Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Welshman]

I read it as a typo, which it obviously was, as it was Amanda's DNA on the knife, not Raff's. Proper nouns don't come up in spellchecks, so it is easy for the wrong name to creep into a court document, or someone's name to change half way through, or even be wrong all the way through. For example a Mr Barrett becoming a Mr Bennett, and nobody spots it as it is the court secretaries who type all this stuff up. The judges merely sign it.

Vixen accuses Amanda of telling numerous lies but when Nencini lies in his report that Raffaele's DNA was on the knife Vixen makes an excuse for it. If Amanda wrote a document with falsehoods Vixen would viciously attack Amanda for lying and the typing error excuse would never apply to Amanda.

 

[LondonJohn]

Perhaps more important is another error of Nencini.

"But all of this is entirely irrelevant to the question of the specific significance of the fact of having found Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA on the hook of the bra worn by Meredith Kercher on the evening of the murder. There is no reason for the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito to be present on that hook, as nothing in the case file indicates that there was any intimate or even merely familiar relationship between the victim and Raffaele Sollecito, apart from [244] the fact of his having been present on the evening of the murder and having pulled at the clasp with his fingers in order to cut the elastic closure at the moment when the victim was being attacked. Essentially, in not very technical but maybe more expressive terms, it is possible that many hands touched that bra clasp, but the one that is important at trial is that of Raffaele Sollecito, since the evidence places the defendant at the scene of the crime on the evening when the murder was committed, and indicates his taking an active role in the attack on Meredith Kercher."

This is a crucial piece of evidence as it is used to place Sollecito at the time and place of the murder.

1) The bra strap (elastic closure?) tore and was not cut. 2) If Sollecito had pulled at the bra strap he would have touched the fabric and not the hook! The fabric where his DNA was not found.

The DNA cannot attribute time, so Nencini errs in saying that he places him there on the evening.

The judge fails to recognise that secondary or greater transfer is a possibility, in analysing the evidence he has to show that he recognises the possibility even if he subsequently decides direct contact is the most likely explanation, here he implies direct contact is the only way DNA can be transferred. This is especially important in a low level of trace DNA.

The only time you usually touch a bra hook is putting on the bra, you need to do this to guide the hooks into the eyes. You do not touch the hook when taking a bra off, you just touch the cloth covering. This is why I think that Knox transferred Sollecito's DNA (along with others) from her hand on to the hook when she put the bra on. Certainly transfer post crime e.g. during collection is also possible.

Nencini only really considered the prosecution case (as ISC said he presented a case to justify conviction and did not seriously consider the defence case), To do so he invents a non-existent (indeed false) scenario, but one that could not explain the evidence it was supposed to explain.

Indeed. It's fatuous and illogical for Nencini to have postulated that Sollecito must have "pulled at the clasp with his fingers in order to cut the elastic closure at the moment when the victim was being attacked", for the reasons you give above. As you also allude to above, it really highlights the serious institutional deficiencies in Italian courts where a) judges effectively appoint themselves as experts in things they know little (or even nothing) about, and b) judges literally invent scenarios to "explain" evidence (this second is almost certainly a relic of the institutional system, where the role of the court was to determine "the truth" about the crime - rather than what it is now required to do, which is solely to determine whether defendants are guilty BARD of the crimes with which they are charged, based purely on the evidence presented to the court).

In passing, I presume you meant to write "Kercher" here, rather than "Knox".......

 

[Vixen]

No.

Bill pointed out the mistake (in stating that Sollecito's DNA was present on the knife) and its significance. It was only YOU who then asserted that Marasca had acquitted and annulled entirely because of that mistake. Do you not realise (or understand) this?

You then wander off into uncharted and unrelated territory about Alessi and Aviello (or should that be "Allosso (_sp?) and Avianca (_sp)" in the sloppy lack of research that appears to be de rigueur in some quarters round here.....?) and "Raff's Da'" (curiously employing a regional colloquialism for "father" for some unknown reason....) to criticise Marasca's reasoning - when it was you yourself who previously accused Marasca of acquitting Knox and Sollecito of acquitting/annulling purely on the basis of the single mistake in Nencini about Sollecito's DNA on the knife. Or do I need to remind you of the actual words you wrote? I do? OK. You wrote:

"For Marasca to quash the verdict simply because of an OBVIOUS name typo...."

Your arguments are pathetic, ignorant, constantly goalpost-shifting and intellectually dishonest. Disgrace.

Same to you with bells on. Nice summary of your own debating techniques.


And don't forget to polish them.

 

[Vixen]

Oh and by the way and for the record, when Popovic came back to Sollecito's apartment to inform him that she no longer needed his help, at around 8.40pm on the night of the murder, she spoke only with Knox - and neither spoke with or saw Sollecito. So Vixen's assertion that

"...and then there was Popovic whose description of Raff was that he seemed off his head"

is, once again, factually unfounded. Or, in more colloquial terms, yet more bat guano. Unsurprising.

Oh dear. Spouting off again. Do read the testimony. Popovice said Raff came out of the bathroom and gave her a cold faraway look.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh dear. Spouting off again. Do read the testimony. Popovice said Raff came out of the bathroom and gave her a cold faraway look.

Evidence?

ETA: perhaps this will help:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Testimony-of-Jovana-Popovic.pdf

In fact, Popovic testified that she didn't see or speak with Sollecito at all when she came back at around 8.40pm (which is clearly the more salient time if one is trying to link Knox and Sollecito to the murder).

Furthermore, when she had come round to Sollecito's apartment to ask for the favour at around 5.50pm that same evening (when she did see and speak with Sollecito) she testified merely that Sollecito had seemed somewhat shy and diffident, and not as "smiley" as usual. Interestingly, Popovic made the explicit point of stating, in respect of Sollecito's behaviour and character at that point: "(there's) nothing strange about this."

So..... surprise, surprise. More wholesale inventions and distortions from Vixen.

ETA2: It's also well noted that you've already rowed back from your initial assertion that Popovic's description of Raff was that "he seemed off his head" to "Popovice (sic) said Raff came out of the bathroom and gave her a cold faraway look". Neither of these is accurate of course, and both in any case refer to the earlier (c.5.50pm) meeting rather than Popovic's 8.40pm return to the apartment. But nonetheless, it's very interesting to see the goalpost-shifting taking place here - gives an excellent insight into the integrity and intellectual honesty of the "argument".

 

[LondonJohn]

Same to you with bells on. Nice summary of your own debating techniques.


And don't forget to polish them.

Is this really the best you can offer? The old playground technique of "Yeah? Well that's what YOU are! Neenahneenah!"?

Pathetic (again). But (again) not unexpected.

(And it's duly noted that you eschewed addressing any of my actual points in that post......)

 

[Welshman]

This is what Bill has been crowing about. Marasca put it in the written reasons that Nencini was amiss in accidentally calling Amanda Raff.


Marasca even berates the quality of the witnesses, when the child murderer and kidnapper and two-bit mafioso were the kids' Star Witnesses (their only witnesses! Oh, apart from Raff's Da', who swore blind the kids ate at eight and had the water leak all over by 8:42pm [so Papa knows for sure his leetle boy wasn't playing with his X-Box that night, having been asked by him to lie on his behalf]; and then there was Popovic whose description of Raff was that he seemed off his head.)

Perhaps you didn't notice the glaring contradictions and illogicalities in the written reasons, looking out through your jaundiced eye.

In the same post Vixen accuses Raffaele's father of lying Vixen lies herself by saying Popovic had seen Raffaele off his head when in fact Popovic said she only spoke with Amanda at 8.42 pm. Another example of Vixen's hypocrisy.

 

[Wilson85]

Amanda Knox blabbed within about an hour within a friendly atmosphere after learning Raff withdrew her alibi. I believe she was in Piazza Grimana where she met 'Patrik' = Rudy Guede, and took him to the cottage for sex. Like Rudy and Raff, of course she distances herself from the actual killing, however, it is clear she did hear Mez scream and also heard thuds, as did Rudy and Kokomani.

You should read Amandas tapped phone calls (amandaknoxcase.com/statements-phone-taps-prison-intercepts/)

Very interesting: the conversation in the afternoon of the 5th of November (hours before the interrogation) with Dolly - they talk about suspects:

Dolly: So they don’t have any suspect?

Amanda: Well, yes, they have, but they don’t tell me…

Dolly: But it wouldn’t be the guy you were afraid of, would it?

