Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Vixen are you enjoying the Olympics? Did you notice the US women's soccer (football) team washed out early. Maybe it's time for Foxy Knoxy to come out of retirement and show them a trick or two

Yes, loving it. Did you see Finland triple-jumper, Kristiina Makela?

 

[Bill Williams]

And I notice that, like a hundred times before, you deftly side-step the facts upheld by Marasca:

• Amanda was at the scene of the murder. 'I cannot lie - I was there' ~ Amanda Knox - prison intercept.
• She covered up for Rudy when she accused Patrick.
• She washed off Mez' blood.
• Amanda and Raff's behaviour remians 'highly suspicious'.
• The pair lied umpteen times.

So..... we don't have to wait three months before you simply repost your factoids, with no reference at all the the point being made.

"The facts upheld by Marasca," Is not what Italian Supreme Court panels do. They rule on whether or not the trial referred to it reached the right verdict.

Go back through this thread by clicking on the little arrow in the quote box - it's handy to avoid simply repeating your words regardless.......

 

[Bill Williams]

Watch my lips: Marasca ruled that Amanda was at the scene of the murder and covered up for Rudy. Now answer the question: why did she at no time call the police to report the death of a person, why cover up for someone, who, according to bagels, she would never in a million years consort with, and wtf was she doing scrubbing off Mez' blood????

Why do you insist on trying to make an ISC panel into a merits" court?

 

[Vixen]

Why do you insist on trying to make an ISC panel into a merits" court?

I said 'upheld'.

UPHOLD

if a court upholds a decision made by another court, it states that the decision was correct


Clear now?

 

[Bill Williams]

I said 'upheld'.

UPHOLD

if a court upholds a decision made by another court, it states that the decision was correct


Clear now?

The Marasca-Bruno court annulled the decision of the Nencini court.

It was not a court which ruled on the veracity of the evidence heard by the Nencini court.

Only whether or not the evidence which it had before it should have resulted in conviction. The ISC said it should not have.

Once again you try to turn the ISC into a merits court as if its job was to confirm or deny any one piece of evidence. That is the job of the second grade court - like the Hellmann or Nencini courts.

Once again, you simply repeat your mistake.

 

[LondonJohn]

The Marasca-Bruno court annulled the decision of the Nencini court.

It was not a court which ruled on the veracity of the evidence heard by the Nencini court.

Only whether or not the evidence which it had before it should have resulted in conviction. The ISC said it should not have.

Once again you try to turn the ISC into a merits court as if its job was to confirm or deny any one piece of evidence. That is the job of the second grade court - like the Hellmann or Nencini courts.

Once again, you simply repeat your mistake.

I suspect Vixen suffers from a potent combination of a failure to understand the process and a delusional bias/jaundice based on a mistaken belief that Knox/Sollecito played a part in Kercher's murder. It's usually pointless to try to explain matters to such people, let alone try to show them how their beliefs are totally wrong and out of step with actual empirical evidence.......

 

[Vixen]

The Marasca-Bruno court annulled the decision of the Nencini court.

It was not a court which ruled on the veracity of the evidence heard by the Nencini court.

Only whether or not the evidence which it had before it should have resulted in conviction. The ISC said it should not have.

Once again you try to turn the ISC into a merits court as if its job was to confirm or deny any one piece of evidence. That is the job of the second grade court - like the Hellmann or Nencini courts.

Once again, you simply repeat your mistake.

The Marasca court came to a DECISION that Amanda was at the murder scene, did cover up for Rudy, did wash off Mez' blood and that Raff almost certainly there with her, and both did act highly suspiciously and lied compulsively. Upheld fact.

Overturning a verdict is not the equivalent of overturning all the facts found. It merely ruled that there was not enough evidence, whilst asserting in their written reasons,the aforesaid paragraph, as facts UPHELD confirmed.

DECISION

What is DECISION?
In practice. A judgment or decree pronounced by a court in settlement
oit a controversy submitted to it and BL.LAW DICT.(2D ED.)



Law Dictionary: What is DECISION? definition of DECISION (Black's Law Dictionary)

A conclusion reached after an evaluation of facts and law.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/decision


A declaration made by a judge is a legal decision.

 

[Bill Williams]

The Marasca court came to a DECISION that Amanda was at the murder scene, did cover up for Rudy, did wash off Mez' blood and that Raff almost certainly there with her, and both did act highly suspiciously and lied compulsively. Upheld fact.

Overturning a verdict is not the equivalent of overturning all the facts found. It merely ruled that there was not enough evidence, whilst asserting in their written reasons,the aforesaid paragraph, as facts UPHELD confirmed.

DECISION

What is DECISION?
In practice. A judgment or decree pronounced by a court in settlement
oit a controversy submitted to it and BL.LAW DICT.(2D ED.)



Law Dictionary: What is DECISION? definition of DECISION (Black's Law Dictionary)

A conclusion reached after an evaluation of facts and law.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/decision


A declaration made by a judge is a legal decision.

Calm down.

 

[Bill Williams]

"A sentence confirmed by the Supreme Court of Cassation is final and definitive, and cannot be further appealed. Although the Supreme Court of Cassation cannot overrule the trial court's interpretation of the evidence it can correct a lower court's interpretation or application of the law connected to a specific case."​

Vixen does understand this concept because Vixen has on numerous occasions applied it. The Italian Supreme Court is NOT there to make decisions about interpretation of evidence.

What it can do - and what Marasca-Bruno's Section of the ISC did do - was summarize the evidence in front of it from all sources, and then conclude:

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 the presence of 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 Article 530, section 2,
Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.​

Note how M/B zeroes in on the "text of the appealed verdict", not individual items of evidence which it had mentioned in Section 9. How had M/B arrives at the conclusion that Nencini must be annuled? In Section 9 they had summarized all the evidence in The Nencini court, as well as the courts' previous. M/B rolled it all into a ball. And none of it made sense.

Vixen's PR agenda of wanting to claim otherwise is clear.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

"A sentence confirmed by the Supreme Court of Cassation is final and definitive, and cannot be further appealed. Although the Supreme Court of Cassation cannot overrule the trial court's interpretation of the evidence it can correct a lower court's interpretation or application of the law connected to a specific case."​

Vixen does understand this concept because Vixen has on numerous occasions applied it. The Italian Supreme Court is NOT there to make decisions about interpretation of evidence.

What it can do - and what Marasca-Bruno's Section of the ISC did do - was summarize the evidence in front of it from all sources, and then conclude:

​

Note how M/B zeroes in on the "text of the appealed verdict", not individual items of evidence which it had mentioned in Section 9. How had M/B arrives at the conclusion that Nencini must be annuled? In Section 9 they had summarized all the evidence in The Nencini court, as well as the courts' previous. M/B rolled it all into a ball. And none of it made sense.

Vixen's PR agenda of wanting to claim otherwise is clear.

Bill,
It looks like, based on Italian law, the Supreme Court was forced to accept the lower courts interpretation of the evidence (even though it had zero scientific basis). Is that correct?

However, they were able to annul the ruling because there was an inherent contradiction in that interpretation, so Massei and Nencini applied the law incorrectly. Namely, since their interpretations were contradictory and didn't make logical sense, the correct verdict was not guilty according to Italian law. Does that sound right?

It looks like that, since the Massei and Nencini decisions and found facts had no scientific basis, the only correct and rational conclusion is that the Italian Supreme court is correct here and even the "facts found" by Massei and Nencini were wrong. i.e. there is absolutely no rational reason to believe Amanda "washed her hands of Meredith's blood", as Vixen likes to repeat hundreds of times since she has no scientific basis for her thought process.

She said previously that, in relation to the Salem witch trials, if a court finds a fact that has no scientific basis, it is invalid (otherwise, you clearly reach the absurdity that the citizens murdered in Salem were actually witches). Since the Massei and Nencini facts have no scientific basis either, it seems like Vixen must conclude Amanda and Raffaele are innocent of all charges and were not anywhere near the crime scene when Rudy killed Meredith. I, however, am not holding my breath on this, because Vixen might actually be insane.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill,
It looks like, based on Italian law, the Supreme Court was forced to accept the lower courts interpretation of the evidence (even though it had zero scientific basis). Is that correct?

However, they were able to annul the ruling because there was an inherent contradiction in that interpretation, so Massei and Nencini applied the law incorrectly. Namely, since their interpretations were contradictory and didn't make logical sense, the correct verdict was not guilty according to Italian law. Does that sound right?

It looks like that, since the Massei and Nencini decisions and found facts had no scientific basis, the only correct and rational conclusion is that the Italian Supreme court is correct here and even the "facts found" by Massei and Nencini were wrong. i.e. there is absolutely no rational reason to believe Amanda "washed her hands of Meredith's blood", as Vixen likes to repeat hundreds of times since she has no scientific basis for her thought process.

She said previously that, in relation to the Salem witch trials, if a court finds a fact that has no scientific basis, it is invalid (otherwise, you clearly reach the absurdity that the citizens murdered in Salem were actually witches). Since the Massei and Nencini facts have no scientific basis either, it seems like Vixen must conclude Amanda and Raffaele are innocent of all charges and were not anywhere near the crime scene when Rudy killed Meredith. I, however, am not holding my breath on this, because Vixen might actually be insane.

Who knows, there's a level to this where Italian courts seem to do whatever they want. There seems to be a built in bias as a holdover from the Inquisatorial days that the prosecutors are to be believed unless the defence can prove them wrong - which is Western law on its head.

The ISC is **not** forced to accept anything. All it does is review the lower courts ruling, to see if the verdict is sustainable given the evidence it had before it.

Vixen wants to cherry-pick items as-if the ISC was in a position to confirm or deny the factuality of any one of them. It seems that an ISC panel **is** constrained if a previous panel had accepted basic stuff, like multiple attackers or a staged break in.

Perhaps by definition, the ISC must be seen as consistent with itself.

But as for the drum Vixen keeps beating - the only role for M/B here is to take the text of the Nencini report and rule on whether or not, in law, Nencini should have convicted - not the veracity of any one point.

Vixen cherry-picks from M/B's Section 9, which M/B themselves describe as a synoptic presentation, not with the intent of proving or disproving any individual point......

...... but as **exactly** as they outline in Section 10. The inherent contradictions of the **submitted** evidence means Nencini should have acquitted.

What that means is that at the very least M/B trashes Nencini for the way he assessed evidence, regardless.

What's lost on many is the way M/B trash **all** the proceedings which produced this mess, while separating those proceedings from the **independent** evidence, like Conti-Vecchiotti.

Read the bit where M/B trashes lower court buffoons like Nencini for substituting himself as the Supra-Expert claiming to be able to dismiss independent DNA forensics simply on his own hunches.

I've read Luca Cheli's "four shadows" that M/B cast over this case, strangely none of them are in agreement with Vixen's canards.

But don't lose sight of Cheli's four rays of light, and four claps of thunder M/B sent through the system.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen wrote "The Marasca court came to a DECISION that Amanda was at the murder scene, did cover up for Rudy, did wash off Mez' blood and that Raff almost certainly there with her, and both did act highly suspiciously and lied compulsively. Upheld fact. "

Yet no charges of obstruction of justice were ever brought. Why is that?

Exactly what evidence supports the claim that Amanda washed off Meredith's blood?

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill,
It looks like, based on Italian law, the Supreme Court was forced to accept the lower courts interpretation of the evidence (even though it had zero scientific basis). Is that correct?

Where I agree with Vixen is that the Marasca-Bruno report has flaws in it, even as they came to the right verdict.

It is perhaps good that everyone read Luca Cheli's final thoughts on the verdict before he, himself, simply went on to other things.

http://www.groundreport.com/knox-and-sollecito-final-words/

In summary, writing as a PIP, he accepts that the M/B report does cast shadows over the whole 7 1/2 year process that convicted, then acquitted, then convicted again, then finally exonerated. You can read them in full for yourself, but Cheli's shadows are:

- A “conflitto in giudicato”, when one section of the ISC furiously tries to avoid being seen as in disagreement with another section. As such while writing few words about other issues, M/B spend inordinate time propping up the "multiple attacker theory", simply because another section signed off on a verdict which sustained that as a judicial truth.

- the Calumny against Lumumba. M/B was forced to deal with this up-front, because Knox's team had asked for a delay in the ISC ruling until ECHR had ruled on the legality of her calunnia conviction. Stunningly, M/B upheld the calunnia conviction (even though it could have been silent on the matter) by claiming that the conviction arose from an interrogation:

"institutionally immune to anomalous psychological pressures”​

However, even the M/B Section conveniently forgets that as far as the 1st 2 of Knox's interrogation memoriales are concerned, these were not written "in conditions of objective tranquillity”, as M/B claimed, but where she openly pleads that she cannot trust her memory.

