The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[Numbers]

Guede's D.N.A. was collected from the cottage at the same time as Knox' and Sollecito's. Ditto the luminol application.

As for the 'not guilty owing to insufficient evidence;, this is surely where the Supreme Court is defective, as the facts found in the merits trial still stands - the numerous lies of Knox and Sollecito - the staged burglary - Knox covering for Guede by naming Lumumba - Knox definitely present at the murder scene, Sollecito almost certainly so. Had the Supreme Court followed the correct and conventional procedure, they would have handed the case back down to the lower court clear directions to rectify whatever was claimed to be in error.

Marasca-Bruno did say Knox acted racistly in naming Lumumba as a substitute Black guy for Guede.

Sollecito's was collected 46 days after Guede's. It was collected from the bra-clasp, which in turn was collected with obviously dirty gloves.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5397154cd51816a9a7.jpg[/qimg]



It said no such thing.

Vixen, your post quoted above is absolutely false.

Perhaps you have not been keeping up with the many posts explaining the facts, especially relating to the evidence, of the case.

For your benefit in learning the facts, here is a list of recent posts which taken together provide an excellent overview of the critical evidence. (Apologies for any recent factual evidence posts I may have left out.)

The main point to remember is that, as stated in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report, there was absolutely no credible evidence of Knox or Sollecito in the murder room or associated with Kercher's body or on her clothing or possessions. On the contrary, as established by the Scientific Police, there was significant indisputable evidence of Guede within Kercher's body and on her clothing and possessions. There was no reliable evidence presented by the prosecution of any other person in the murder room. Therefore, one is forced to conclude that Knox and Sollecito did not commit the murder/rape of Kercher, while there is no credible evidence of any other participant in the murder/rape that Guede.

#3212 by Welshman
#3234 by Welshman
#3235 by TomG
#3236 by TruthCalls
#3241 by Stacyhs
#3248 by TruthCalls
#3252 by Stacyhs

 

[TomG]

the numerous lies of Knox and Sollecito

If you are going to allege lies, and make them stick then you'd better make sure that these alleged lies, when exposed place K&S at VDP, involving them in murder with sustainable evidence to support it. You don't even say what the lies are.

Hoots

 

[Stacyhs]

1882 must have been a rogue google reference to when Italy joined up with Austria and co.

Well, no, that is the point, there wasn't any racism exercised by the Italian justice system, aside perhaps from Guede being locked in a cage intended for violent mafia types in court.

Yet the Knox contingent in the U.S.A. including Trump, seemed utterly baffled by this.

In addition, when we say 'no racism' we haven't walked in Guede's shoes. Who is anyone to say he is not allowed to 'play the race card'?

Anyone who recognizes when it's played for false and self-serving reasons as Guede did.
So you do agree that he played the race card when he falsely claimed that a left-handed man wearing a Napapijri jacket, neither of which pertain to Raffaele, declared "Black man found, Black man guilty". As it never happened, what motivation would he have had for making such a specific reference to his race if not self-serving? Glad to see you've come around.

 

[TomG]

- Knox definitely present at the murder scene, Sollecito almost certainly so.

Where did M/B say that?
Hoots

 

[Vixen]

Where did M/B say that?
Hoots

Here:

On the other hand, since the presence of Ms. Knox inside the house is sure, it is hardly credible that he was not with her. And even following one of the versions released by the woman, that is the one in accord to which, returning home in the morning of November 2. after a night spent at her boyfriend’s place, she reports of having immediately noticed that something strange had happened (open door, blood traces everywhere); or even the other one, that she reports in her memorial, in accord to which she was present in the house at the time of the murder, but in a different room, not the one in which the violent aggression on Ms. Kercher was being committed, it is very strange that she did not call her boyfriend, since there is no record about a phone call from her, based on the phone records within the file. Even more if we consider that having being in Italy for a short time, she would be presumably uninformed about what to do in such emergency cases, therefore the first and maybe only person whom she could ask for help would have been her boyfriend himself, who lived only a few hundred meters away from her house. Not doing this signifies Sollecito was with her, unaffected, obviously, the procedural relevance of his mere presence in that house, in the absence of certain proof of his causal contribution to the murderous action.