Amanda: Ehm… the guy that…the only guy I know who is certainly a suspect is one I only met once because… ehm…I decided never to talk to him again because he took me to his home in the middle of the night after telling me he would be taking me to my place, that is to give me a lift home, instead he
didn’t take me home and did so only after about one and a half hour later, after arguing with him, telling him I wanted to go home, “Take me home!”, and he: “Alright”. I didn’t like that and told him so. He was a guy who met up with Meredith and her friends often, when they went out, so he is a suspect, I know. I mean: they don’t tell me who is suspected…​

Amanda is talking about Shaky (Hicham Khiri), a black man. Do you have any explanation why she 'fingers Patrik to cover up for Rudy' hours later without any suggestion of the police and although the only suspect she guesses is Shaky?


A 'friendly atmosphere'? Read what Amanda says about the 3rd and 4th Nov police interrogations in tapped phone calls. Keep in mind that these interrogations were before Raff dropped her alibi.

Tapped phone call with Annie Fuller on 5. Nov 18:20 (talking about Nov 4th):

Amanda: Yes, in fact my battery got flat and in any case I spent the whole day at the Police Station.

Annie: Good heavens! How did they treat you?

Amanda: It’s a little frustrating because… that is, they are very stressed and become more impatient with me and then… yesterday it’s been very difficult because when I went to the Police Station they questioned me and when I tried to reply they were telling me: “Are you’re lying? Are you sure you’re not lying? Because if you’re lying you are getting yourself in big trouble”, and I: “I’m not lying, I’m trying to help you”, you know? ​

Tapped phone call with Doroty on 5. Nov 19:00:

Doroty: You seem much better than yesterday.

Amanda: I am much better than yesterday, yesterday I was going crazy and even though I’m not in perfect form, today I function better, because since tis happened (- - -) they bombarded my mind and today I was able to not think about it, which is very positive​

And last but not least, the thing that she had insider knowledge (rape). Read the tapped conversation with Dolly in the afternoon of 5th Nov:

Dolly: Has she been raped?

Amanda: Well, that was the point: They asked me about her sexual life because it seems as if she had sex with someone but they don’t know if it was consensual or if it was a rape situation. They asked me questions about her sexual life, such as: was she having sex with someone… whom she had just met?, if she was doing some things during sex, so I don’t even know what the hell this guy did to her but it seems strange.

...

Amanda: … they only ask me questions, but from the questions they ask me I am in a position to understand who the suspect is, because they go: “ Do you know anyone tall who comes to your house?” And I: “Ok, great, then it has something to do with a tall person”; “Tell me something of Meredith’s sexual life”, and I: “Oh, great, she’s been raped.” Eh, eh, eh!​

Amandas statement to police 6. Nov 1:45 AM:

I struggle to remember those moments, but Patrik had sex with Meredith, with whom he was infatuated, but I do not recall whether Meredith had been threatened beforehand.​

 

[js202]

Vixen accuses Amanda of telling numerous lies but when Nencini lies in his report that Raffaele's DNA was on the knife Vixen makes an excuse for it. If Amanda wrote a document with falsehoods Vixen would viciously attack Amanda for lying and the typing error excuse would never apply to Amanda.

Well that's just because Amanda's a vicious sex killer who loves promiscuous sex and Nencini is salt of the earth.

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen accuses Amanda of telling numerous lies but when Nencini lies in his report that Raffaele's DNA was on the knife Vixen makes an excuse for it. If Amanda wrote a document with falsehoods Vixen would viciously attack Amanda for lying and the typing error excuse would never apply to Amanda.

Well that's just because Amanda's a vicious sex killer who loves promiscuous sex and Nencini is salt of the earth.

What's worse than a judge telling a lie?

Judge Nencini didn't lie in the strict sense of the word. Nencini just didn't care. He found the verdict and wrote the report that he believed the Supreme Court wanted.

He even managed to qualm the fears of one of the popular judges who said she was hearing different things publicly as opposed to what she was hearing in court. He blabbed about all this to the press, earning him a rare rebuke for talking about the case in detail just after the verdict.

Crini was even worse. Crini mailed in his prosecution of this. But between the two of them, they could not agree on what was what..... Nencini had to amend much of the stuff Crini brought to court - meaning that the defendants had no right to challenge those issues.....

Nencini expected to be praised by the Supreme Court - instead he was slapped down. Read the bit in the 2015 ISC motivations Report that criticizes him for simply returning a verdict he had thought was from an order of the 2013 ISC.