- M/B quotes in their motivations report their view for an early time of death (p. 33 M/B). Yet M/B states the view that Capezzalli's testimony about the scream should have been given more weight.

- the view of Knox (and perhaps Sollecito) being at the cottage at the time of the murder is a complete fog in M/B. On P. 47 M/B state, there is no "tranquilizing certainty" that Knox's alibi is false. The ambiguity on this point from M/B results from them including the morning of Nov 2nd in the time interval they consider, and Knox's presence that morning is uncontested. But M/B writes about Knox's presence at the cottage NOT being inherently inconsistent with her alibi that she'd spent the night at Raffaele's!!!

- M/B's words about the alleged staging of the burglary suggest they mention it just because they have to (“conflitto in giudicato”), but that they really do not believe it.​

That's it.

Then Cheli delves into the rare light which M/B has cast on this case, as well as the thunder aimed squarely at others within Italy's judicial system.

I'd like to see Vixen try to tackle those items, rather than simply repost the tired canards of hers. Oh I forgot, she has. The record is forged, and everyone who disagrees with her is doing so because they've been bribed.

Got it.

 

[Methos]

Rudy knew how to pose Mez' body exactly as it appeared in Raff's manga comic back at the flat? He knew manga vampire slayers stabbed the vampire's neck both from the left and from the right? OK, so he had the same manga devilman sign off as Raff and expressed an interest in drinking blood in an eye-rolling video. However, how do you reconcile a burglar suddenly overcome by lust (your theory) with the highly stylised crime scene, which appeared thought out and calculated, all the way down to the handprint on the wall?

Provide evidence (by way of crime scene photos and the drawings in the manga book) to show how Mez' Mez's Kercher's body was "posed exactly as it appeared in [Sollecito's] manga comic back at the flat".

Oh. You can't do that? It's nothing more than a nasty product of a mind gripped with disgusting sexual fantasies?

Oh well. Strike that one out as well. No bother.

The problem is the highlighted part.
This is a picture of the Manga books found at Raffaele Sollecito's apartment (courtesy of TMoMK):
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/images/a/ad/16060934.jpg
The one Vixen refers to is the third in the bottom row. (Btw. the collectors edition in the first row is mentioned in "Honor Bound".)

If you google for "Blood the Last Vampire 2 Page 29" you'll get a picture of the page.

The picture showing in what position Meredith Kercher's body was found, can be found on this page:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/failed-sexual-assault-investigation/ It's slide 18 of the presentation.

"similar" perhaps but definitely not "exactly".

 

[Stacyhs]

Where I agree with Vixen is that the Marasca-Bruno report has flaws in it, even as they came to the right verdict.

It is perhaps good that everyone read Luca Cheli's final thoughts on the verdict before he, himself, simply went on to other things.

http://www.groundreport.com/knox-and-sollecito-final-words/

In summary, writing as a PIP, he accepts that the M/B report does cast shadows over the whole 7 1/2 year process that convicted, then acquitted, then convicted again, then finally exonerated. You can read them in full for yourself, but Cheli's shadows are:

- A “conflitto in giudicato”, when one section of the ISC furiously tries to avoid being seen as in disagreement with another section. As such while writing few words about other issues, M/B spend inordinate time propping up the "multiple attacker theory", simply because another section signed off on a verdict which sustained that as a judicial truth.

- the Calumny against Lumumba. M/B was forced to deal with this up-front, because Knox's team had asked for a delay in the ISC ruling until ECHR had ruled on the legality of her calunnia conviction. Stunningly, M/B upheld the calunnia conviction (even though it could have been silent on the matter) by claiming that the conviction arose from an interrogation:

"institutionally immune to anomalous psychological pressures”​

However, even the M/B Section conveniently forgets that as far as the 1st 2 of Knox's interrogation memoriales are concerned, these were not written "in conditions of objective tranquillity”, as M/B claimed, but where she openly pleads that she cannot trust her memory.

- M/B quotes in their motivations report their view for an early time of death (p. 33 M/B). Yet M/B states the view that Capezzalli's testimony about the scream should have been given more weight.

- the view of Knox (and perhaps Sollecito) being at the cottage at the time of the murder is a complete fog in M/B. On P. 47 M/B state, there is no "tranquilizing certainty" that Knox's alibi is false. The ambiguity on this point from M/B results from them including the morning of Nov 2nd in the time interval they consider, and Knox's presence that morning is uncontested. But M/B writes about Knox's presence at the cottage NOT being inherently inconsistent with her alibi that she'd spent the night at Raffaele's!!!