Marasca-Bruno facts

 

[Vixen]

If you are going to allege lies, and make them stick then you'd better make sure that these alleged lies, when exposed place K&S at VDP, involving them in murder with sustainable evidence to support it. You don't even say what the lies are.

Hoots

You've never read the report have you? The facts are these:

Elements of strong suspicion are also in the inconsistencies and lies which the suspect woman committed over the statements she released on various occasions, especially in the places where her narrative was contradicted by the telephone records showing different incoming SMS messages; by the testimonies of Antonio Curatolo about the presence of [the same] Amanda Knox in piazza Grimana in the company of Sollecito, and of Mario Quintavalle about her presence inside the supermarket the morning of the day after the murder, maybe to buy detergents.

<snip>

An umpteenth element of suspicion is the basic failure of the alibi linked to other, claimed human interactions in the computer of his belongings, albeit if we can’t talk about false alibi, since it’s more appropriate to speak about unsuccessful alibi.

Marasca-Bruno Report

 

[Numbers]

Here:

Marasca-Bruno facts

I have a number of questions about this alleged quote. But first, where is it in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report?

Vixen, you are claiming it is in "Marasca-Bruno facts", but there is no section with the heading "Facts".

The closest to that would be "RITENUTO IN FATTO" on page 2 of the original Italian text. That translates to "Considered in Fact" or "Retained as Facts" and consists of:

1. a list of the charges as judged by the Nencini appeals court in its motivation report (p. 2 - 5);

2. a list of the claims or arguments made by Knox in her appeal against the Nencini verdict (p. 5 - 8);

3. a list of the claims or arguments made by Sollecito in his appeal against the Nencini verdict (p. 8 - 14); and

4. Two sections, 4.1 and 4.2, consisting of the lists of claims or arguments made in the additional (new) appeals of Knox and Sollecito, respectively (p. 14 - 18).

The next heading in the Marasca CSC panel MR is "CONSIDERATO IN DIRITTO" which translates to "Considered in Law" or "Considered based upon Law".

The last heading is the P.Q.M. (an abbreviation for an Italian phrase that translates to "For These Reasons") which is the operative part of the verdict (p. 52).

So where did this alleged quote come from? What was the Italian original?

Source:

http://amandaknoxcase.com/files/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/marasca-bruno-motivations-report.pdf

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
You might want to move out of the past and into the present. Constitutional Amendments and current laws prohibit legal racism. The 13th Amendment is not racist because it includes all prisoners regardless of race, gender, or anything else.

Skilled lying again, I notice.

Do not call me a liar again, Vixen. Nothing I said was a lie.

Nothing in the rest of your post shows that Blacks or any other minorities, are the target of this part of the 13th Amendment: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." That means ALL prisoners. But you be you and try to spin it all you want to fit your agenda.

"In Louisiana, Black people constituted 33% of state residents, but 52% of people in jail and 67% of people in prison."

Incarceration Trends in Louisiana - Vera Institutehttps://www.vera.org › downloads › pdfdownloads

Systemic:

"Systemic oppression is systematic and has historical antecedents; it is the intentional disadvantaging of groups of people based on their identity while advantaging members of the dominant group (gender, race, class, sexual orientation, language, etc.)."

Lens of Systemic Oppression - National Equity Project


So, totally pointless citing bent U.S. prosecutors as an example.

No one here needs to be schooled by you on what system racism is.
No one in this discussion has denied its existence.

 

[Numbers]

You've never read the report have you? The facts are these:

Marasca-Bruno Report

It appears that you may have never understood the Marasca CSC panel MR, or have chosen to distort its meaning.

Your quote here appears to be from Section 9.4.2, which are not the facts of the case, but hypotheses about worst-case conclusions about the role of Knox and Sollecito that could be drawn from unproven allegations.

 

[Bill Williams]

It appears that you may have never understood the Marasca CSC panel MR, or have chosen to distort its meaning.

Your quote here appears to be from Section 9.4.2, which are not the facts of the case, but hypotheses about worst-case conclusions about the role of Knox and Sollecito that could be drawn from unproven allegations.

Section 9.2 of the M-B report sets up the coming summary of both sides of the trial thusly, and explains why M-B seems at points to say stuff that the prosecution claimed:

9.2 The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as
shown below, illustrated for each defendant, in a synoptic presentation of the
elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt and of the elements against it, as
they are shown, of course, by the text of the challenged ruling and of the previous
ones.