 

[bagels]

Nencini didn't assume the Chieffi court wanted him to convict, because that would imply he had to read between the lines.

Chieffi was explicit: every point Hellmann made was wrong, literally every one. If your verdict is anything remotely resembling Hellmann, you're wrong. If you think Quintavalle is in any way unreliable, you're wrong. BTW the evidence in your court doesn't matter anyway because you need to convict Amanda because she was already found guilty in Rudy's trial.

I mean that's just what the Chieffi report was.

 

[Bill Williams]

Nencini didn't assume the Chieffi court wanted him to convict, because that would imply he had to read between the lines.

Chieffi was explicit: every point Hellmann made was wrong, literally every one. If your verdict is anything remotely resembling Hellmann, you're wrong. If you think Quintavalle is in any way unreliable, you're wrong. BTW the evidence in your court doesn't matter anyway because you need to convict Amanda because she was already found guilty in Rudy's trial.

I mean that's just what the Chieffi report was.

I don't "get" the connection between the first sentence and the other two.

In any event it is clear what the 2015 ISC said in its motivations report. Nencini thought he had to convict.

 

[bagels]

I don't "get" the connection between the first sentence and the other two.

In any event it is clear what the 2015 ISC said in its motivations report. Nencini thought he had to convict.

He didn't assume he had to convict, he knew he had to convict, because that was the explicit direction given to him by Chieffi.

I don't know what Nencini was supposed to do. He was given a report that said "convict, anything less is wrong" and so he did.

I couldn't understand why Chieffi overturned Hellmann in one of the worst examples of legal reasoning I've ever laid eyes upon from a higher court, until I watched the Netflix doc and saw the football sized crowds waiting for a glimpse to shout at Amanda lead by a guy in a megaphone.

That's when I realized this was a political case in Italy and why Chieffi miscalculated, thinking with this much political uproar there must be something to the case. He forgot the #1 thing though: most people are idiots.

 

[Stacyhs]

He didn't assume he had to convict, he knew he had to convict, because that was the explicit direction given to him by Chieffi.

I don't know what Nencini was supposed to do. He was given a report that said "convict, anything less is wrong" and so he did.

I couldn't understand why Chieffi overturned Hellmann in one of the worst examples of legal reasoning I've ever laid eyes upon from a higher court, until I watched the Netflix doc and saw the football sized crowds waiting for a glimpse to shout at Amanda lead by a guy in a megaphone.

That's when I realized this was a political case in Italy and why Chieffi miscalculated, thinking with this much political uproar there must be something to the case. He forgot the #1 thing though: most people are idiots.

Isn't that the truth!

 

[NotEvenWrong]

That's when I realized this was a political case in Italy and why Chieffi miscalculated, thinking with this much political uproar there must be something to the case. He forgot the #1 thing though: most people are idiots.

And then you have the special blend of idiots and super nuts: the guilters. Not only do they have no logical reasoning skills whatsoever (and this is why they believed the tabloids back in '08; yet somehow have deluded themselves into believing they only use "primary sources"), they honestly have convinced themselves they know forensic science over the likes of Peter Gill. It's an absolutely insane blend of narcissism, paranoid delusions, and just complete, utter idiocy. It wouldn't be so mind blowing if it was just one person. But it's literally all of them, and they have somehow, someway made Amanda Knox their one true obsession in life and have assembled Jonestown style into vomit inducing internet forum cults. It's such a weird social and psychological phenomenon that it's mind boggling. It seriously needs to be studied and published on by sociologists and psychologists. I'd love to read what they come up with when they examine the guilters as a community.

 

[Bill Williams]

He didn't assume he had to convict, he knew he had to convict, because that was the explicit direction given to him by Chieffi.

I don't know what Nencini was supposed to do. He was given a report that said "convict, anything less is wrong" and so he did.

I couldn't understand why Chieffi overturned Hellmann in one of the worst examples of legal reasoning I've ever laid eyes upon from a higher court, until I watched the Netflix doc and saw the football sized crowds waiting for a glimpse to shout at Amanda lead by a guy in a megaphone.

That's when I realized this was a political case in Italy and why Chieffi miscalculated, thinking with this much political uproar there must be something to the case. He forgot the #1 thing though: most people are idiots.

