The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[Stacyhs]

This doesn't explain why you think Amanda and Raffaele would need to stage a sexual assault when one had already taken place.

I didn't ask you what the courts came up with. I'm asking YOU why you think staging a sexual assault was necessary since it had already happened. Try to stay on point..

All the red herrings that get thrown out make me think I'm on a Finnish fishing trawler.

 

[Numbers]

Of course cases in which the defendant is found not guilty at the lower court and the prosecutor appeals is subject to an acquittal without referral. That is where the defandants have the balance weighted in their favour. There was a recent case in Finland - which follows Napoleonic Roman Law (German version) [as opposed to the UK, Commonwealth and USA Anglo-Saxon based adversarial common law]. A Danish guy was charged with the murder of two young German tourists on a cruise ship between Finland and Sweden, when aged 18, some 30 years later after his cellmates overheard him boasted about having committed the crime. He was brought before the court and charged. He was found guilty and his defence appealed on the grounds he had not been given a Danish interpreter at some stage. He won the appeal. The prosecutors appealed. The man was acquitted without referral. Do you see how it works? Had he been found guilty at the first instance court and he verdict upheld by the appeal court, there is no way the Supreme Court could acquit him without a referral back as the facts found at the lower courts still legally stand and it has no jurisdiction to change them. It was nor declared a mistrial or 'in the public interest' and it should be patently obvious that the reason a para 530 'insufficient evidence' is vanishing rare at this level is self -evident, in that 'insufficient evidence' becomes apparent at the preliminary stages not the Supreme Court stage! It is thanks to Bongiorno's hero, politician, Andreotti, that she was aware of this little used para, the last time having been Berlusconi, both found guilty and as upheld by both lower courts but used their political influence to wriggle off the hook.

Your post it too mixed-up (incoherent) for me to discuss of all its incoherencies or errors.

However, some of the errors are easily addressed.

Your first statement is: Of course cases in which the defendant is found not guilty at the lower court and the prosecutor appeals is subject to an acquittal without referral.
Let's assume this is a discussion about Italian law, since Kercher was murdered and raped in Italy, and Knox and Sollecito were tried in Italy under Italian law.

Then one must consider the structure of the Italian judicial system and how Italian procedural law works in that system.

Your not clear which lower court in the Italian system you are referring to.

If a first-instance Italian court acquits an accused, and the prosecutor appeals the acquittal, that appeal is heard by an Italian Court of Appeal. That appeal court is free to retry the case if the judge believes that is necessary. The appeal court judge is also free to merely review the documentation of the first-instance judgment if the judge can justify limiting the appeal trial to that level of inquiry.

Under CPP Article 604, if the appeal court judge finds that there has been a nullity (a type of serious procedural error defined under Italian laws such as CPP Article 179) the case may be returned to the first-instance judge for correction or the appeal court judge may take measures to correct the nullity and proceed to a judgment under CPP Article 605. If no nullity is declared, the court of appeal judge proceeds to judge the case under CPP Article 605.

Under CPP Article 605, the appeal court judge is authorized to confirm or amend (change) the first-instance court verdict based on the trial conducted by that court of appeal judge. The case is not referred to a new trial, but the verdict may be appealed to the Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) by the accused, the prosecutor, or both.

The CSC reviews the arguments of the appeal(s) against the judgment of the Court of Appeal for conformance to the legal requirements of CPP Article 606. If no appeal conforms to those requirements, the CSC rules the appeal(s) inadmissible and the judgment of the Court of Appeal stands as the final judgment of the case.

If the CSC finds that an argument of an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal meets the legal requirements of CPP Article 606, it considers the legitimacy of that judgment in light of the soundness of the argument.

If the argument is so unsound that there is no defect in the legitimacy of the appeal court judgment, the CSC rejects the appeal, and the judgment of the Court of Appeal stands as the final judgment of the case.

If the argument is sound and thus reveals a defect in the legitimacy of the appeal court judgment, the CSC annuls the appeal court judgment in whole or part in order to quash the illegitimacy of that judgment. (BTW, the definition of "cassation" - cassiazone in Italian - means annulment - annullamento in Italian.)