'Synoptic' literally means, 'with one eye'. What follows is a blend of what each side claimed at trial, none of which was evidence of their guilt. This led to the final conclusion as Section 9 closed, that even if the prosecution stuff had been true (the so-called blood evidence), it still didn't put either AK or RS in the room at the time of the murder.

Indeed, M-B started that section, Section 9, with the conclusion it was aiming at - even by including the evidence that the prosecution claimed was determinative:

9.1 The intrinsically contradictory ensemble of the body of evidence, whose
objective uncertainty is already emphasised by the previously highlighted wavering
progress of the proceedings, does not therefore allow [us] to be satisfied to the
standard of [beyond a] reasonable doubt...

M-B further states the iffyness of the prosecution's case thusly:

9.3 During the analysis of the aforementioned elements of evidence, it is
certainly useful to remember that, taking for granted that the murder occurred on
via della Pergola, the alleged presence at the house of the defendants cannot, in
itself, be considered as proof of guilt.

Having already fixed that M-B believed that their presence in the house (at the time of the murder) was only 'alleged', M_B then proceeds to pick through the case - elements in favour of guilt and elements against, probably assuming that they did not have to keep repeating 'even if' or 'alleged'.

One should assume a level of reading comprehension, where readers could keep track of M-B's argument. Section 9 is the guts of their decision.

 

[Stacyhs]

It is interesting that you claim ignorance of recent history. Italy is EU-directive regulated. Hate crime and discrimination, whilst it happens, is unlawful and even a criminal offence.

Hate crimes and discrimination are criminal offenses in the US, too.

In the U.S.A. people are allowed to express race hate under the first amendment.

Yes. People don't get arrested for expressing their opinions in the US no matter how vile those opinions are. But there are legal limitations as to how far that can go before it becomes criminal.

Segregation (similar to apartheid in South Africa) was enshrined in law until as recently as 1964 (Civil Rights Act). U.S.A., unlike Italy, has a Black colony* of former slaves and slavery was legal long after the slave trade was abolished.

Um...we have former slaves now? Man, some people are really long-lived!

Recent revelations show that America's favourite Black guy, Louis Armstrong recorded his resentment at Americans coming up to him saying how much they loved his music, yet at the same time refusing to serve him a drink or expecting him to sneak in through a back door, or 'use the Black hotel down the road'.

Armstrong was our favorite “Black guy”? Hmmm…I suspect this is yet another arsefact. But, what does that entire paragraph relating to events almost 6 decades ago have to do with your accusation that Americans couldn’t believe Knox would be friends with a Black man? Hint: Nothing. It's all "Look! Squirrel!"

("The cheeky so-and-so: smiling at us, singing in his gravelly voice, 'What a Wonderful World' with a twinkle in his eye, and all the time the freaking bastard was calling us racist!!!")**

While I realize you are a fiction writer, please keep the fiction to your own works and stop injecting them into discussions of this case where they have no relevancy.

In the U.S.A. slavery is still enshrined in law under the 13th Amendment.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
How this affects the U.S.A Black population, can be seen in the award-winning Netflix documentary 13th in respect of levels of imprisonment.

This has ZERO to do with the Kercher case. What is this "America BAD, America RACIST" bender you are on? It's comical.

In the case of Meredith Kercher's murder, there was a huge U.S.A-based campaign to pin the entire crime onto the African guy, Rudy Guede, with a certain author claiming that he was a drifter from a poverty stricken country where people lived in shacks with tin roofs (omitting to mention the result of French colonisation) in the hope of stirring up race prejudice against the Black guy.

Quote and cite a single US based 'campaign' claiming Guede was the killer BECAUSE HE'S BLACK and not because the evidence placed him alone in Kercher’s room.

Guess who else claimed Guede was a drifter? Prosecutor Manuela Comodi according to John Follain:

Rudy was a drifter, was easily influenced and fancied Amanda so he followed her too.

(Follain, John. A Death in Italy: The Definitive Account of the Amanda Knox Case )

And
And this from the UK Times: " But there was another Rudy, the small-time drug dealer and drifter with a record of petty crime who according to some witnesses harassed women"
And

And ANSA:" Rudy Guede, an Ivorian drifter
And
the Guardian: " Rudy Guede, the drifter convicted of murdering..."
Just stop this nonsense that it was an "American" claim.

