Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[bagels]

Wrong. "They" (who?) had no "shedevil theory of the crime" at the time.

Btw, no "shedevil theory of the crime" was ever put forward (at least not by the public prosecutions)

Yeah right.

Meanwhile:

, leads to acknowledge the existence of serious indications of guilt against Amanda both with reference to the homicide and with reference to that part of the conduct that results in a group sexual violence,

...

, since in the framework of the proposed reconstruction the role of Amanda cannot be secondary, considered the presence of the knife on the crime scene, for which all the indications lead to a high decay of inhibitions and therefore an actual disposition to be associate with every type of compulsion, therefore destined to give rise to violent and uncontrolled behavior.

Moreover Amanda has turned out to be a young woman with a multiform personality, made of self-confidence and deceitfulness, not disjointed from naivety, but with a strongly scenic inclination and an elevating, seems fatal, capacity for aggregation.

Later from Nencini

The image witnesses leave with us is that of [Meredith Kercher as] a “very serious” young woman, almost “puritan”, even disturbed by the behavior of Amanda Marie Knox, who she deemed almost shameless in admitting young men she did not know well in the flat.

...

The fact remains that at a certain time in the evening the events precipitated; the young English woman was attacked by Amanda Marie Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, who supported his girlfriend

It's actually comically over the top.

I'm surprised they didn't add illustrations:

Pictured Left: Meredith Kercher, Right: Amanda Knox.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, you see, not quite. Certainly not in the way you choose to represent it.

Sollecito replies to a comment/question of "I see that you're pale (in complexion), don't you go to the seaside?" with "Oh, I see so many people turn pale". And then somebody else (who is, in fact, the blogger who infiltrated the group to expose it) writes "Ahahaha you laugh, actually Meredith must have been fairly pale, considering that they found not so much as a centilitre of blood in her body".

Now, of course I get that Sollecito might have been making some reference to Kercher bleeding out. But IMO it's far from the only interpretation. And the fact that he writes "so many people (plural)" points further away from any reference to Kercher (singular) - he might equally have been making some sort of reference to having seen many people go pale with shock or surprise (again, many people and not just one in particular).

Had Sollecito written something like "Oh I remember one particular person who went very pale hahaha", then I'd be far more ready to agree that he was making a (horrifically poor-taste at the very least, and potentially self-incriminating at worst) reference to the Kercher murder. But that's not what he wrote. And it's worth repeating that it was the blogger (the one with the agenda to expose the group) who was the one who linked Sollecito's words to the Kercher murder.
(...)

Just to know:
When they ask him if it's maybe Meredith the one in the dish, givne that she's more "crispy", he laughs. They post a meme with the tree suspects and captiomn "The n*** does time and whites go out!".
They posted a picture of Meredith and a caption: (original Italian) "Quando lei non ti risponde al telefono e allora le mandi un sollecito” - which is a pun on the murder about the word "sollecito" - he laughs again.

 

[Briars]

Well, you see, not quite. Certainly not in the way you choose to represent it.

Sollecito replies to a comment/question of "I see that you're pale (in complexion), don't you go to the seaside?" with "Oh, I see so many people turn pale". And then somebody else (who is, in fact, the blogger who infiltrated the group to expose it) writes "Ahahaha you laugh, actually Meredith must have been fairly pale, considering that they found not so much as a centilitre of blood in her body".

Now, of course I get that Sollecito might have been making some reference to Kercher bleeding out. But IMO it's far from the only interpretation. And the fact that he writes "so many people (plural)" points further away from any reference to Kercher (singular) - he might equally have been making some sort of reference to having seen many people go pale with shock or surprise (again, many people and not just one in particular).