The CSC then has the task of deciding whether the annulment may be made without referral or with referral. Any referral is to a different Court of Appeal than the one that delivered the judgment that the CSC had evaluated.

Since the CSC does not admit evidence or hear testimony, and ECHR case law requires that a trial is unfair if the defendent is not allowed to be present and, if desiring, heard before the judge, it generally cannot deliver a guilty verdict if the appealed judgment is an acquittal or dismissal. So it will annul with referral if it annuls an acquittal or dismissal.

If the situation meets of requirements of any part of CPP Article 620, the CSC is required to annul without referral and to issue the appropriate verdict. Thus, a really messed up judgment, like that of the Nencini appeal court in convicting Knox and Sollecito, will be annulled without referral with a verdict of acquittal required in accordance with Italian law.

 

[Stacyhs]

Perhaps now would be a good time to (re)post what Massei and Nencini said about the possible semen stain in their respective MR's.






Raffaele's defense did ask for the stain to be tested during the Massei trial, but Massei considered the request late and failed to see how it would help, so it was denied. Nencini essentially parroted Massei.

And no, Vixen, the request was not made "AFTER the trial and he had been found guilty and sentence".

The point that should not be lost in all of this is WHY was the stain not automatically tested and the results published? You have a possible semen stain at the scene of a sexual assault and you don't test it? Either it was tested and the results buried (corruption) or it was never tested (incompetence). Either way, it's inexcusable.

Testing the stain would also have put an end to speculation that it was RS's.

I agree 100% that it was inexcusable for it to either not have been tested or that it was suppressed. The fact that Vinci found a shoeprint in the stain is further evidence that it was deposited at the time of the murder.

 

[Vixen]

You mean the one he signed under the same conditions as Amanda signed hers? Without the legally required lawyer present and no recording? Do you want to contend he never said he was coerced into signing that through threats and intimidation? Or that he said it wasn't true that she'd gone out? That one?

Oh please.

 

[Vixen]

Sigh. Your summation of what the prosecution alleged is absolutely worthless! Why do you insist on all these red herrings? Nencini was overturned and is therefore, of no consequence.



You are quite welcome to read Nencini for yourself which can be found here:

https://themurderofmeredithkercher.net/Files master list.html

I have given you the date of the document. Should be easy enough for you to access it.

No, no, no, and hell no! You are doing it yet again. YOU made the claim. The ONUS IS ON YOU to quote and link to the actual statement where Vecchiotti stated that. You have the date of the document. Should be easy enough for you to access it and link to it. Stalling is a common and transparent tactic.

Having heard the submissions and further weighing of evidence, as stipulated by Chieffi Supreme Court, from all parties, the Nencini Appeal Court preferred the case presented by the prosecution, and that is why Crini's submissions are the legal facts found, as set out in the Nencini motivations report.

 

[Vixen]

You got caught misrepresenting what happened and you continue to misrepresent (and I'm using a diplomatic term) the situation. YOU made the accusation AFTER the events you are referring to so you obviously paid no mind to what anyone had 'very angrily' told you. The fact is, Vix, you made a claim and you CAN'T provide a single instance of anyone saying that because it never happened. You know that, I know that, and the readers of this thread know that.

So how come you 'just know the Black guy did it'?

 

[Vixen]

Yet again, your claim was disproved by cited evidence. Instead of acknowledging that, you resort to semantics which in no way supports your claim.

Read it straight from the horse's mouth: Sollecito says so himself in his ghostwritten book that he and his defence team didn't want the pillow tested because (he claims) he was worried Stefanoni would try to pin the stain on him.


Bearing in mind Clause 360, are you really gullible enough to believe this? DING, DING, DING. The other leg has got bells on it.

 

[Vixen]

Which is all I've asked Vixen for when she makes a claim as fact...without much luck.

I would argue it is because no other country would uniquely take it for granted that the Black guy should take the blame and wouldn't describe a non-Black teenage guy living in an apartment, 'a drifter', or the British equivalent: 'a tramp'. And note how Knox automatically pointed the finger at an innocent Black guy, whom she knew to be innocent and was even happy for him to stay in jail and take the rap as a rapist/murderer, despite having a young kid dependent on him. Knox hasn't paid him the damages she was ordered to pay to this day. Spot how she cried hysterically whilst relating to police that Congolese Patrik Lumumba was 'BAD!!!'

