Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kaosium]

Perhaps you would touch up the translation of the questioned section. While I have immense trust in your work the current translation makes bagels POV sensible to me.

Did you see any of the articles I posted in the last day or so on the ruling? I posted a section perhaps you could take a look at it.

ETA - And this section seems clear - how would you explain it?

With this premise, with regards to Amanda Knox’s position, it is now
observed that her presence in the house, the scene of the murder, is an acclaimed
fact of the trial, based on her own admissions, also contained in her signed memorial,
in the part where she explains how, when she was in the kitchen, after the young
Englishwoman and another person went into Kercher’s room to have sex, she heard
her friend’s harrowing scream, to the lacerating and unbearable point that she slid
down, squatting on the floor, holding her hands firmly on her ears, so as to hear no
more of it. On this point, the reliability of the opinion of the judge a quo [of the trial
from which this appeal is being heard is certainly acceptable concerning this part of
the accused’s account,

I agree with that, Grinder. On the face of it, an admission by a suspect they were there as well as a (supposed) knowledge of facts they shouldn't have known is certainly acceptable as regards to help leading to a determination the suspect was at the scene of a crime.

That doesn't mean I think she was though, or that I accept the validity of the evidence she was, especially if it wasn't my duty to determine that and I never evaluated that evidence.

They know that too, it's a basic underlying property of their system that they don't evaluate evidence (in that fashion), but just accept it at face value. Note the difference between evaluating the validity of a piece of evidence (in this case Amanda's 'gift' note and the scream 'evidence') and evaluating whether the 'facts' (evidence) lead to the correct conclusion. They're taking on the second meaning here of 'evaluating evidence' they cannot possibly do the former.

As for why this distinction is important, look at the depiction of Amanda's gift note and read the original (again) and recall that the part they paraphrased was preceded by:

"In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received."

and followed by:

"But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked. But the truth is, I am unsure about the truth and here's why:"

Does that sound like a definite admission on her part of being there? Or was it a cherry-picked passage outside the context of the rest of the note which instead says how unsure she is of everything and explains why that may have occurred?



Incidentally, the source of errors made is likely either Nencini or the prosecution appeal, not necessarily the ISC itself. They're responding to those documents, not running an independent investigation into the case. They rely upon factual determinations made by the lower courts, in this instance Nencini, and cannot possibly do that for themselves for both legal and logistical reasons, there being no possibility they can evaluate each and every piece of evidence in the case, they must rely upon what the finders of fact determined, and that's the lower courts.

 

[Kaosium]

Regardless of what they meant the writing she could have been there but wasn't involved is insane.

I can prove without a doubt James Brady was at the attempted murder of Ronald Reagan, that doesn't make him guilty of any involvement in the attempted murder outside getting half his head blown away by a stray bullet.

If Amanda was just cowering in the kitchen in fear as this person she'd barely met raped and murdered Meredith she wouldn't guilty of murder either, she'd be just another terrified victim.

Not insanity, but law and logic.

 

[LondonJohn]

I can prove without a doubt James Brady was at the attempted murder of Ronald Reagan, that doesn't make him guilty of any involvement in the attempted murder outside getting half his head blown away by a stray bullet.

If Amanda was just cowering in the kitchen in fear as this person she'd barely met raped and murdered Meredith she wouldn't guilty of murder either, she'd be just another terrified victim.

Not insanity, but law and logic.

Well in fairness she could be at least potentially guilty of criminal acts related to lying to the police and protecting an offender. After all, she repeatedly told the police in the days after the murder that she had been at Sollecito's apartment and knew nothing whatsoever about the murder or who might have committed it.

Against that, Knox might offer a defence that she had been threatened (whether implicitly or explicitly) with harm of some kind if she told the police anything. But that would very probably have been a matter for the courts to hear and to judge.

Obviously all this is utterly moot, since Knox wasn't there. However, if one were to over-literally (and mistakenly) believe that the Marasca Report were positively asserting that Knox had been present, then one would/should certainly be asking how such a finding, coupled with Knox's statements to police in the days after the murder, could reasonably be consistent with no criminal charges (or accusations) of any sort.

 

[Kaosium]

Well in fairness she could be at least potentially guilty of criminal acts related to lying to the police and protecting an offender. After all, she repeatedly told the police in the days after the murder that she had been at Sollecito's apartment and knew nothing whatsoever about the murder or who might have committed it.