- M/B's words about the alleged staging of the burglary suggest they mention it just because they have to (“conflitto in giudicato”), but that they really do not believe it.​

That's it.

Then Cheli delves into the rare light which M/B has cast on this case, as well as the thunder aimed squarely at others within Italy's judicial system.

I'd like to see Vixen try to tackle those items, rather than simply repost the tired canards of hers. Oh I forgot, she has. The record is forged, and everyone who disagrees with her is doing so because they've been bribed.

Got it.

Exactly, Bill. "Conflitto in giudicato” is why no one can provide a single example of Cassation ever overturning a previous Cassation "judicial truth" within the same case. M/B had to say Amanda covered up for Rudy because that was confirmed in the calunnia conviction:

"...a crime aggravated in the sense of C.P. Article 61 no. 2 given that it was hypothesized that, with this false accusation, Amanda Knox sought to obtain impunity for herself, for Raffaele Sollecito, and for Rudy Hermann Guede."

 

[Methos]

They WERE given the controls. Conti & Vecchiotti were discredited by Chiefi and Nencini.
[...]
In Italy over 50% of all convicted persons have their convictions overturned, lifers are out on parole within about nine years, and there is no death penalty.
[...]

How is Chieffi able to "discredit" anyone? His court should only be able to rule on judicial matters, just the same as you keep repeating for Marasca.

The highlighted part should make one think, shouldn't it?

All of Stefanoni's procedures were transparent and correct. They were witnessed by independent observers, hired by the defence themselves.

Conti & Vecchiotti tried to undermine Stefanoni, being in cohorts with the Sollecitos and Maori (shaking hands with them, but not with Crini for the prosecution). They deliberately misquoted Stefanoni and indulged in abstract speculation with little foundation in reality.

The highlighted part might be factually correct, but it doesn't matter because Crini was the prosecutor in Florence and C & V only testified in Perugia two years earlier...

I am genuinely interested where you got this from. It is not something that was ever argued in court. There are no easily available pictures to show how the victim was 'posed' most available pictures show her covered. Have you seen a picture of the body exposed? (I have not)

Have you actually read the Manga book? It is easily available. You keep on saying the falsity about vampire slayer which makes me think you have not read this book. I have.

The heroine is a vampire who works for a shadowy government organisation she does the killing. She kills (evil) monsters. There is no big halloween killing. There is no posed body, there are no devilman symbols.

if you check the stats if a burglar breaks into a house and finds a single female present the likelihood of an assault is high. (By which I mean around 20%); so that a sexual assault occurred is not unusual. What is rare is the progress to murder, but not unknown.

You are wrong. The version found at Raff's flat is set at Halloween and the body is graphically posed (with three pairs of feet surrounding her) exactly as described in Giordano's autopsy summary (Rudy's appeal hearing). ETA And oh, Mignini did argue it at the Matteini hearing IIRC in his closing submissions.

See my post above, it would be nice to have the exact quote from Giordano re. the"three pairs of feet surrounding her", because there are more than "three pairs of feet" in that picture...

On the highlighted part: Mignini argued in front of judge Micheli (there's a link to the original document on that page):

page 46 starting from line 12: “It should be emphasized that, in any case, for those pathologically addicted to the commission of sex and violence, it is not far-fetched to connect the project to the tradition of Halloween, because if it is true that the night between October 31 and November 1 was passed (and Meredith had spent with her ​​friends and fellows), it is equally true that, at 9 pm circa of the first of November and for the next three hours, it was still the day of All Saints’ Day and what you do not was able to achieve on the eve night of Holiday of the Saints, could be realized in the night to pass from the last one to the “Holiday of the deads”. and pag 49 starting from line 17: “Moreover, the three, and especially Sollecito, were all addicted to the suggestions of erotic – mudering “culture”, which has previosly been discussed and that night it was still the day of the Holiday of Saints, “inheritor” of the Catholic Samhain Celtic New Year, with all the implications that have their central point in the Holiday eve, that is the night between October 31 and November 1.”

It's hard to take you seriously, when you're repeatedly getting basic facts (the real ones) wrong...