 

[Vixen]

You've been asked repeatedly for evidence that Art. 530, para 2 is a "loophole" or "rare" or "little used". Shockingly you have failed to do so but shockingly again, that doesn't stop you from repeating it. I suggest again you stop making statements of fact that you cannot provide evidence for. It should be patently obvious why.

You have repeatedly been told Andreotti and Berslusconi. Did it go over your head?

 

[Vixen]

Perhaps now would be a good time to (re)post what Massei and Nencini said about the possible semen stain in their respective MR's.






Raffaele's defense did ask for the stain to be tested during the Massei trial, but Massei considered the request late and failed to see how it would help, so it was denied. Nencini essentially parroted Massei.

And no, Vixen, the request was not made "AFTER the trial and he had been found guilty and sentence".

The point that should not be lost in all of this is WHY was the stain not automatically tested and the results published? You have a possible semen stain at the scene of a sexual assault and you don't test it? Either it was tested and the results buried (corruption) or it was never tested (incompetence). Either way, it's inexcusable.

So, in other words, like Sollecito's late phone call to the police after they had already arrived, just another feeble gesture. WHY make an application that was 'too late'? Why claim in his book that he and his counsel were worried the forensics would show it was his? do you really believe his absurd claim of being afraid of being fitted up, given that it is a computer that analyses the STR's and RFU peaks, and in addition the computer has no innate knowledge of what his DNA profile is so can hardly fake it. In addition, his counsel would have the right to send an expert witness to observe proceedings.

Having established Guede sexually assaulted the victim, via epithelial traces, what is the further need? The guy stands convicted.

In fact, I am betting Sollecito breathed a sigh of relief it wasn't tested and his faux indignation conceals a pathetic attempt to throw off suspicion from himself.

 

[Vixen]

Your post it too mixed-up (incoherent) for me to discuss of all its incoherencies or errors.

However, some of the errors are easily addressed.

Your first statement is: Of course cases in which the defendant is found not guilty at the lower court and the prosecutor appeals is subject to an acquittal without referral.
Let's assume this is a discussion about Italian law, since Kercher was murdered and raped in Italy, and Knox and Sollecito were tried in Italy under Italian law.

Then one must consider the structure of the Italian judicial system and how Italian procedural law works in that system.

Your not clear which lower court in the Italian system you are referring to.

If a first-instance Italian court acquits an accused, and the prosecutor appeals the acquittal, that appeal is heard by an Italian Court of Appeal. That appeal court is free to retry the case if the judge believes that is necessary. The appeal court judge is also free to merely review the documentation of the first-instance judgment if the judge can justify limiting the appeal trial to that level of inquiry.

Under CPP Article 604, if the appeal court judge finds that there has been a nullity (a type of serious procedural error defined under Italian laws such as CPP Article 179) the case may be returned to the first-instance judge for correction or the appeal court judge may take measures to correct the nullity and proceed to a judgment under CPP Article 605. If no nullity is declared, the court of appeal judge proceeds to judge the case under CPP Article 605.

Under CPP Article 605, the appeal court judge is authorized to confirm or amend (change) the first-instance court verdict based on the trial conducted by that court of appeal judge. The case is not referred to a new trial, but the verdict may be appealed to the Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) by the accused, the prosecutor, or both.

The CSC reviews the arguments of the appeal(s) against the judgment of the Court of Appeal for conformance to the legal requirements of CPP Article 606. If no appeal conforms to those requirements, the CSC rules the appeal(s) inadmissible and the judgment of the Court of Appeal stands as the final judgment of the case.

If the CSC finds that an argument of an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal meets the legal requirements of CPP Article 606, it considers the legitimacy of that judgment in light of the soundness of the argument.

If the argument is so unsound that there is no defect in the legitimacy of the appeal court judgment, the CSC rejects the appeal, and the judgment of the Court of Appeal stands as the final judgment of the case.