Had Sollecito written something like "Oh I remember one particular person who went very pale hahaha", then I'd be far more ready to agree that he was making a (horrifically poor-taste at the very least, and potentially self-incriminating at worst) reference to the Kercher murder. But that's not what he wrote. And it's worth repeating that it was the blogger (the one with the agenda to expose the group) who was the one who linked Sollecito's words to the Kercher



Well firstly, I don't understand your implied suggestion that one can only be stupid or immature, or exercise poor judgement, if one says/writes something purely on the spur of the moment. You seem to be implying here that because Sollecito chose to join this group, this in itself overrides the idea that this was stupidity/immaturity/bad taste/poor judgement from Sollecito, and somehow leans instead more towards something "more".

I'd also point out at this juncture that none of us (presumably) has gone through what Sollecito went through between 2007 and 2015. Assuming for a moment that he factually had nothing to do with the murder* (regardless of whether or not you think he did), one could easily see how the ordeal he would have gone through as an innocent person - including many months in an isolation cell in prison, and the process of conviction, acquittal, re-conviction and re-acquittal/annulment - might have caused deep and long-lasting psychiatric trauma. The psychiatric/psychological effect that all of this could have on an innocent person is hard for most people to understand


* Obviously another interpretation of all of this is that Sollecito factually DID participate in the Kercher murder, and is making coded "sticking his fingers up to the authorities" references to it in these FB group posts. But I'm trying to point out that another reasonable interpretation is a factually-innocent Sollecito (who also has underlying problems related to immaturity and poor judgement) who has been significantly adversely psychiatrically affected by what he's been through, which in turn has magnified his behaviour on this FB group.

It may be reasonable to suggest his ordeal has left him more damaged and the group could be a way to express anger. That anger and disconnect didn't begin with the murder. He was a troubled young man with repressed feelings which he channeled through drugs an interest in knives and his collection of violent manga. Pretty harmless to everyone but himself. That angry young man who idolized a serial killer was and still is monitored by his father. His inability to understand consequences and take responsibility for his adult life remains. He absolutely did reference the murder. The weapon of choice was a knife not a gun or blunt object.He included talk of the pallour of a victim , blood loss. Throw in a chuckle about black meat a laugh about Lumumba photo ,derogatory remarks about Amanda and there you have it.

 

[Bill Williams]

It may be reasonable to suggest his ordeal has left him more damaged and the group could be a way to express anger. That anger and disconnect didn't begin with the murder. He was a troubled young man with repressed feelings which he channeled through drugs an interest in knives and his collection of violent manga. Pretty harmless to everyone but himself. That angry young man who idolized a serial killer was and still is monitored by his father. His inability to understand consequences and take responsibility for his adult life remains. He absolutely did reference the murder. The weapon of choice was a knife not a gun or blunt object.He included talk of the pallour of a victim , blood loss. Throw in a chuckle about black meat a laugh about Lumumba photo ,derogatory remarks about Amanda and there you have it.

There is no way anyone can know this. Even a skilled psychogist would be hesitant to say any of this after months of clinical interaction.

It also assumes he had anything to do with the murder. As even Judge Massei had to address, this is the very definition of suspect centric reasoning.

 

[Briars]

There is no way anyone can know this. Even a skilled psychogist would be hesitant to say any of this after months of clinical interaction.

It also assumes he had anything to do with the murder. As even Judge Massei had to address, this is the very definition of suspect centric reasoning.

I never said anything about being involved with the murder in my post. I responded to LJ who asked me to consider the trauma of the last 8 years contributing to his current state of mind. The young man who needed to be monitored by his father was troubled 9 years ago .So the need for unusual outlets then and new ones now. Further to my post referencing the murder in his online humour is clear and so I included that.

 

[Bill Williams]

I never said anything about being involved with the murder in my post. I responded to LJ who asked me to consider the trauma of the last 8 years contributing to his current state of mind. The young man who needed to be monitored by his father was troubled 9 years ago .So the need for unusual outlets then and new ones now. Further to my post referencing the murder in his online humour is clear and so I included that.

"That anger and disconnect didn't begin with the murder."

Still it just seemed appropriate to put the remarks in the context that no psychologist or other professional would say such things even after a decent clinical intervention. That's all.

 

[Machiavelli]

The reason I asked is because he covered what he termed, "the crazy theories" of the original prosecution, the very crazy theories which Barbie Nadeau also wrote about.

Nadeau wrote that Maneula Comodi threatened to quit if Mignini went to trial with one of the crazier theories. He said he would simply print the stories leaked to him without fact checking, not expecting the prosecution would lie to him.

You'll have to ask Nadeau why she would write that.

No.
Some of those people don't lie - they just pick their stories from unreliable sources, some other press article. Those are just poor quality reporters.

I don't ask Nadeau - I don't ask secondary or tertiary sources (and I am not the one who seeks what that one said about that other thing, I am not the poster who cooks up rumors and insinuations and makes up people's words - other posters do that, and you may guess which ones).

Besides the fact that I don't believe a single word from professional liars such as Nick Pisa - who is also a semi-literate idiot btw - as a matter of facts, I just know from the documents that the prosecution did not present those "crazy theories" the English speaking press attributed to him (btw, egregiously contradicting even the Italian press source they were picking it from, even though the source got some things wrong already).

I know from the papers that the theories had nothing to do with any "shedevil" charachter.

The first time the prosecution pur forward a scenario, it was in July 2008 and the scenario was that of a non-premeditated murder, arisen from a plan about some "little party" at home that likely had "sexual theme", but something went wrong and it degenerated into a sexual violence - and the murder was a consequence of it. This was the very first scenario.

And the scenario was basically agreed to by judge Micheli. He wrote the prosecution's scenario was not unrealistic at all, only pointed out that Mignini's "intellectual" references to the contents of manga - as he mentioned an "atmosphere" that might have inspired their idea about the "little party" and features of their personalities - were inappropriate or unnecessary speculations.
Micheli said exactly this: your scenario, taken away those additional comments, is the good one.

There was no crazy theory at all.
This does not mean that I would subscribe to all considerations by Mignini about culture or psychology or sociology, nor that I would embrace his style of portraying things. But I rather acknowledge that those that some media played as "crazy theories" were invented, and they were only remotely inspired to some additional comments, or better to incorrect Italian reporting about additional comments, comments that from the origin were just additional details of his personal thoughts completely marginal to the actual scenario put forward by Mignini. Making some additional comment and digressions having to do mostly with things like history or traditions, or ancient things, I realized it is just part his own way of talking just about everything - he's somehow a kind of baroque traditionalist, but it is only a matter of style, of personal likes and way of telling things, it is completely independent from the content, from the core, of what he's talking about. Those things he may mention as digressions are elements of style completely at the margin, they have nothing to do with his actual points.
His initial scenario abut the murder didn't actually change through time, it was clear, it was rational, and the preliminary judge agreed to it.

But the English speaking newspapers apparently didn't grasp a iota of it. They just made up stories, picking from one incorrect reporting by one Italian press source - that was maybe misreporting words about some of those additional details he comments about - and making a whole fantasy trip from it. Those journalists were not in the courtroom - the argument was presented behind closed doors.

His prosecution argument was deposited within the court and is there to be read, it is about a non premeditated murder that arises from situational factors, and it is also determined by the personalities of the people involved and the use of drugs. There was objectively nothing crazy.

What I say is something I can see by reading the actual real trial papers, not by reading Barbie Nadeau.

 

[bagels]

The first time the prosecution pur forward a scenario, it was in July 2008 and the scenario was that of a non-premeditated murder, arisen from a plan about some "little party" at home that likely had "sexual theme", but something went wrong and it degenerated into a sexual violence - and the murder was a consequence of it. This was the very first scenario.

Wrong. The very first scenario was Patrick came over due to his sexual black man lust for Meredith, and Meredith denied his advances because she wasn't a slut like Amanda, so he raped and murdered her and Amanda helped cover it up since she set the whole thing up in the first place, being a shedevil and all.

