Fixed your statement above.
1. The Massei court motivation report and verdict remain as a record of a miscariage of justice, full of legal flaws: violations of Italian law and international law. It was quashed by an Italian appeals court (Hellmann court).
2. The final definitive judgment on the murder/rape charges against Knox and Sollecito remain that of the Marasca CSC panel. Your (or anyone's) inability or desire not to read and comprehend the text of that judgment is your (or anyone's) own issue and apparently can't be overcome by logical argument based on a fair reading of its text. As pointed out in that text, the alleged evidence of the guilt of Knox and Sollecito was not credible evidence and/or was contradictory evidence. Under Italian law, a judgment of guilt must be based upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt (CPP Article 533). Therefore, Knox and Sollecito were finally and definitively acquitted of the murder/rape charges.
You have a great sense of humour, Numbers. Thank you for giving me the best laugh of the day.
<fx still chuckling>
You've completely lost me here. The Hellmann court in 2011 did quash the 2009 conviction of the Massei court, just as the 2013 Chieffi Panel of the ISC quashed the Hellmann acquitals.
It's hard to imagine that you have the vaguest inkling of the timeline of this case.
Vixen, thanks for the compliment on my sense of humor, although I can assure you it is similar to that of innumerable others.
However, it seems that your response was actually meant as a kind of criticism of my post stating that the Hellmann appeals court had quashed the Massei court's convictions of Knox and Sollecito on the murder/rape charges.
While the post by Bill Williams seems to suggest the vague and erroneous criticism in your response post is based on a lack of knowledge of the timeline of the case, I think it is more likely due to either a profound ignorance of Italian law or a profound desire to ignore Italian law.
In case there are persons who are uncertain of the relevant Italian law, I will present a brief summary.
1. Under Italian law, when a first-instance court judgment is appealed by the accused or by a prosecutor who seeks to overturn all or part of the judgment, the case is taken up by a Court of Appeal (CPP Article 593). The Court of Appeal then is authorized to judge the case that is appealed (CPP Article 596) relating to the matters addressed by the appeal documents (CPP Article 597).
2. All the provisions or procedures of a first-instance court are available to the Court of Appeal, and may be used as applicable to the case (CPP Article 598) including the renewal of the trial evidentiary hearing, by the order of the judge, if requested by one of the parties or because new evidence is discovered or if the judge considers it necessary (CPP Article 603).
3.
Finally, the judge of the Court of Appeal must deliver a judgment confirming or amending (in whole or part) the judgment under appeal (CPP Article 605).
If the Court of Appeal judgment amends the first-instance judgment in whole or part, the Court of Appeal motivation report must provide reasoning for those amendments. This is obvious because a statement providing reasoning is required for all judgments under the Italian Constitution (Article 111).
Obviously, the parts of the first-instance judgment amended by the Court of Appeal are quashed - no longer operative - and replaced by the amended reasoning and verdict. However, the judgment of a Court of Appeal may be appealed to the Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) by the accused or by the prosecutor (CPP Articles 607 and 608, respectively) as long as the appeal arguments are in accordance with the requirements (CPP Article 606).
Bottom line: The Hellmann Court of Appeal quashed the Massei first-instance court judgment in accordance with CPP Article 605. The Hellmann court acquitted Knox and Sollecito of the murder/rape charges, but convicted Knox of calunnia against Lumumba (acquitting her of the aggravating factor), sentencing her to 3 years already served.
Of course, the Chieffi CSC judgment quashed the Hellmann court judgment with the exception of the calunnia conviction, which it affirmed. The case was referred to the Nencini Court of Appeal for retrial (including on the calunnia charge with aggravating factor). The Nencini court convicted. The case was appealed to the CSC, and the Marasca CSC panel quashed the Nencini court judgment, acquitted Knox and Sollecito of the murder/rape charges, and re-affirmed Knox's conviction for calunnia without the aggravating factor.
Then the ECHR accepted Knox's application for judgment of violations of international law by Italy, and found that Italy, for Knox's conviction for calunnia, had violated her rights to a fair trial by denying her a lawyer and a fair interpreter during interrogation as well as violating her right to have her credible repeated complaints of mistreatment by the authorities investigated. The case is under supervision before the Committee of Ministers awaiting an Action Plan from Italy. (See:
https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-52517)
Sollecito has also lodged a case with the ECHR. His case relates to the denial of compensation for unjust detention by unfair use of statements inadmissible under Italian law and failure to respect the presumption of innocence. The case has been Communicated to Italy by the ECHR. (See:
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-215997)
