LOL. LJ and no one here has ever said such a thing. Try again.
It rather goes to show just how little Vixen - and, for that matter, apparently the convicting lower courts which were so thoroughly torn a new one by the Marasca SC panel - understands about the adversarial process, in which defendants are innocent until/unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime(s) with which they are charged.
It was not - and was NEVER - the job of any court in the Knox/Sollecito trial process to decide "the truth" in this case. And it was most certainly never the job of any court in the Knox/Sollecito trial process to decide whether or not Guede committed the crime alone.
Rather, it was the
sole job of all the courts in the Knox/Sollecito trial process to determine whether sufficient evidence, in its totality, proved beyond all reasonable doubt that Knox and Sollecito had indeed committed the various crimes with which each had been charged. If each of the courts in the process deemed that any one of the crimes with which each of Knox and Sollecito had been charged had been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, then (assuming they applied Italian law correctly in their decision making and treatment of evidence*) they should find for guilt on that particular charge. If the court found that insufficient evidence (meaning anything from zero evidence up to anything just short of hitting the BARD standard) had been produced, then the court should have found for non-guilt (and the preservation of the presumption of innocence) on that charge.
So, in fact, each of the courts in the Knox/Sollecito trial process was exclusively tasked with determining whether or not Knox and/or Sollecito committed the crimes with which they had been charged, according to whether the totality of evidence proved their guilt BARD on each of the charged crimes. It was NOT the task of these courts to opine on "what really happened".
Indeed - speaking hypothetically of course, and specifically NOT about this particular case - a court in any given criminal trial may believe that the defendant probably did commit the crime with which he was charged, but safely acquit on the correct basis that the evidence did not prove his guilt BARD. And that defendant might indeed factually have committed the crime. Or someone else altogether might have committed the crime. It is, however, not the job of the court to offer any narrative along those lines. Instead, it is the sole job of the court to acquit (and, in Italy, to give written reasons why it has acquitted - i.e. why in its view the evidence did not prove guilt BARD).
And THAT, Vixen, is why none of the courts in the Knox/Sollecito trial process ever had the remit to state that Guede was the sole perpetrator of this murder and the other related crimes.
* A factor in which the Massei, Chieffi and Nencini courts manifestly failed, and which the Marasca SC panel correctly addressed in its annulments (and, for that matter, a factor which many critical-thinking commentators here and elsewhere had identified and protested against for many years before the affirmation from the Marasca SC panel....)