Let's try not to rewrite history and forget Patrick's arrest and humiliation.

 

[Bill Williams]

What I say is something I can see by reading the actual real trial papers, not by reading Barbie Nadeau.

I note your veiled insult to skirt the rules. Nicely done.

But thank you for your opinions on people like Nadeau and Pisa. Yet they very much differ. That's all I am saying.

Even Francesco Maresca in his recent memoirs recouted his own role in introducing "friendly" journalists to the prosecution. He also recounted some of Mignini's bizarre theories.

 

[Numbers]

For the sake of curiosity and a desire to get a quantitative view, I did some analysis of all cases communicated to Italy since 01 Nov 2014; earlier communicated cases did not have information on number of times the case had been communicated. Knox v. Italy was communicated 29 Apr 2016.

Here are some statistical results:

The number of cases first communicated to Italy during this period (01 Nov 2014 to 23 Jan 2017) was 85; of these, 73 were in French, and 12 in English. The Communication Knox v. Italy is in French.

The importance level (a measure of the uniqueness of the case in terms of potential for generating new case-law) was 3 for all 85 cases, indicating none were expected to generate new case law - in other words, all were expected to be resolved using current case law. The importance level may change when the case is judged.

The most numerous Convention Articles relied upon as allegedly violated were:
Article No. Number of Cases Convention Right
6 ........................ 39 Right to a fair trial
8 ........................ 24 Right to respect for private and family life
13 ........................ 22 Right to an effective remedy
P1-1 ..................... 19 Right to protection of property
Total exceeds 85 since a case may have more than one claimed article allegedly violated.

The articles alleged violated in Knox v. Italy are 3, 6, and 8. (Article 3 is the Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.)


Number of times each case was communicated:

1 Time ... 46 cases
2 Times .. 23 cases
3 Times .. 12 cases
4 Times ... 3 cases
5 Times ... 1 case
_______
Since the above cases are, or may be, still under review by the ECHR, the number of times a case will be communicated before it is judged may be greater than the current result.

The number of times communicated (to the Respondent State) may indicate the ECHR's need for the State's information due to the complexity of a case or other reason.

Knox v. Italy has been communicated 3 times as of 23 Jan 2017.

Source: HUDOC database of the ECHR
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22respondent%22:[%22ITA%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22COMMUNICATEDCASES%22],%22kpdate%22:[%222014-11-01T00:00:00.0Z%22,%22%22]}

 

[toto]

Well, you see, not quite. Certainly not in the way you choose to represent it.

Sollecito replies to a comment/question of "I see that you're pale (in complexion), don't you go to the seaside?" with "Oh, I see so many people turn pale". And then somebody else (who is, in fact, the blogger who infiltrated the group to expose it) writes "Ahahaha you laugh, actually Meredith must have been fairly pale, considering that they found not so much as a centilitre of blood in her body".
Now, of course I get that Sollecito might have been making some reference to Kercher bleeding out. But IMO it's far from the only interpretation. And the fact that he writes "so many people (plural)" points further away from any reference to Kercher (singular) - he might equally have been making some sort of reference to having seen many people go pale with shock or surprise (again, many people and not just one in particular).

Had Sollecito written something like "Oh I remember one particular person who went very pale hahaha", then I'd be far more ready to agree that he was making a (horrifically poor-taste at the very least, and potentially self-incriminating at worst) reference to the Kercher murder. But that's not what he wrote. And it's worth repeating that it was the blogger (the one with the agenda to expose the group) who was the one who linked Sollecito's words to the Kercher murder.






Well firstly, I don't understand your implied suggestion that one can only be stupid or immature, or exercise poor judgement, if one says/writes something purely on the spur of the moment. You seem to be implying here that because Sollecito chose to join this group, this in itself overrides the idea that this was stupidity/immaturity/bad taste/poor judgement from Sollecito, and somehow leans instead more towards something "more".