Yes, I am sure burglars do commit sexual assault being of an amoral type. However, that does not explain the highly stylised crime scene as found in the Kercher case. You do know ALL the courts - including Marasca - (apart from the ceremoniously expunged Hellmann) uphold the burglary was STAGED. That is final. It is a fact.

It's a judicial construct, not a fact.

 

[Vixen]

Who knows, there's a level to this where Italian courts seem to do whatever they want. There seems to be a built in bias as a holdover from the Inquisatorial days that the prosecutors are to be believed unless the defence can prove them wrong - which is Western law on its head.

The ISC is **not** forced to accept anything. All it does is review the lower courts ruling, to see if the verdict is sustainable given the evidence it had before it.

Vixen wants to cherry-pick items as-if the ISC was in a position to confirm or deny the factuality of any one of them. It seems that an ISC panel **is** constrained if a previous panel had accepted basic stuff, like multiple attackers or a staged break in.

Perhaps by definition, the ISC must be seen as consistent with itself.

But as for the drum Vixen keeps beating - the only role for M/B here is to take the text of the Nencini report and rule on whether or not, in law, Nencini should have convicted - not the veracity of any one point.

Vixen cherry-picks from M/B's Section 9, which M/B themselves describe as a synoptic presentation, not with the intent of proving or disproving any individual point......

...... but as **exactly** as they outline in Section 10. The inherent contradictions of the **submitted** evidence means Nencini should have acquitted.

What that means is that at the very least M/B trashes Nencini for the way he assessed evidence, regardless.

What's lost on many is the way M/B trash **all** the proceedings which produced this mess, while separating those proceedings from the **independent** evidence, like Conti-Vecchiotti.

Read the bit where M/B trashes lower court buffoons like Nencini for substituting himself as the Supra-Expert claiming to be able to dismiss independent DNA forensics simply on his own hunches.

I've read Luca Cheli's "four shadows" that M/B cast over this case, strangely none of them are in agreement with Vixen's canards.

But don't lose sight of Cheli's four rays of light, and four claps of thunder M/B sent through the system.

Can you remind me of Cheli's 'four shadows'? And 'four rays of light'?

Marasca is such a crock of ****, how does one argue it?

 

[Vixen]

The problem is the highlighted part.
This is a picture of the Manga books found at Raffaele Sollecito's apartment (courtesy of TMoMK):
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/images/a/ad/16060934.jpg
The one Vixen refers to is the third in the bottom row. (Btw. the collectors edition in the first row is mentioned in "Honor Bound".)

If you google for "Blood the Last Vampire 2 Page 29" you'll get a picture of the page.

The picture showing in what position Meredith Kercher's body was found, can be found on this page:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/failed-sexual-assault-investigation/ It's slide 18 of the presentation.

"similar" perhaps but definitely not "exactly".

And some rough burglar had the bright idea...?

 

[Bill Williams]

Exactly, Bill. "Conflitto in giudicato” is why no one can provide a single example of Cassation ever overturning a previous Cassation "judicial truth" within the same case. M/B had to say Amanda covered up for Rudy because that was confirmed in the calunnia conviction:

"...a crime aggravated in the sense of C.P. Article 61 no. 2 given that it was hypothesized that, with this false accusation, Amanda Knox sought to obtain impunity for herself, for Raffaele Sollecito, and for Rudy Hermann Guede."

20/20 hindsight comment alert:

I wonder if the Knox lawyers had not asked for a delay in the Section 5 ruling until the Calunnia charge had cleared the ECHR, if M/B would have even needed to have commented at all.

However, once force with commenting, "Conflitto in giudicato” kicks in, and judicial truths trump common sense.

 

[Vixen]

Exactly, Bill. "Conflitto in giudicato” is why no one can provide a single example of Cassation ever overturning a previous Cassation "judicial truth" within the same case. M/B had to say Amanda covered up for Rudy because that was confirmed in the calunnia conviction:

"...a crime aggravated in the sense of C.P. Article 61 no. 2 given that it was hypothesized that, with this false accusation, Amanda Knox sought to obtain impunity for herself, for Raffaele Sollecito, and for Rudy Hermann Guede."

There is no internal conflict, if you look at the Italian Penal Code.

Marasca was either a bunch of amateurs unfamiliar with the nuances of the law, or they deliberately sought to obfuscate the issues.

I believe, a bit of both. At least Marasca was ashamed enough to immediately retire.