There were even books claiming Guede was the 'sole killer', despite all three having been convicted at the time, through a fair and lengthy trial process.

It turned out that book was right, too, since Knox and Sollecito were later definitively acquitted. As for the process being ‘fair’ that’s debatable. The Hellmann Court, the Marasca Supreme Court, and the ECHR might..no, did…. disagree with that.

There was even the hypocrisy of claiming to despise Donald Trump, yet nonetheless, happy to 'Boycott Italy' and accept Trump's donation towards only Knox' defence

LOL. No one forced Trump to donate money, although how much he donated has never been revealed AFAIK. Can you present ONE person who actually boycotted Italy due to Trump or even this case? I know I didn’t.

So when it came to pass and political campaign the evidence succeeded in getting the pair's sentences annulled by the Supreme Court of Italy,

Heh heh heh….fixed that for ya!

... with their having earned thousands of dollars from book sales and tv shows,

Not all authors can make money from their book sales, Vix! Don't lose hope. Having an interested audience helps.

... the Black guy, Guede, now free after serving thirteen years plus two on remand, as per standard parole conditions for prisoners serving life (which Guede had discounted for accepting a 'fast trial') decides to bring out a book and the same Americans baying for the Black guy to take the rap for the murder committed by 'more than one person' ( a finding of fact)

,

Hmmm.... no one has to "bay for the Black guy to take the rap for the murder" as the only person who stands convicted of killing Meredith was determined already by two Italian Supreme Courts. I don't know how you missed it as all the news media covered it extensively.

So tell me, Vix, concerning that "murder by 'more than one person' ", what is the probability that 2 of 3 attackers would leave absolutely no forensic evidence of themselves in that room? Exactly how would they accomplish that? Curious minds want to know.

...the cry is, 'He had better not play the race card!!!' ***

Nope. No one said that at all. Again, your fiction belongs in your books, not here. As for Guede having played the race card, it's a fact he did. As no "left-handed, Napapijri jacket wearing" man was even there, it's a self-serving lie made up by Guede. Or do you think that "left-handed, Napapijri jacket wearing" man existed?

*'Black colony is the term used by the Black Panthers, borne out of being fed up with police killing unarmed Black guys and being permanently in prison as a result of generational poverty, violence and deprivation (for example, Ronald Reagan's three-strikes for crimes such as possession of drugs becoming Life [literally, unlike Italy, where 'life' means hope of parole).

Do try to make relevant posts. This one fails to do that.

**"A vile accusation", apparently.

Calling someone a racist when they aren't a racist is a vile accusation. Calling out someone for playing the racist card, when they've done so, is not. See if you can spot the difference.

***We are not allowed to challenge this claim.

You can challenge any claim. However, it's recommended that your challenge is based on something that was actually done. Which yours is not.

 

[TomG]

You've never read the report have you? The facts are these:

Marasca-Bruno Report

Elements of strong suspicion that are questionable anyway, are not "facts" and hardly the "sustainable evidence" needed to prove that K&S were at the crime scene.

Hoots

 

[Vixen]

I have a number of questions about this alleged quote. But first, where is it in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report?

Vixen, you are claiming it is in "Marasca-Bruno facts", but there is no section with the heading "Facts".

The closest to that would be "RITENUTO IN FATTO" on page 2 of the original Italian text. That translates to "Considered in Fact" or "Retained as Facts" and consists of:

1. a list of the charges as judged by the Nencini appeals court in its motivation report (p. 2 - 5);

2. a list of the claims or arguments made by Knox in her appeal against the Nencini verdict (p. 5 - 8);

3. a list of the claims or arguments made by Sollecito in his appeal against the Nencini verdict (p. 8 - 14); and

4. Two sections, 4.1 and 4.2, consisting of the lists of claims or arguments made in the additional (new) appeals of Knox and Sollecito, respectively (p. 14 - 18).

The next heading in the Marasca CSC panel MR is "CONSIDERATO IN DIRITTO" which translates to "Considered in Law" or "Considered based upon Law".

The last heading is the P.Q.M. (an abbreviation for an Italian phrase that translates to "For These Reasons") which is the operative part of the verdict (p. 52).