I'd also point out at this juncture that none of us (presumably) has gone through what Sollecito went through between 2007 and 2015. Assuming for a moment that he factually had nothing to do with the murder* (regardless of whether or not you think he did), one could easily see how the ordeal he would have gone through as an innocent person - including many months in an isolation cell in prison, and the process of conviction, acquittal, re-conviction and re-acquittal/annulment - might have caused deep and long-lasting psychiatric trauma. The psychiatric/psychological effect that all of this could have on an innocent person is hard for most people to understand


* Obviously another interpretation of all of this is that Sollecito factually DID participate in the Kercher murder, and is making coded "sticking his fingers up to the authorities" references to it in these FB group posts. But I'm trying to point out that another reasonable interpretation is a factually-innocent Sollecito (who also has underlying problems related to immaturity and poor judgement) who has been significantly adversely psychiatrically affected by what he's been through, which in turn has magnified his behaviour on this FB group.

This is helpful context.

 

[toto]

Another couple aspect - worth of not being missed, imho - are, the way he addresses Amanda Knox. He openly calls her a kinda ******* crazy nut, says she's mentally insane, and also he openly addresses her as a murderess.
He photoshopped a Cluedo cover with the faces of Amanda Knox among a crowd of famous murderers.
He is not ironical when he says she's a murderess and an insane person, even if the style is that of the group this is exactly what he means.
The publicity he gives her this way should make the pro-Knox crowd think about. He points at her being a murderess in a way more rude and direct than how guilters do it on this group.
He shoots directly on the sacred idol of the innocentisti.

Another aspect how he "likes" racist stances. He puts "like" on the picture of Amanda with the racist notice blaming the black guy - but the word is not "black" (jokes about race and about Knox's being guilty at the same time).


*

We might also expect more jokes about his craze for violent porn and knife collecting, or about his injuring a little girl with scissors when he was at middle school and the omertà of school personnell, one day who knows - humour has no boundaries.

This is helpful context.

 

[toto]

No.
Some of those people don't lie - they just pick their stories from unreliable sources, some other press article. Those are just poor quality reporters.

I don't ask Nadeau - I don't ask secondary or tertiary sources (and I am not the one who seeks what that one said about that other thing, I am not the poster who cooks up rumors and insinuations and makes up people's words - other posters do that, and you may guess which ones).

Besides the fact that I don't believe a single word from professional liars such as Nick Pisa - who is also a semi-literate idiot btw - as a matter of facts, I just know from the documents that the prosecution did not present those "crazy theories" the English speaking press attributed to him (btw, egregiously contradicting even the Italian press source they were picking it from, even though the source got some things wrong already).

I know from the papers that the theories had nothing to do with any "shedevil" charachter.

The first time the prosecution pur forward a scenario, it was in July 2008 and the scenario was that of a non-premeditated murder, arisen from a plan about some "little party" at home that likely had "sexual theme", but something went wrong and it degenerated into a sexual violence - and the murder was a consequence of it. This was the very first scenario.

And the scenario was basically agreed to by judge Micheli. He wrote the prosecution's scenario was not unrealistic at all, only pointed out that Mignini's "intellectual" references to the contents of manga - as he mentioned an "atmosphere" that might have inspired their idea about the "little party" and features of their personalities - were inappropriate or unnecessary speculations.
Micheli said exactly this: your scenario, taken away those additional comments, is the good one.

There was no crazy theory at all.
This does not mean that I would subscribe to all considerations by Mignini about culture or psychology or sociology, nor that I would embrace his style of portraying things. But I rather acknowledge that those that some media played as "crazy theories" were invented, and they were only remotely inspired to some additional comments, or better to incorrect Italian reporting about additional comments, comments that from the origin were just additional details of his personal thoughts completely marginal to the actual scenario put forward by Mignini. Making some additional comment and digressions having to do mostly with things like history or traditions, or ancient things, I realized it is just part his own way of talking just about everything - he's somehow a kind of baroque traditionalist, but it is only a matter of style, of personal likes and way of telling things, it is completely independent from the content, from the core, of what he's talking about. Those things he may mention as digressions are elements of style completely at the margin, they have nothing to do with his actual points.
His initial scenario abut the murder didn't actually change through time, it was clear, it was rational, and the preliminary judge agreed to it.