If the argument is sound and thus reveals a defect in the legitimacy of the appeal court judgment, the CSC annuls the appeal court judgment in whole or part in order to quash the illegitimacy of that judgment. (BTW, the definition of "cassation" - cassiazone in Italian - means annulment - annullamento in Italian.) The CSC then has the task of deciding whether the annulment may be made without referral or with referral. Any referral is to a different Court of Appeal than the one that delivered the judgment that the CSC had evaluated.
Since the CSC does not admit evidence or hear testimony, and ECHR case law requires that a trial is unfair if the defendent is not allowed to be present and, if desiring, heard before the judge, it generally cannot deliver a guilty verdict if the appealed judgment is an acquittal or dismissal. So it will annul with referral if it annuls an acquittal or dismissal.

If the situation meets of requirements of any part of CPP Article 620, the CSC is required to annul without referral and to issue the appropriate verdict. Thus, a really messed up judgment, like that of the Nencini appeal court in convicting Knox and Sollecito, will be annulled without referral with a verdict of acquittal required in accordance with Italian law.

To fine slice this: you note the Chieffi Supreme Court annulled Hellman's second instance Appeal Court and reverted it to Nencini's second instance Appeal court and directed it to re-weigh the DNA evidence which Vecchiotti and Conti made a mess of and acted with quote 'intellectual dishonesty'. In other words, Vecchiotti and Conti's conclusions were expunged.

There was no error in Nencini's Appeal Court, with Novelli and Torrecelli equally if not more so legally expert in all matters of criminal investigation of forensic DNA providing sound testimony, which Nencini accepted, and in accordance with Chieffi's directions to re-examine V&C's egregious and eccentric findings.

Fast forward to Marasca and Bruno CSC arising from an appeal by the defendants against Nencini upholding the lower courts conviction. Marasca & Bruno breached their own constitution - ironic for a Supreme Court - and penal code by reinstituting Vecchiotti's and Conti's false claims of contamination and improper practices. The Supreme Court of Marasca-Bruno did not have the jurisdiction to override the Chieffi CSC.

Because it further failed to refer the case back to the second instance court, the legal facts found by Nencini stand.

The proof of this is that when Sollecito applied for statutory compensation for his three years in jail, the court was able to quote back at him the facts found by Marasca-Bruno, which were as found by Nencini, never having been haded back down.

Of course, Bongiorno and Della Vedova did not want it reverted back because the evidence against the pair was so overwhelming and [remains] damning. The pair are just relieved to have only needed to spend three years inside and to become faux celebrities earning a little money here and there from interviews and tv shows on the backs of this dreadful and brutal murder of a young English woman who had her life in front of her.

 

[Vixen]

Testing the stain would also have put an end to speculation that it was RS's.

I agree 100% that it was inexcusable for it to either not have been tested or that it was suppressed. The fact that Vinci found a shoeprint in the stain is further evidence that it was deposited at the time of the murder.

Vinci was given the opportunity at the Nencini Court to make a presentation of the pillow stain.

2014-03-10-Slides-Consultant-Defense-Vinci-pillow-stain.pdf
2014-03-10-Slides-Consultant-Defense-Vinci-pillow-stain.zip

https://themurderofmeredithkercher.net/Files master list.html

So a full and fair hearing. Nencini decided that such a stain could not be dated.

Whilst it might be of academic interest, this is a criminal court of law focused on the issue of evidence.

Explain how it would resolve anything that was not already settled.

 

[Numbers]