...but still not be guilty of murder, which is what she was on trial for in the case they were adjudicating. She'd already been convicted of something else anyway and I suspect you've a point that they kept the calunnia conviction in mind when they wrote the report.

 

[Numbers]

I think I understand perfectly why the Marasca panel is dancing around this "she was there" matter as regards Knox. This is why:

The Chieffi SC panel affirmed the aggravated criminal slander verdict*. The aggravation aspect means that Knox falsely accused Lumumba while knowing that he was innocent. And for Knox to have known Lumumba was innocent, Knox either had to have been with Lumumba elsewhere at the time of the murder (and nobody has ever claimed that of course), or Knox must have been at the murder scene herself.

....
* Until Italy is forced to remedy the matter via an ECHR ruling, of course.

You make an interesting point, but IIUC it is not correct.

The Chieffi CSC panel affirmed the Hellmann court verdict of "simple" (non-aggravated) calunnia.

The Hellmann court MR listed numerous pressures and vulnerabilities that Knox was under during the Nov. 5/6 interrogation.

The Hellmann court logic - which is not easy to understand, IMO - is that Knox had non-guilt reasons for knowing that Lumumba was innocent. One was that he never had met Meredith Kercher (this, IIUC, is actually false) and so could not desire to rape her. The other was that the police were telling her that Lumumba was guilty, therefore, she should have known that he was not. And third, that Knox was no longer under pressure or vulnerable when she named Lumumba. {I don't understand the logic of the last two reasons, and if your reading of the Hellmann court MR finds that I am distorting its reasoning, please post your understanding of the Hellmann court logic.}

However, the Cheiffi court did not like the Hellmann court's logic in deriving the "simple" calunnia verdict and indicated that a more reasonable verdict would be "aggravated" calunnia (that is, calunnia with the aggravating factor that one is engaging in the calunnia to cover-up a crime). They left it to the remand court (Nencini) to add the aggravating factor to the calunnia charge. This was what resulted in an increase in the number of years Knox was to serve according to the Nencini court sentence.

Thus, it was the Nencini court that had provisionally convicted Knox of calunnia with the aggravating factor of committing it to cover-up a crime.

The Marasca CSC panel makes the point in its verdict that it preserves or reinstates the Hellmann court's verdict of (simple) calunnia, which had the sentence of 3 years imprisonment, which Hellmann laid against the time she had already served in remand or under provisional conviction by the Massei court. {I am unsure of the legal status of her prison time during the Massei court trial and after the Massei court provisional conviction for murder and rape. The time before the Massei court trial began was certainly remand time.}

 

[Grinder]

I agree with that, Grinder. On the face of it, an admission by a suspect they were there as well as a (supposed) knowledge of facts they shouldn't have known is certainly acceptable as regards to help leading to a determination the suspect was at the scene of a crime.

We are only discussing the meaning and purpose of M&B putting certain content into the MR. The statements from the 6th were obviously not true in the whole and really there is no reason IMO to believe any of it. The main disagreement as I see it, is what do the words mean. To me M&B say the judge was correct and not just repeating a contention of the prosecution which is what Bill et al. were saying.

That doesn't mean I think she was though, or that I accept the validity of the evidence she was, especially if it wasn't my duty to determine that and I never evaluated that evidence.

I don't believe bagels or anyone else here save Mach and Vixen believe she was there. I don't. But I believe the court said she was or at a minimum, they accept the evidence can be reasonably evaluated to that end.

They know that too, it's a basic underlying property of their system that they don't evaluate evidence (in that fashion), but just accept it at face value. Note the difference between evaluating the validity of a piece of evidence (in this case Amanda's 'gift' note and the scream 'evidence') and evaluating whether the 'facts' (evidence) lead to the correct conclusion. They're taking on the second meaning here of 'evaluating evidence' they cannot possibly do the former.

I guess I don't quite see the difference. They seem to reevaluate the DNA and other evidence.

As for why this distinction is important, look at the depiction of Amanda's gift note and read the original (again) and recall that the part they paraphrased was preceded by:

"In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received."

and followed by:

"But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked. But the truth is, I am unsure about the truth and here's why:"

Does that sound like a definite admission on her part of being there? Or was it a cherry-picked passage outside the context of the rest of the note which instead says how unsure she is of everything and explains why that may have occurred?

Don't quite see the heart of your point. I don't believe the notes taken osmotically should result in anyone assuming any part of them was correct. Once again, to me the issue is what the words mean as written by M&B.

