There's only time for a couple of kicks at the cat in interpreting what Section 9 of the Marasca/Bruno report means. It is one thing for hardened guilters to interpret Section 9 as, "They got away with murder but here are the reasons still to suspect them....."
But consider the text and what it says.
Section 7 - the complete lack of meaningful scientific protocols in the investigation, returning meaningless "evidence" for the lower courts' evaluation. That the existence of a fact cannot be constructed out of meaningless evidence. Unreproducable tests cannot be used to safely convict people.
Section 8 - The insurmountable, logical barrier of Guede's forensic presence in the murder room, and the lack of AK/RS's, with the additional insurmountable logical barrier of a forensic-clean-up of 2 of 3 profiles. The "alleged bloody traces" in other parts of the cottage is an "obvious misrepresentation of the evidence." There is, therefore, a complete absence of an evidentiary framework on which to conclude guilt.
Section 9.2 sets out tat Marasca/Bruno hopes to accomplish with the remainder of the Motivations Report:
9.2 The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as
shown below, illustrated for each defendant, in a synoptic presentation of the
elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt and of the elements against it, as
they are shown, of course, by the text of the challenged ruling and of the previous
ones.
discusses this hypothetical, namely the one where AK/RS might have been in the house at the time of the murder, yet still not legally accountable for it. For the "hypothesis of guilt" to work, Marasca is laying it out thusly.....
It's not enough to place them in the cottage at the time of the murder. I don't agree with that, personally, because adopting a passive behaviour, "without contributing to the crime", means that those passive individuals should be guilty of something, perhaps not murder itself.
But remember, Marasca is discussing this in the light of
9.2, which he says lays out a "synoptic" (with one eye) , "presentation of the elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt and of the elements against it".
He is not claiming these presentations of his are factual.
9.4 - Regardless of any hypothesis of guilt, the evidence says they were not directly involved in the murder.
"This aforementioned negative circumstance accords with the fact, already highlighted, of the absolute impracticability of the posthumous clean-up hypothesis, removing some biological traces while leaving others."
9.4.1 - setting the hypothetical stage, Marasca reverses course. Marasca accepts one of those dreaded "judicial facts", so as not to be out of step with former rulings. "..... her presence in the house, the scene of the murder, is an
acclaimed fact of the trial...." However, seen in the light of trying to harmonize the evidence with both the "hypothesis of guilt" as laidout in those courts, it is hard to believe that he, himself, believes this - given the trashing of the evidence, it's collection, and the judicial illogic which went before him.
Still, he's bound by judicial truths. He's bound by "Knox's calamnious statements regarding Lumumba, which led to her guilty verdict,
with a
ruling already reached....." Marasca could not be clearer - he must say this, not because it is factual, but because it is a judicial truth.
There is reason to believe that this is the way he deals with everything - even his proposition that Knox came into contact with Meredith's blood; I mean, how is that determined given the trashing Marasca gives to the forensics in sections prior to Section 9?
Proof that Marasca is still dealing with hypotheticals is his statement about why Knox would lie about Lumumba.
Nevertheless, the calumny in question also represents circumstantial evidence
against the appellant in so much as it could be considered as an initiative to cover for
Guede, against whom she would have had an interest to protect herself due to
retaliatory accusations against her.
Marasca, prior to this, has established that the evidentiary framework simply did not exist to convict Knox (and Sollecito), yet here he is saying that her statements about Lumumba were to protect herself from Guede. How did she even know Guede ahd been involved? Why had both she and Sollecito originally insisted that the police notice the turd in the toilet - which, if this hypothesis of guilt holds - they must have known was Guede's?
Elements of "strong suspicion" favourable to the prosecution are discussed as well, where Marasca relies on the testimony of Antonio Curatolo (!) to place them in the Piazza.... and then Marasca ends this section (9.4.1.) with hypotheses favourable to the defendent.
What he's laying out is the synoptic evidentiary framework, which he's already says is illogical when pertaining to guilt. This synoptic (synthesized) hypothesis containing elements of both cannot stand.
9.4.2 continues this. Synthesizing the hyoptheses relating to both guilt or innocence produces this statement -
"There remains, however, a strong suspicion that he was really present in the house on via della Pergola the night of the murder, at a time, however, that has not been possible to determine." In short, the evidentiary framework does not establish his guilt.
This leads to the conclusion of Marasca's hypothesizing of a synthesis of the already shaky evidence....
9.4.3. It can easily be observed that the conclusion that there was a lack of an
evidentiary framework consistent and sufficient to support the prosecution’s
hypothesis regarding the more serious case of murder certainly reverberates on the
residual, secondary accusations, listed here, d) theft of mobile phones and e)
simulation of a crime.
...... in which he repeats the lack of an evidentiary framework, even as he's (supposedly) made statements implicating them.
The reason why Marasca, then, does not refer it to another trial, is because there simply is no evidence remaining. (This is Section 10).
This motivations report is unequivocal in it's view, notwithstanding the hypotheticals in Section 9.3ff. All of those sections need to be read in the light of 9.2.