I still don't "get" the connection between the first sentence and the other two, in the post in question. Never mind.

But consider this - the following is the way the Italian Supreme Court in 2015 reads the riot act to the lower court, Nencini's court, for convicting. At base the 2nd Grade Appeal's court is required to look at the totality of the evidence, not just the items referred to it by the 2013 Supreme Court:

it is an indisputable application of jurisprudence that, in the presence of such grounds for annulment, pertaining to the deficiency in reasoning, the referral judge is responsible for the examination of the entire body of evidence, that he is expected to review in complete freedom to form judgments, without any type of constraints, being only required to produce motivations devoid of deficiencies of obvious lack of logic or patent contradictoriness that had caused the annulment of the first appeal verdict. In the jurisprudence of this Court of legitimacy, in fact, the assertion is repeated according to: “following an annulment for deficiency of reasoning, the referral judge is not bound by founding the new verdict on the same arguments considered illogical or deficient by the Supreme Court of Cassation, but is free to arrive at, based on different arguments from those rejected in the Court of Legitimacy or rather integrating and completing those already carried out, to the same decision of the annulled pronouncement. That because it is the judge of the lower court who is expected to have the task of reconstructing the facts emerging from the results of the trial and to appreciate the significance and value of the various sources of evidence (amongst others, Section 4, n. 30422 of 21/06/2005, Poggi, Rv. 232019; Section 4, n. 48352 of 29/04/2009, Savoretti, Rv. 245775).​

It is the lower court judge, in Italy, who is expected to assemble the facts, free from contradiction or illogic, to form a verdict. (Marasca-Bruno even cites what I assume is "case-law" to make this point.)

The 2015 Supreme Court even provides a "for instance". The "for instance is that the 2013 Supreme court annulled Hellmann's acquittals, and then made an opinion on the kind of motive for this crime the new 2nd Grade court (Nencini's) should examine - namely, the "sex game gone wrong" motive.

On this matter, moreover, this Supreme Court of Jurisprudence has already expressed itself, in stating that the referral judge cannot be conditioned in his reasoning by evaluations of fact that may have escaped the judge of legitimacy, with the levels on which the respective evaluations operate being different, and with it not being the role of the Court of Cassation to superimpose its own judgment on the referral judge regarding such aspects. Moreover, where the Supreme Court focuses any attention on some particular aspects from which emerges the deficiency or the contradictoriness of the reasoning.....

3.1. As we will see, the judge a quo [of the trial from which this appeal is being heard], in further points, remains conditioned by the prospect of the factual profile unexpectedly included in the annulled sentence; such that the stringent and analytical evaluation of the Supreme Court might unavoidably become forced towards affirming the guilt of the two accused. Misguided by this basic misunderstanding, the same judge is drawn into logical inconsistencies and obvious errores in iudicando [errors in judgment] that are here reported.​

Section 3.1 is the Section of the 2015 Supreme Court reasoning that is the most cutting of all.

I do not see it as a criticism of the 2013 Supreme Court - it is a criticism of Nencini's court for being led to believe it was being directed to convict - and that this misunderstanding of Nencini's led directly to all the contradictory evidence Marasca-Bruno later outlines in Section 9.4ff of their report.

This is why it is so wrong to continue to quote items from Section 9.4ff as if Marasca-Bruno is unholding facts! Far from it. Marasca-Bruno is demonstrating the contradictory nature of the evidence, that Nencini's own misunderstanding of the mandate handed to him forces him into......

Contradictions and a false verdict.

 

[bagels]

I think poor Nencini had the rug pulled out from under him.

True he shouldn't have convicted, because the evidence was garbage...but the evidence was just as much garbage when it was in front of the Chieffi court and they rubber stamped it for Nencini to convict.

How exactly would a pro-acuittal pro-Chieffi motivation report work?

Let's try it:

While we agree with the ISC that Quintavalle can't be judged unreliable just because his story contradicts itself, he changed it multiple times, and multiple details were clearly wrong, and it is in direct conflict with other testimony...

But...maybe Amanda Knox spontaneously needed a reason to be in a cleaning supplies shop the moment it opened at the crack of dawn for some random non murder related reason...and maybe aliens zapped her memory when she told the police later that day the first thing she did that day was wake up late and go straight to the cottage. That is plausible and therefore probable.

