You seem to think that it is important whether or not some Italian court came to some conclusion unsubstantiated by a rational analysis of the facts. Even worse that where an ill founded conclusion has been reached by one court that it has to be imported into another case perpetuating the error, and perpetuating the injustice. The court of cassation has ruled that Knox and Sollecito are not guilty of murder and that the evidence against them is so lacking in substance that no court re-examinig the evidence could reach a conclusion of guilt on the evidence available. We know Knox and Sollecito were present in the flat before and after the murder, evidence of their presence cannot be evidence of participation in the crime. Compare this with the bloody handprint of Guede, this provides identity, place and time. It tells you that Guede literally had blood on his hands.
Sorry Planigale, but my observations is in response to your previous post:
The problem is this arises from Knox's callunia conviction, to be guilty of callunia Knox had to know Lumumba was not present which means she had to be present. Although her statements were ruled unusable as illegally obtained against herself, the Italian legal system does seem able to bring them up fairly freely. That the court of cassation in finding Knox and Sollecito not guilty of murder ruled that there was no evidence of their presence at the scene of the murder seems to be ignored, so it seems that Italian courts can choose their judicial facts. In addition even if one chooses to believe Knox's illegally obtained statements they do not report the presence of Sollecito (just Lumumba and Knox and the victim), so cannot be used to argue for Sollecito's presence. The court here seems to have reached a conclusion with no evidence and one concluded as false by the court of cassation.
A conversation between us may look like this:
Planigale: Kennedy spoke in East Berlin in 1962 and said “We are all Germans”
Mach: It’s incorrect. Kennedy spoke in West Berlin in 1963, and said “I’m a Berlinese”
Planigale: You seem to think that it is important or not that it was that year or that phrase
Mach: I don’t say this because it is important or not, but because the last thing is true and the other is false, and you reported the false one.
The problem is Planigale, that the court of Cassation 5th circuit is not so much in contradiction on this particular point and Martuscelli’s court are not in contradiction with Cassation either, because indeed Bruno/Marasca concluded – just as much as the Nencini court – that it is a proven fact that Knox was on the scene of crime, and also they concluded that it is certain that Meredith was killed by more than one person.
There is also nothing such as an “Knox’s illegally obtained statement” in this trial.
Whether a historical fact is important or not, is one thing, while asking whether it is important is another. Like asking whether Kennedy’s speech is important: it’s relative, importance depends on point of view, depends on contexts. I was talking about the historical accuracy, whether the reported fact it is true or not, a different kind of discussion.
In the context like, Sollecito’s suit for damage request, it seems that the fact that is a proven fact that Knox was at the crime scene when Meredith was killed, might be something important to the judge’s decision. So there can be people, points of view and contexts where this has a relevance. It seemed to have a relevance in the reasoning within the small context of your post. I was not talking about the scopes of possible relevance of the historic record anyway, but just about the fact itself, pointing out that you were giving a false report.