So where did this alleged quote come from? What was the Italian original?

Source:

http://amandaknoxcase.com/files/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/marasca-bruno-motivations-report.pdf

Paragraph 9.4.2 onwards. From "Thus the court has decided the 27th of March, 2015 Reporting Judge The president Paolo Antonio Bruno Gennaro Marasca Registered the 7th of September 2015 COURT OFFICIAL Carmela Lanzuise"

 

[Vixen]

It appears that you may have never understood the Marasca CSC panel MR, or have chosen to distort its meaning.

Your quote here appears to be from Section 9.4.2, which are not the facts of the case, but hypotheses about worst-case conclusions about the role of Knox and Sollecito that could be drawn from unproven allegations.

Face the real world. Whilst 'the kids' might have got their sentences scrapped, the facts remain of what the merits trial found. This is what remains on the Public Records for people to look up in a hundred years time, not the clap trap about 'she was at her boyfriends house all night'.


Face up to it.

 

[Vixen]

Section 9.2 of the M-B report sets up the coming summary of both sides of the trial thusly, and explains why M-B seems at points to say stuff that the prosecution claimed:



<snip>

Sadly, you are started off on the wrong premise. It is not what the prosecutor claimed, it is what the merits courts and final legal facts found.


This was determined by the court, not the prosecutor nor the defence but what was found to be the facts beyond a reasonable doubt.


However, you got your wish, the woman was sprung out of jail early. Hurrah, for getting away with it by force of American public opinion!

Are you proud of yourselves, that Mez' parents died without getting justice for her horrible murder by three horrible people?

 

[Vixen]

Hate crimes and discrimination are criminal offenses in the US, too.


Yes. People don't get arrested for expressing their opinions in the US no matter how vile those opinions are. But there are legal limitations as to how far that can go before it becomes criminal.



Um...we have former slaves now? Man, some people are really long-lived!



Armstrong was our favorite “Black guy”? Hmmm…I suspect this is yet another arsefact. But, what does that entire paragraph relating to events almost 6 decades ago have to do with your accusation that Americans couldn’t believe Knox would be friends with a Black man? Hint: Nothing. It's all "Look! Squirrel!"



While I realize you are a fiction writer, please keep the fiction to your own works and stop injecting them into discussions of this case where they have no relevancy.



This has ZERO to do with the Kercher case. What is this "America BAD, America RACIST" bender you are on? It's comical.




Quote and cite a single US based 'campaign' claiming Guede was the killer BECAUSE HE'S BLACK and not because the evidence placed him alone in Kercher’s room.

Guess who else claimed Guede was a drifter? Prosecutor Manuela Comodi according to John Follain:

(Follain, John. A Death in Italy: The Definitive Account of the Amanda Knox Case )

And
And this from the UK Times: " But there was another Rudy, the small-time drug dealer and drifter with a record of petty crime who according to some witnesses harassed women"
And

And ANSA:" Rudy Guede, an Ivorian drifter
And
the Guardian: " Rudy Guede, the drifter convicted of murdering..."
Just stop this nonsense that it was an "American" claim.



It turned out that book was right, too, since Knox and Sollecito were later definitively acquitted. As for the process being ‘fair’ that’s debatable. The Hellmann Court, the Marasca Supreme Court, and the ECHR might..no, did…. disagree with that.



LOL. No one forced Trump to donate money, although how much he donated has never been revealed AFAIK. Can you present ONE person who actually boycotted Italy due to Trump or even this case? I know I didn’t.



Heh heh heh….fixed that for ya!



Not all authors can make money from their book sales, Vix! Don't lose hope. Having an interested audience helps.

,

Hmmm.... no one has to "bay for the Black guy to take the rap for the murder" as the only person who stands convicted of killing Meredith was determined already by two Italian Supreme Courts. I don't know how you missed it as all the news media covered it extensively.

So tell me, Vix, concerning that "murder by 'more than one person' ", what is the probability that 2 of 3 attackers would leave absolutely no forensic evidence of themselves in that room? Exactly how would they accomplish that? Curious minds want to know.



Nope. No one said that at all. Again, your fiction belongs in your books, not here. As for Guede having played the race card, it's a fact he did. As no "left-handed, Napapijri jacket wearing" man was even there, it's a self-serving lie made up by Guede. Or do you think that "left-handed, Napapijri jacket wearing" man existed?