Incidentally, the source of errors made is likely either Nencini or the prosecution appeal, not necessarily the ISC itself. They're responding to those documents, not running an independent investigation into the case. They rely upon factual determinations made by the lower courts, in this instance Nencini, and cannot possibly do that for themselves for both legal and logistical reasons, there being no possibility they can evaluate each and every piece of evidence in the case, they must rely upon what the finders of fact determined, and that's the lower courts.

Well they did seem to come to the conclusion the whole case was botched which must have come from the defense which also told them the statements
were improperly done and shouldn't be considered at all.

I think M&B, for whatever reason, decided to end the case with a not guilty verdict but leave as much meat on the bone for the PGP and enough vagueness to make their thinking as difficult to flesh out as possible.

 

[Grinder]

I can prove without a doubt James Brady was at the attempted murder of Ronald Reagan, that doesn't make him guilty of any involvement in the attempted murder outside getting half his head blown away by a stray bullet.

If Amanda was just cowering in the kitchen in fear as this person she'd barely met raped and murdered Meredith she wouldn't guilty of murder either, she'd be just another terrified victim.

Not insanity, but law and logic.

I'm sorry not even close to an analogy. As has been mentioned she unlike Brady had responsibilities she neglected. If she was there, she lied extensively about it, didn't call for assistance, didn't help with Rudi's identification, etc.

Insanity to believe she was there, didn't have anything to do with the crime, waited 15 hours to report anything, showered in the room next to her dead friend, called the friend on the phone, etc.

 

[Bill Williams]

We are only discussing the meaning and purpose of M&B putting certain content into the MR. The statements from the 6th were obviously not true in the whole and really there is no reason IMO to believe any of it. The main disagreement as I see it, is what do the words mean. To me M&B say the judge was correct and not just repeating a contention of the prosecution which is what Bill et al. were saying.

<........... sinister deletia ............>

I think M&B, for whatever reason, decided to end the case with a not guilty verdict but leave as much meat on the bone for the PGP and enough vagueness to make their thinking as difficult to flesh out as possible.

This view is plausible, except for a few things. It still assumes that M&B though they were "somewhat" guilty, but did not want to rock the boat... the identity of that boat being the only issue. That's where Kaosium's analogy about Brady is apt.

However, debating the sub-meaning or dietrological meaning of words only takes this off into la-la land. It's a way to keep open what is definitively closed without landing anywhere - witness the tenacity of the remaining guilters. They still do not have a narrative of the crime which fits the evidence, and that was more than 8 years ago.

You are correct - we are only debating what M&B were saying. There's no reason, really then, to doubt what Mike1711 summarized.

 

[Kaosium]

I'm sorry not even close to an analogy. As has been mentioned she unlike Brady had responsibilities she neglected. If she was there, she lied extensively about it, didn't call for assistance, didn't help with Rudi's identification, etc.

Those 'responsibilities' might get her convicted of something else, not murder. Being as she'd already been (wrongfully) convicted of something else it would be an injustice to use that to convict her of murder too. The calunnia doesn't inherently convict her of murder and that scenario I described is one of the possible ways it could have happened.

Insanity to believe she was there, didn't have anything to do with the crime, waited 15 hours to report anything, showered in the room next to her dead friend, called the friend on the phone, etc.

I think it's silly too, but the point here is that the one (being there) doesn't automatically convict her of the other, being involved in the murder.

Anyway, I'm done with this case, I just popped in to see what was going on and thought I could help clear this up. Believe whatever you want to believe (for now) I do have confidence you'll get it right in the long run.

 

[Ken Dine]

With this premise, with regards to Amanda Knox’s position, it is now observed that her presence in the house, the scene of the murder, is an acclaimed fact of the trial, based on her own admissions, also contained in her signed memorial, in the part where she explains how, when she was in the kitchen, after the young Englishwoman and another person went into Kercher’s room to have sex, she heard her friend’s harrowing scream, to the lacerating and unbearable point that she slid down, squatting on the floor, holding her hands firmly on her ears, so as to hear no more of it.
On this point, the reliability of the opinion of the judge a quo [of the trial from which this appeal is being heard is certainly acceptable concerning this part of the accused’s account,

As I recall, Amanda did hand-write two MEMORIALS after her all-night interrogation, but the highlighted part of your above claim was NOT in any of Amanda's two handwritten memorials!