But the English speaking newspapers apparently didn't grasp a iota of it. They just made up stories, picking from one incorrect reporting by one Italian press source - that was maybe misreporting words about some of those additional details he comments about - and making a whole fantasy trip from it. Those journalists were not in the courtroom - the argument was presented behind closed doors.

His prosecution argument was deposited within the court and is there to be read, it is about a non premeditated murder that arises from situational factors, and it is also determined by the personalities of the people involved and the use of drugs. There was objectively nothing crazy.

What I say is something I can see by reading the actual real trial papers, not by reading Barbie Nadeau.

The infamous Nick Pisa!

 

[toto]

But we are talking about what the SC writes in the motivations - how many journalists present your interpretation of what the 5th chambers write? Anyone denies they found Knox was on the scene of crime?
(Even Luca Cheli reluctantly had to admit that "in a couple of passages" it really looks like they are placing Knox on the scene of crime - even if he forgets to point out how the 5th chambers agree on the timing of Knox hearing Meredith's scream).

But if you have doubts you may just look at other articles from that time:
http://www.umbria24.it/cronaca/meredith-i-giudici-rudy-non-uccise-da-solo-e-forti-sospetti-contro-amanda-e-raf-ma-non-oltre-il-ragionevole-dubbio

http://www.quotidiano.net/cronaca/meredith-cassazione-errori-processo-1.1280354

http://magazinedelledonne.it/news/content/2005894-omicidio-meredith-la-cassazione-clamorose-defaillances

or more recent ones:
http://www.nuovocorrierenazionale.it/sentenze-inconciliabili/

Thanks for the links . They seem fair summaries of the SC rulings. I note Quotidiano refers to "the hypothesis that A and R were actually in the house of the crime" and that they are basing their notion that AK was there on what she wrote in her memorial. I know everyone knows this, but of course what went on in those interviews the night /morning she was arrested is highly controversial and that story has not ended. I am still wondering why there are no major opinion pieces in the Italian media that goes anywhere near your theories, except that there is probably no substance to them.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thanks for the links . They seem fair summaries of the SC rulings. I note Quotidiano refers to "the hypothesis that A and R were actually in the house of the crime" and that they are basing their notion that AK was there on what she wrote in her memorial. I know everyone knows this, but of course what went on in those interviews the night /morning she was arrested is highly controversial and that story has not ended. I am still wondering why there are no major opinion pieces in the Italian media that goes anywhere near your theories, except that there is probably no substance to them.

It seems Quotidiano has taken the time to read all of Sections 8 and 9 of the M/B report, and "gets" that it tries to reasemble stuff which buttress the ISC conclusion - that the incompetent investigation resulted in a mass of contradictory evidence.

I would not have known that such a nuanced analysis had happened in Italy unless a kindly poster here had taken time to find it!

 

[Bill Williams]

Thanks for the links . They seem fair summaries of the SC rulings. I note Quotidiano refers to "the hypothesis that A and R were actually in the house of the crime" and that they are basing their notion that AK was there on what she wrote in her memorial. I know everyone knows this, but of course what went on in those interviews the night /morning she was arrested is highly controversial and that story has not ended. I am still wondering why there are no major opinion pieces in the Italian media that goes anywhere near your theories, except that there is probably no substance to them.

Fortunately we've now been linked to a solitary, obscure YouTuber who is of the opinion that there is mass cowardice in the Italian media which prevents this from happening.

My theory is that the monolithic American Media/Mafia/Masonic machine has gotten to the mainline Italian media as well. The fact that in English this can be rendered in such a fetching alliteration only buttresses the point that it is actually American poltical interference in internal Italian affairs.