Do try to make relevant posts. This one fails to do that.




Calling someone a racist when they aren't a racist is a vile accusation. Calling out someone for playing the racist card, when they've done so, is not. See if you can spot the difference.



You can challenge any claim. However, it's recommended that your challenge is based on something that was actually done. Which yours is not.

Er, it was YOU who tried to claim that Italy had the same institutionalised racism as America. It was you yourself that claimed that because bent prosecutors in the USA resort to bribing witnesses to secure a conviction against largely Black guys that only get overturned after 29/42 years or however long they were forced to spend time in a slave-based prison that was invariably a former slave plantation. For example, Angola, where Albert Woodfox was incarcerated in solitary for a large part of the time, and only finding out after 40 years when the archives were finally retrieved and it was discovered the witness who testified he saw him murder the prison guard has been bribed by an officer with cigarettes and a cushy jail transfer. So now you have seen the error of your ways. Good.


So now we are agreed that the viewpoint from America is 'How come they haven't pinned it all on the Black guy? How incredibly outrageous!' because this is the hegemony view. You tried to make out it was exactly the same in Italy by pointing out people being shouted at in the street by a few right wing nutters. We can see this is the hegemony view by Donald Trump's knee jerk reaction to boycott Italy and to send funds to help out Knox alone. People in America just know it was the Black guy who did it alone.

As for Guede, he was caught in a crime. Of course he will say whatever to get out of it, just like the other two. That is not him being racist, 'Just like us!'

Refusing to look at the truth doesn't make it go away. Only a child thinks that constant denial changes the truth of a matter. Or perhaps looking up grammerly to find an opt out clause. Or desperately looking for tu quoque moments.

Read Marasca-Bruno and face the facts: that woman was NOT 'home all night' because the telephone logs say otherwise! FACE IT.

 

[Vixen]

Elements of strong suspicion that are questionable anyway, are not "facts" and hardly the "sustainable evidence" needed to prove that K&S were at the crime scene.

Hoots

These are findings of fact that come out of the weighing of evidence at the merits trial during which all parties were given the opportunity to present their case in front of legal experts in the form of a panel of judges, lay judges and a panel of jury members randomly selected from the public. These are the facts after a lengthy fair trial and the facts found beyond a reasonable doubt in perpetuity in the National Archives of Italy's legal documents.


People won't be looking up what TomG of ISF had to say in a chat forum.

 

[Vixen]

<snip>

Guess who else claimed Guede was a drifter? Prosecutor Manuela Comodi according to John Follain:

(Follain, John. A Death in Italy: The Definitive Account of the Amanda Knox Case )

And
And this from the UK Times: " But there was another Rudy, the small-time drug dealer and drifter with a record of petty crime who according to some witnesses harassed women"
And

And ANSA:" Rudy Guede, an Ivorian drifter
And
the Guardian: " Rudy Guede, the drifter convicted of murdering..."

Prove it. Prove the Italian word for 'drifter' is the same as the U.S.A. term meaning of 'bum, hobo'. AIUI it translates to 'ragga' or something similar simply being a colloquial term for a guy, neither good nor bad but lacking formal respect, such as 'bloke' or 'chap'.

It was self-professed Knox advocate, Nina Burleigh, who brought the slur into common usage for Guede, with the press pack simply copying whatever went before. Thus, we have 'missing toddler Maddie', 'heiress Patty Hearst', 'evil Myra Hindley', etc., etc.

 

[Bill Williams]

Face the real world. Whilst 'the kids' might have got their sentences scrapped, the facts remain of what the merits trial found. This is what remains on the Public Records for people to look up in a hundred years time, not the clap trap about 'she was at her boyfriends house all night'.


Face up to it.

In 100 years, they'll look at the MB report and go, "the lower courts should never have convicted, not on the 'evidence' they had before them. Only one of the merits courts got it right."

 

[Vixen]

In 100 years, they'll look at the MB report and go, "the lower courts should never have convicted, not on the 'evidence' they had before them. Only one of the merits courts got it right."

Only in Hollywood America that fantasises about a 'feelgood' ending, with those pesky foreigners taught a lesson.