The bizarre thing is that seemingly the ENTIRE reasoning behind the Marasca SC panel's views on Knox's presence at the cottage at the time of the murder is based upon Knox's own now-infamous "confession/accusation". Marasca et al write that it can be deduced that Knox was there because she said she was there in the statements given to police on 5th/6th November! Eve more strangely perhaps, Marasca goes on to "reason" that this implies Sollecito might have been present too, since (in his court's view) there's little reason to think that Sollecito wouldn't have been wherever Knox was!
And of course there is a huge error involved in this reasoning. The vast bulk of everything Knox said and wrote on 5th/6th November was - entirely correctly and properly (for very obvious reasons) - inadmissible against Knox in her murder trial. So Marasca clearly shouldn't have used the statements as the basis (seemingly the whole basis!) for concluding that she was in the cottage during the murder. And of course this whole issue is currently being processed by the ECHR.
Well, I wouldn't say Bruno/Marasca draws the conclusion of Knox presence during the murder from Knox's own statement, since Bruno/Marasca merely points out how this fact is "
alla stregua di" = "in accord with" the statement of Amanda Knox.
It points out that Knox's statement is in accord with this scenario and tends to confirm it. But it doesn't place the statement at the fundament of the reasoning.
In fact, Bruno/Marasca doesn't detail on the actual basis for the conclusion. It just points out this fact was proven in the trial, without specifying the details, as if was to be regarded as self-evident.
The hearing of the scream seems to be an original observation by Bruno/Marasca to emphasize that the timing of Knox's presence was when the murder took place, a kind of further confirmation.
Strangely I agree with LJ on part of what he says, that Bruno/Marasca shouldn't have used Knox's statements as a basis for a reasoning and draw a conclusion (albeit it is not true that it was used as a basis in a consequential reasoning, Marasca actually presents it only as an
accessory: linked by "alla stregua di", such connector rules out a casual link and makes it instead an accessory, a mere confirmation or analogy, something just "in accord with").
But the reason for this is not the reasons expressed by LJ, who has an erroneous interpretation of it as a reasoning based on causal logical connectors - which is not. The reason why they should have better avoided entering the topic at all, instead, is that Bruno-Marasca is a Supreme Court panel. It is not suppposed to draw conclusions assessing directly the reliability of a testimony, such as that of Amanda Knox. It doesn't really matter that this was just recalled as an element of confirmation. This is not exactly what the Cassazione is supposed to do.
To be fair to Bruno/Marasca, here it seems they intended to express a favourable judgement on the work of Nencini on this particular part of his judgement. Therefore one may see it as a judgment on the judgement, rather than a judgment of the testimony.
But anyway I am strongly perplexed by everything B/M wrote.
Italian criminal justice is broken and rotten from top to bottom. That the Marasca court came to the fundamentally correct decision (based on the correct deduction that there is/was no credible, reliable evidence of Knox's or Sollecito's participation in the murder (and that there never will be any such evidence) is of course to be welcomed. But the Marasca ruling is riddled with self-protecting strategies (in the sense of protecting the judiciary at large, and protecting the prosecutors, and protecting the might of the Italian state and its machinery) and is clearly faulty in a number of areas.
This is full rationalization-mode LJ's style. It's entirely nonsense. It's not worth to point out the absurdities in it. Only think about the way Bruno/Marasca creates a conflicts of res judicata with Chieffi on points of law. Does that make sense from the point of view of a panel poised to "self protecting" himself or the judiciary? Bruno/Marasca is so idiotic and foolish, self-contradictory and incontradiction with jurisprudence that seems rather designed to sink the prestige of the judiciary. It's hardly readable as a strategy for self-protection.
The whole thing is and always was a fiasco of the first order. Italy and its citizens should be hugely ashamed of how its authorities and its judiciary have acted throughout the entire investigation and trials process in respect of the Kercher murder.
I am ashamed of Hellmann & Bruno/ Marasca, you bet.
There desperately needs to be change, and it's only strong executives and legislatures (whether or not they are directly addressing public clamour for wholesale change - which the Italian public absolutely ought to be doing) who can effect and enforce such change. Perhaps the ECHR (and to a lesser degree the European Courts of Justice and the European Parliament) will also do its part in tearing up Italy's broken and botched system, and putting in place a system that's fit for purpose and worthy of a country that wants to call itself a modern liberalised democracy (as opposed to a mock democracy with quasi-fascist hangovers, in which the authorities wield inordinate and improper levels of power and control over ordinary citizens and the media). We'll see........
With due respect, you have no clue of what the Italian debate looks like.
You don't know, just an example, that the parliament of Tuscany has a comittee investigating conspiracy related to politics, judiciary and Masonry, and Mignini testified there something like a week ago.
There's something ironic: You should read the latest ECHR ruling against, egregiously in favour of the Italian judiciary, praising magistrates, while slmming the Italian executives and legistatures and, yes, also the United States. The recent ECHR ruling on Abu Omar kidnapping affair also points out the political conspiracy between corrupt executives and United States security agencies.
See some quotes praising the quality of italian magistrates and police as reported in the ruling:
