includes an aggravating factor, because she has repeated this allegation in each of her appeals. Interestingly, the ECHR generally requires that an alleged victim request that the alleged violation of rights be addressed to a judicial authority at each appeal. So here is a potential instance of a claim against Italy for interfering with the right to seek redress of a violation of a Convention right, which is itself a violation of the Convention and ECHR case-law.

 

[zotz]

Whether you like it or not, the judicial finding is definitive, and valid, as well as the finding of guilt on the charge of calunnia.

To complain that someone "could not challenge by calling own witnesses" those witnesses who admittedly "did not exist", is quite beyond idiotic. It astounding to me that someone could articulate such thought. Somehow, I am not surprised that this "someone" endowed with such logical skills happens to be a pro-Knox supporter.

It's not finished. There's another delicious piece of logic next: that "the articulate defence arguments" would be "irrelevant" because... the prosecution agreed with Guede's defence. Well, first of all let's say that Guede's defence in fact had an entirely diferent scenario, based on a single male assailant, while he placed Knox on the scene having an argument with Meredith. But besides this detail, imagine now what would happen to your argument if applied to a standard, non-fast-track trial: basically, you are saying that if Guede and the prosecution happened to agree with each other, well, in that event, what the other defence says would become irrelevant. Your argument would be equally applicable to a non-fast-track trial. And equally nonsense.

No, that is what you are saying, not me. Biscotti and Mignini stipulate that there were multiple assailants. The court agrees and the ruling is confirmed by the ISC. There is no involvement by the Knox-Sollecito defense other than submitted defense arguments. The defense cannot confront their accusers. I don't know anything about your constitution but in my country that is a violation of civil rights.

"To complain that someone "could not challenge by calling own witnesses" those witnesses who admittedly "did not exist", is quite beyond idiotic."

This was so astonishing I had to read it three times. The Knox-Sollecito defense could not challenge witnesses, that would have been called to the stand by the defense in a Knox-Sollecito trial, that supported the prosecution theory obviously because Knox and Sollecito were not the defendants. However you are saying that the judgements from a trial in which the Knox-Sollecito defense cannot adequately defend themselves are to be regarded as "judicial truths" in the Knox-Sollecito trials.

This is injustice and contrary to European standards of civil rights.