.
The General Prosecutor and attorneys for the civil parties have argued that, in denying Rudy Guede’s appeal, the Corte di Cassazione put down “unmovable poles” [paletti insuperabili] for this Corte di Assise with regard to the reconstruction of the crime and the evaluation of the evidence; and, although they modified the scope of [ridimensionato] this argument at the end of the discussion by claiming this ruling as only one element to be assessed, they nevertheless emphasized the particular relevance of this element.
It is only too obvious that the ruling in question is not absolutely binding [on us]; that would be contrary not only to the norms of positive law governing the force [efficacia] of criminal verdicts in other cases (C.P.P. Article 654), but also to all the basic constitutionally-guaranteed institutional principles (Constitution, Article 111), since the current defendants would be made to suffer the effects of a ruling issued in a case in which they were not involved.
But, in truth, the ruling in question, introduced under C.P.P. Article 238b and thus usable as evidence only as one among other elements evaluable under C.P.P. Article 192 paragraph 3 (see Cass. Section 2, Ruling no. 16626 of 2-28-2007 (submitted 5-2-2007) Rv. 236650; Section 3, Ruling no. 8823 of 1-13-2009 (submitted 2-27-2009) Rv. 242767) itself seems particularly weak as evidence, as the proceedings concerning Rudy Guede were held under the fast-track system [celebrato con rito abbreviato], so that the judges who considered the position of Rudy Guede were not able to conduct the investigations of a [proper] trial [delle acquisizioni della istruttoria dibattimentale] — in particular the independent expert review that we performed– either at the first level or at the present level, despite the complexity of the case, at least with regard to the current defendants.
Furthermore, it is the Corte di Cassazione itself, in the ruling cited by the General Prosecutor and attorneys for the civil parties, which warns: “Thus right from the outset we must resist the attempt — reflected in [literally “pursued by”] the entire structure of the defense case, but out of place in the context of this decision — to involve the [Cassazione] panel in endorsing the hypothesis that others, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, were responsible for the murder, aggravated by sexual violence, of Meredith Kercher. The decision that this Court is called to make concerns only the responsibility of Guede with regard to the act under dispute…”
And indeed, reexamination of what emerged at the first trial and further investigations resulting from our partial reopening of trial proceedings at the present level do not confirm the hypothesis that more than one person was necessarily involved in the crime.