Rather, Amanda's account where she had supposedly covered her ears was ONLY within one of the signed TYPE-WRITTEN statements (typed out in Italian) that her Italian inquisitors had induced English-speaking Amanda to sign under extreme duress (and without an attorney), and also without help from a proper (unbiased) ITALIAN/ENGLISH interpreter.

Here's the transcript of Amanda's hand-written MEMORIAL, and it certainly does not contain any mention that Amanda had "had covered her ears" while Meredith was being murdered:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

 

[bagels]

Anyway, I'm done with this case, I just popped in to see what was going on and thought I could help clear this up. Believe whatever you want to believe (for now) I do have confidence you'll get it right in the long run.

I'd be done with this case too but somebody out there thinks blood negative DNA negative stains, witnesses that saw nothing when questioned just after the crime, bloodless kitchen knives that don't match wounds or imprints, and a crime scene overflowing with the presence of a known armed burglar who had a history of identical break-ins to that found at the scene, somehow adds up to two random students being guilty. We can't let people be wrong on the internet

 

[Numbers]

....

Incidentally, the source of errors made is likely either Nencini or the prosecution appeal, not necessarily the ISC itself. They're responding to those documents, not running an independent investigation into the case. They rely upon factual determinations made by the lower courts, in this instance Nencini, and cannot possibly do that for themselves for both legal and logistical reasons, there being no possibility they can evaluate each and every piece of evidence in the case, they must rely upon what the finders of fact determined, and that's the lower courts.

This is, I believe, largely true. The CSC is definitely not hearing or gathering evidence - in legal terminology, not conducting a de novo investigation of the evidence underlying the facts. (They do conduct an evaluation of the evidence as recorded by the lower court and the facts inferred from the evidence.) However, some of the errors may be attributable to the CSC itself, either to carelessness or intent.

For example, in Section 2.2, the Marasca CSC panel MR refers to Amanda Knox in her appeal requesting a postponement in the CSC decision until there is a judgment from the "European Court of Justice". This is an error; the name of the court is the "European Court of Human Rights". (The European Court of Justice is a separate institution, the judicial arm of the European Union, and largely but not entirely concerned with trade law.)

In the same Section 2.2, in refusing this request, the MR refers to Knox having repeated allegations against Lumumba during the arrest hearing before the GIP for the murder/rape; this is false AFAIK. The CSC MR also neglects the issue of statements made under questioning without a lawyer and then used to convict the suspect as being a violation of Convention rights and ECHR case-law. This is apparently an intentional avoidance by the CSC of acknowledging that the calunnia conviction was a violation of ECHR case-law (and Italian procedural law*) and will be found a such by the ECHR review.

* CPP Article 191.1: Evidence gathered in violation of the prohibitions set by law shall not be used.

The questioning of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito on Nov. 5/6 violated CPP Articles 63 and 64, and thus by CPP Article 191.1, the evidence gathered in that questioning should not have been used.

 

[Grinder]

Those 'responsibilities' might get her convicted of something else, not murder. Being as she'd already been (wrongfully) convicted of something else it would be an injustice to use that to convict her of murder too. The calunnia doesn't inherently convict her of murder and that scenario I described is one of the possible ways it could have happened.

Somewhat a straw man as I in no way suggested she should be convicted of murder. You were responsing to my assertion Brady "being there" in way compares to Amanda "being there" as described by M&B.

M&B do accept she was at the cottage at the time Meredith was murdered. If you wish to point out the wording or you want to retranslate the section and explain I of course will listen but at this time you, Bill and Mike are not accepting M&B did say it. She was there during the murder.

I do not believe she was there. I do not think she should be convicted because of her statements of the 6th but M&B did say the judge's ruling on it was reasonable in terms of her being there.

I think it's silly too, but the point here is that the one (being there) doesn't automatically convict her of the other, being involved in the murder.

And nobody, except the PGP of course, including M&B say it should convict .

Really good to "see" you, thanks for dropping by.

 

[Bill Williams]

Somewhat a straw man as I in no way suggested she should be convicted of murder. You were responsing to my assertion Brady "being there" in way compares to Amanda "being there" as described by M&B.

M&B do accept she was at the cottage at the time Meredith was murdered. If you wish to point out the wording or you want to retranslate the section and explain I of course will listen but at this time you, Bill and Mike are not accepting M&B did say it. She was there during the murder.
I do not believe she was there. I do not think she should be convicted because of her statements of the 6th but M&B did say the judge's ruling on it was reasonable in terms of her being there.