Yes, that's it.

 

[Numbers]

It seems Quotidiano has taken the time to read all of Sections 8 and 9 of the M/B report, and "gets" that it tries to reasemble stuff which buttress the ISC conclusion - that the incompetent investigation resulted in a mass of contradictory evidence.

I would not have known that such a nuanced analysis had happened in Italy unless a kindly poster here had taken time to find it!

Here is a relevant sentence:

Ma un dubbio che resterà per sempre, scolpito nel sangue di Mez: l’ipotesi che Amanda e Raffaele fossero realmente nella casa del delitto quella notte maledetta non basta a farli ritenere colpevoli.

But a question that will remain forever engraved in the blood of Mez: the hypothesis that Amanda and Raffaele were actually in the house of the crime that cursed night is not enough to make them considered guilty.

Source: http://www.quotidiano.net/cronaca/meredith-cassazione-errori-processo-1.1280354

The word "l'ipotesi" translates to "the hypothesis" or "the assumption" or "the speculation" or "the conjecture" or "the supposition".

So it is clear that this article, headlined:

La Cassazione: processo scandaloso: "Delitto Meredith, errori clamorosi"

Amanda e Raffaele assolti. Lacune nelle indagini e reperti danneggiati

which translates to:

The Supreme Court: scandalous trial: "Crime Meredith, outrageous mistakes"

Amanda and Raffaele acquitted. Gaps in the investigations and damaged findings

agrees with those who maintain that the Marasca CSC panel MR only discusses a hypothesis or speculation that Knox and Solecito were in the cottage on the night of the murder, and does not state it as a fact.

Italian text here was Google translated.

 

[Rolfe]

I'd also point out at this juncture that none of us (presumably) has gone through what Sollecito went through between 2007 and 2015. Assuming for a moment that he factually had nothing to do with the murder* (regardless of whether or not you think he did), one could easily see how the ordeal he would have gone through as an innocent person - including many months in an isolation cell in prison, and the process of conviction, acquittal, re-conviction and re-acquittal/annulment - might have caused deep and long-lasting psychiatric trauma. The psychiatric/psychological effect that all of this could have on an innocent person is hard for most people to understand.

THIS. I've been astonished by how well Sollecito behaved throughout most of this affair. I found it amazing that someone who had been through such trauma and in particular the period of solitary confinement was apparently so well-adjusted.

So if he's maybe not as well-adjusted as it seemed and was only managing to hold it together until the whole ordeal was over, it's not entirely surprising.

I really can't see how anyone can look at his behaviour over the past (almost) ten years and call him weak-willed.

 

[Numbers]

Here is a relevant sentence:





Source: http://www.quotidiano.net/cronaca/meredith-cassazione-errori-processo-1.1280354

The word "l'ipotesi" translates to "the hypothesis" or "the assumption" or "the speculation" or "the conjecture" or "the supposition".

So it is clear that this article, headlined:



which translates to:



agrees with those who maintain that the Marasca CSC panel MR only discusses a hypothesis or speculation that Knox and Solecito were in the cottage on the night of the murder, and does not state it as a fact.

Italian text here was Google translated.

The other two cited articles, however, do not seem in agreement, and apparently take what appears to some as a hypothesis in the Marasca CSC panel MR (that Knox was in the cottage at the time of the murder/rape of Kercher) as a conclusion.

 

[toto]

THIS. I've been astonished by how well Sollecito behaved throughout most of this affair. I found it amazing that someone who had been through such trauma and in particular the period of solitary confinement was apparently so well-adjusted.

So if he's maybe not as well-adjusted as it seemed and was only managing to hold it together until the whole ordeal was over, it's not entirely surprising.

I really can't see how anyone can look at his behaviour over the past (almost) ten years and call him weak-willed.

I was referring to his facebook postings rather than the last ten years. I don't think taking away the words "weak willed" helps his case much, but I take on board mitigating factors. I just hope to God AK doesn't do something as crass.