Done, done & done.
You write nonsense. And you know that. Yet you try hard to rationalize your denial.
Bruno/Marasca obviously did not "throw tidbits" in direction "of other courts". They violated art. 628 going against the points of law established by Chieffi's court, which they cannot overturn anyway. Those fact findings ate from courts of merits they have annulled and they had no duty to highlight that they agreed if they didn't intend to confirm. If they confirmed fact findings, they confirmed fact findings. Period. They eve emphasized the reasons they say they find convincing.
Legally those facts are valid as for judicial truth, including civil litigation.
Hellmann did not just acquit, he convicted of calunnia, Bruno/Marasca pointed out the calunnia conviction will remain solid and emphasized the elements even though they were not asked to express themselves on calunnia.
Those are not tidbits. They are judicial facts explained over pages.
The mainstream press, I am told, actually talked very little. Articles were very small and didn't have debates following. And the press doesn't "get" meanings the way you think. The press avoids meanings (besides the fact that they don't actually read court documents). The Italian press avoids issues for reasons completely different from your fantasy, actually for reasons nearly the opposite of that. Even journalists that I know are reluctant to speak about cassazione, and they share exactly my opinions about Knox. Mainstream media stay away from the rid of attacking Cassazione because of political and economical reasons (not talking about lawsuits), just like Catholics do not criticize the Pope in loud voice, there is no press freedom of mainstream media, it's not because they "get" things of your imagination.
This doesn't mean that talk doesn't exist or that SC report is an unimportant detail. Actually things will emerge, I'm rather certain mainstream media will resist, that won't take initiative, but will reluctantly talk about those facts too.
The SC report is a fact. As for what I observe, you decide to react to such fact with rationalization and downplaying and denial of its true content about Amanda Knox.
What points of law determined by Chieffi did the Marasca report go against?
I'm reading it now, and they seemed to disapprove of Stafanoni's lab work. In particular, her insistence on non-recognized methods of analysis - regarding non-repeatable tests of low copy number DNA samples, her attribution of partial profiles which lack sufficient specificity to be counted as evidence (a very interesting point), and her dogmatic insistence that the knife was the murder weapon - even though it tested negative for blood.
And of course, they didn't seem to approve at all of her wearing dirty gloves to pass around the bra clasp, and found it inexplicable that she didn't retrieve the bra clasp on the first trip but instead waited 46 days after many people had trampled through the crime scene.
Chieffi's contention that 'contamination must be proven' seems to have been refuted, in favor of international scientific protocols as pointed out by C & V - for whom they had nothing but praise.
Of particular interest to our conversation, in light of previous posts, is that this court found it impossible to believe that Amanda and Raf could have participated in the murder without leaving any trace of themselves in the room where the murder occurred, and stated the obvious impossibility of a 'selective clean-up' since its just impossible.
They also didn't approve of the "experts" who fried the computers with an electric shock, and destroyed potentially useful information.
I don't see how you can interpret this judgement as a victory.
Oh, and its fairly clear that this court did not conclude Amanda and Raf were in the house, since they clearly stated that it could not be determined with tranquility that Amanda & Raf's mutual alibi were not entirely true.
That's the part that sticks in my throat. They couldn't determine that Amanda and Raf never left Raf's apartment, that they were just home the whole night, minding their own business. Happy as can be, until they crossed paths with 'Perugia's finest', Giobbi of the swiveling hips and psychological investigations, and the recalcitrant unrepentant criminal & media whore Giuliani Mignini.
Anyway, I am curious how they differed from Chieffi, in your view.
ETA: the issue of motive was also fascinating. They highlighted the complete separation of Amanda & Raf from Rudy Guede, how Raf had never even known him, how there was zero communication between them, AND, how the issue of a completely irrational and missing motive in this case was fatal to a finding of guilt - because in a circumstantial case such as this, only motive can tie together the circumstantial evidence. Without motive, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, there can be no finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, because there's nothing tying the the purported evidence together into a coherent whole. I'm actually gaining a little bit more of an appreciation for Italian jurisprudence. But the calunnia conviction is just dumb as can be, cruel really, and ECHR will just have to explain that to you all.