M&B are not saying she was there during the murder, other than to cite the Memorale. They are saying that within the hypothesized synoptic amalgam-narrative, she was in the cottage within a wide enough window (including middle morning Nov 2nd) that still does not mean she murdered anyone.

As long as stuff is taken out of the context M&B put their closing remarks in, 9.2/9.3 then they will be misled.

 

[Grinder]

M&B are not saying she was there during the murder, other than to cite the Memorale. They are saying that within the hypothesized synoptic amalgam-narrative, she was in the cottage within a wide enough window (including middle morning Nov 2nd) that still does not mean she murdered anyone.

As long as stuff is taken out of the context M&B put their closing remarks in, 9.2/9.3 then they will be misled.

Bill you seem to believe if you admit M&B said she was there it means she isn't innocent or some such thing. As Cheli stated, they using paragraph 2 indicated there would be a mixed message in the MR, the shadows.

With this premise, with regards to Amanda Knox’s position, it is now
observed that her presence in the house, the scene of the murder, is an acclaimed
fact of the trial, based on her own admissions, also contained in her signed memorial,
in the part where she explains how, when she was in the kitchen, after the young
Englishwoman and another person went into Kercher’s room to have sex, she heard
her friend’s harrowing scream, to the lacerating and unbearable point that she slid
down, squatting on the floor, holding her hands firmly on her ears, so as to hear no
more of it. On this point, the reliability of the opinion of the judge a quo [of the trial
from which this appeal is being heard is certainly acceptable concerning this part of
the accused’s account,

I don't see how this passage can be read to say some time between the 1st and the morning of the 2nd.

The judge (Nencini) of the trial's opinion is certainly acceptable - what do you think that means?

ETA - 9.2 says the basic contradictory nature of the evidence can be shown from the texts of the rulings - in 9.3 they say being there doesn't mean one was part of the murder - in 9.4.1 they say considering the above she was there during the murder as the judge rightly ruled.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill you seem to believe if you admit M&B said she was there it means she isn't innocent or some such thing. As Cheli stated, they using paragraph 2 indicated there would be a mixed message in the MR, the shadows.

With this premise, with regards to Amanda Knox’s position, it is now
observed that her presence in the house, the scene of the murder, is an acclaimed
fact of the trial, based on her own admissions, also contained in her signed memorial,
in the part where she explains how, when she was in the kitchen, after the young
Englishwoman and another person went into Kercher’s room to have sex, she heard
her friend’s harrowing scream, to the lacerating and unbearable point that she slid
down, squatting on the floor, holding her hands firmly on her ears, so as to hear no
more of it. On this point, the reliability of the opinion of the judge a quo [of the trial
from which this appeal is being heard is certainly acceptable concerning this part of
the accused’s account,

I don't see how this passage can be read to say some time between the 1st and the morning of the 2nd.

The judge (Nencini) of the trial's opinion is certainly acceptable - what do you think that means?

ETA - 9.2 says the basic contradictory nature of the evidence can be shown from the texts of the rulings - in 9.3 they say being there doesn't mean one was part of the murder - in 9.4.1 they say considering the above she was there during the murder as the judge rightly ruled.

Nice try.

You've skipped over 9.4:

However, a matter of undoubted significance in favour of the appellants, in
the sense that it excludes their material participation in the murder, even if it is hypothesised that they were present in the house on via della Pergola, consists of the
absolute lack of biological traces attributable to them (except the clasp which will be
dealt with further on) in the murder room or on the victim’s body, where instead
numerous traces attributable to Guede were found.​

Yet you say that M&C came to view that the lower courts' finding that they were there was something that the lower court rightlyruled.

This is what is said further on that long section of 9.4.1.....

The data leads to strong suspicion, although not decisive, considering the wellknown
considerations regarding the certain nature and attribution of the traces in
question. ............​

which are all related to the "calumninous statements".

As Mikw1711 says, this is M&B commenting on what the lower courts found as fact not as he finds them. You're ignoring all of M&B's provisional language.

 

[Grinder]

Nice try.

You've skipped over 9.4:

​

Yet you say that M&C came to view that the lower courts' finding that they were there was something that the lower court rightlyruled.

This is what is said further on that long section of 9.4.1.....

​

which are all related to the "calumninous statements".