So Quintavalle does not undo Amanda Knox's alibi, and is immaterial as a witness.

- Judge Nencini, on acquitting Amanda Knox while simultaneously placating the Chieffi court.



Chieffi court: Ah yes, this is more like it. Amanda, you're free to go.

I'm sure

 

[Numbers]

Maybe so. As I said, I was only voicing a speculative opinion, based on the apparent contradictory factors between key findings in the criminal slander conviction and the fundamental finding of the Marasca SC panel.

I do agree that the Marasca panel's report is hostile to the idea of the ECHR countermanding the verdicts of the Italian courts (a common reactionary stance among judiciaries everywhere, probably.....). But that is not to say that the Marasca court agrees with the verdict on the criminal slander per se. It's perfectly possible, for example, for the Marasca panel to disagree with the criminal slander conviction and motivation, and to not want to broadcast its disagreement (both because this is outside its remit and because it has no wish or appetite to contradict or challenge another SC ruling), but to be hostile to the idea of a non-Italian supra-national judicial body telling the Italian judiciary what to do.

Anyhow...................................................

(In parentheses as a further clue - I think it is a reasonable reading of the posts that the inference is being made that Marasca secretly believed them to be innocent, but was hampered by a judicial fraternity pledge of some sort.)

In any event, I'm not thinking clearly..... still trying to recover from Numbers agreeing with me!

At the risk of continuing to agree with Bill, although maybe I can disagree with him in part, for old times' sake:

That the Marasca CSC panel MR explicitly supported Knox's final conviction for calunnia against Lumumba is not an issue. What I believe is the issue is that it goes beyond reiterating the previous verdict to make a statement about the outcome of a potential revision trial and includes a false statement regarding the evidence. These statements on their face seem to be an attempt to influence the revision trial, which rightfully, according to Italian procedural law and the European Convention on Human Rights, must be allowed to form its judgment based on the evidence presented to it and independent of prejudicial directions from another court.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Vixen:
A point on terms.
l'assoluzione
Closest English term: Absolution
Considering the meaning of both exoneration and absolution, it's a close enough idiomatic fit to the more literal translation (absolution) absent the religious connotations of absolution as a term/word.

When someone renders l'assoluzione into English as exoneration, given that it's a legal matter, it's a very good fit in terms of meaning.

 

[LondonJohn]

At the risk of continuing to agree with Bill, although maybe I can disagree with him in part, for old times' sake:

That the Marasca CSC panel MR explicitly supported Knox's final conviction for calunnia against Lumumba is not an issue. What I believe is the issue is that it goes beyond reiterating the previous verdict to make a statement about the outcome of a potential revision trial and includes a false statement regarding the evidence. These statements on their face seem to be an attempt to influence the revision trial, which rightfully, according to Italian procedural law and the European Convention on Human Rights, must be allowed to form its judgment based on the evidence presented to it and independent of prejudicial directions from another court.

I entirely agree (as I said before) that the Marasca report shows clear evidence of hostility towards the ECHR. I postulated that this is very probably due to basic reactionary attitudes: the Italian Supreme Court wants to think of itself as the ultimate arbiter of justice in all matters Italian (other than in wider constitutional affairs), and does not like the idea of a supra-national court effectively having the power to tell it off and make it remedy judgements.

But, as I also said, this absolutely can be looked at in isolation from the actual issue at stake. It is not correct to say that if an SC panel is hostile to the ECHR telling Italy it's wrong over a certain case, then necessarily that SC panel also believes that Italy made the correct decision over that case.

In any case, I want to reiterate three things: 1) my comment was only ever a speculative piece of interpretation, which a) was utterly tangential to the debate proper about this case (hence the parentheses) and b) was never intended to be the kicking-off point for an extended debate on the words within the parentheses (again, hence the parentheses); 2) I might very well be wrong in my speculative interpretation; and 3) in any case, I never implied in any way that the Marasca panel "wanted" Knox to be ultimately exonerated on the criminal slander issue - my speculation was based wholly on the observation that the Marasca panel is clear on the lack of evidence against Knox and Sollecito, yet this appears at odds with a significant strand of the judicial reasoning underpinning her criminal slander conviction: that Knox was telling the truth when she said she'd been in the cottage at the time of the murder.

*sigh* Can we put this to bed now? I'll say again: parenthetical comment.