As Mikw1711 says, this is M&B commenting on what the lower courts found as fact not as he finds them. You're ignoring all of M&B's provisional language.

Yes Bill even if they were there during the murder the lack of evidence in the murder room leaves at least reasonable doubt they weren't part of the murder but the court clearly believes they were there when Meredith screamed or at a minimum they think it reasonable for Nencini to have in this way concluded.

With this premise, with regards to Amanda Knox’s position, it is now
observed that her presence in the house, the scene of the murder, is an acclaimed
fact of the trial, based on her own admissions, also contained in her signed memorial,
in the part where she explains how, when she was in the kitchen, after the young
Englishwoman and another person went into Kercher’s room to have sex, she heard
her friend’s harrowing scream, to the lacerating and unbearable point that she slid
down, squatting on the floor, holding her hands firmly on her ears, so as to hear no
more of it. On this point, the reliability of the opinion of the judge a quo [of the trial
from which this appeal is being heard is certainly acceptable concerning this part of
the accused’s account,

How can you assert they were only saying she was there sometime between the 1st and the 2nd?

Why would they have included the above paragraph and the specifics of when she was there if they were saying "who knows when she was there?"

ETA - Do I agree with what they wrote? No.

 

[Grinder]

However , a matter of undoubted significance in favor of today's recurring in
so as to exclude their participation in material murder , despite the assumption of
Their presence in the house on Via della Pergola , is precisely the lack of nellrassoluta
biological traces referable to them

The above is a Google of 9.2.

However, a finding of great significance in favour of the appellants, in
sense to exclude their participation in the murder, while material in the event of
their presence in the House on via della Pergola, is lack of nellrassoluta
biological traces in their related (other than sear which you say below) in the
the murder room or on the victim's body, where instead were discovered, many
tracks referring to Guede.

Bing above.

 

[Bill Williams]

I appreciate completely Grinder you are a solid innocentisi...

From this point I complete defer to Mike1711.

 

[Numbers]

Nice try.

You've skipped over 9.4:

​

Yet you say that M&C came to view that the lower courts' finding that they were there was something that the lower court rightlyruled.

This is what is said further on that long section of 9.4.1.....

​

which are all related to the "calumninous statements".

As Mikw1711 says, this is M&B commenting on what the lower courts found as fact not as he finds them. You're ignoring all of M&B's provisional language.

Yes, you have detected cherry-picking by those desperately seeking to make the Marasca CSC panel MR mean something different than what it is attempting to convey.

I suggest that a reader must start reading at Section 9 to understand the point of the Sections 9.1 through 9.4.3, with Sections 9.1 and 9.2 being precursors to the latter subsections of Section 9. And the overall meaning of the verdict and why no remand trial is required is stated in Section 10.

Source: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/
September 07, 2015 Supreme Court Motivation Report

Some relevent quoted excerpts, with the English translation only of some of the Latin legal jargon and some paraphrasing for ease of reading:

9. The ascertained [errors in judgment] and the logical inconsistencies pointed out invalidate the appealed verdict from the [foundations], hence it deserves to be annulled.

The aforementioned reasons for annulling can be summarised in the inability to present an evidentiary framework suitable to support a pronouncement of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by {CPP} Article 533....

9.1 The intrinsically contradictory ensemble of the body of evidence, whose objective uncertainty is already emphasised by the previously highlighted wavering of the proceedings, does not allow [us] to be satisfied to the standard of [beyond] a reasonable doubt....

9.2 The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of {the} 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 the previous ones.
.....

10. The intrinsic contradictory nature of the evidence, emerging from the text of the appealed verdict, in essence undermines the connective tissue of the same, leading to its annulment.

In fact, in a scenario marked by many contradictions, the referral judge should not have come to a verdict of guilt, but - as previously observed - should have reached a verdict of not guilty, given {CPP} Article 530, section 2....

{No new evidence is available, and previously existing evidence is no longer extant, and Guede, certainly a participant in the crimes, cannot be forced to testify in court; therefore, a referral court could not come to any conclusion different from that of the current CSC panel, and thus no referral is in any way useful or required. Therefore, the CSC issues a verdict of annulment without referral under CPP Article 620 letter I and finds the appellants not guilty.}
....

For these reasons

{The Supreme Court of Cassation} ... annuls the ruling under appeal without referral with respect to {the alleged commission of the crimes of murder, rape, theft, and simulation of a burglary} because the appellants did not commit the act.