To fine slice this: you note the Chieffi Supreme Court annulled Hellman's second instance Appeal Court and reverted it to Nencini's second instance Appeal court and directed it to re-weigh the DNA evidence which Vecchiotti and Conti made a mess of and acted with quote 'intellectual dishonesty'. In other words, Vecchiotti and Conti's conclusions were expunged.
There was no error in Nencini's Appeal Court, with Novelli and Torrecelli equally if not more so legally expert in all matters of criminal investigation of forensic DNA providing sound testimony, which Nencini accepted, and in accordance with Chieffi's directions to re-examine V&C's egregious and eccentric findings.
Fast forward to Marasca and Bruno CSC arising from an appeal by the defendants against Nencini upholding the lower courts conviction. Marasca & Bruno breached their own constitution - ironic for a Supreme Court - and penal code by reinstituting Vecchiotti's and Conti's false claims of contamination and improper practices. The Supreme Court of Marasca-Bruno did not have the jurisdiction to override the Chieffi CSC. Because it further failed to refer the case back to the second instance court, the legal facts found by Nencini stand. The proof of this is that when Sollecito applied for statutory compensation for his three years in jail, the court was able to quote back at him the facts found by Marasca-Bruno, which were as found by Nencini, never having been haded back down.

Of course, Bongiorno and Della Vedova did not want it reverted back because the evidence against the pair was so overwhelming and [remains] damning. The pair are just relieved to have only needed to spend three years inside and to become faux celebrities earning a little money here and there from interviews and tv shows on the backs of this dreadful and brutal murder of a young English woman who had her life in front of her.

Well, this is an interesting post.

All the yellow-highlighted statements contain significant falsehoods.

The quoted post is interesting in that it demonstrates so many errors in logic and facts produced by a fixed biased opinion combined with ignorance of Italian law (or failure to read and understand the law).

Another interesting point about the quoted post is that it is specific to the Knox-Sollecito case and does not refute or really provide any comment in response to my post, which it is supposedly responding to. My post was a general one describing the functioning of appeals in the Italian judicial system as conducted in accordance with Italian law. Those procedures were indeed followed in the Knox-Sollecito case. There were, of course, defects and horrendous flaws in the logic and legitimacy of some of those judgments, as pointed out by the Hellmann appeal court and the Marasca CSC panel judgments, but those specifics were not at all addressed in my post.

 

[Vixen]

For the life of me I can't figure out why Amanda and Raffaele would return to the cottage to stage a sexual assault after Guede.... drum roll.... sexually assaulted Meredith. Then again, maybe the scene is exactly as Guede left it, or is that too obvious for you?

You've never heard of a victim of a sexual assault being assaulted more than once, or by more than one person?

Let's suspend credulity and imagine for the sake of academic argument that Guede was indeed paying a social visit to Mez and they got romantic, as he claims, but he didn't have any condoms, hence just heavy petting (and his bodily fluids were not present internally). So then as he claims Knox turned up, angry because Lumumba had just rung up telling her not to come in, believing that Kercher had stolen her job. Kercher is angry that her rent money is missing (and her fingerprints were found looking in the drawers of Knox' room). Guede claims he objected to Mez' tone. The courts decided Guede held Mez' arms behind her back whilst a fatal knife wound was inflicted on one side of her neck and two more lesser stabs with a different knife on the other side. There are also numerous knife flicks marks suggesting a period of torture and tormenting. There were no defence wounds aside from a minor one, which is why the court determined there wer multiple assailants, and as upheld by Marasca-Bruno CSC. So Guede claims the pair ran off, leaving him to fetch towels to try to stem the wounds. Luminol shows his shoeprints heading directly to the front door, away from the murder room. There were no bare footprints identified as Guede's.

So, who returned to (a) drag the body from its original position by the closet [wardrobe], (b) place it onto a sheet [cops said they believed this was a sign of wanting to carry the corpse away), (c) undress it, with the bra cut off or torn off with a knife, a pillow placed under the hips and placed so that anyone entering the room would be met with the obscene vision (cf Boston Strangler) except that someone decided to cover the body with a duvet. The court determined the burglary was staged because papers scattered from Filomena's room were on top of the duvet, therefore after the murder.

So why would Knox and Sollecito want to return to stage a rape and burglary scene (and a theatrical one at that when nothing was stolen except Mez' phones and credit cards)? Precisely for the same reason Knox pointed at Lumumba: to divert suspicion away from herself, as being resident there. To cover up the signs of a sadistic torture based on her rage and Sollecito's need for 'extreme experiences' and his knife fetish.

Kokomanni is an unreliable witness, being heavily involved in Albanian gang drug smuggling of cocaine, but he was pinged in the area and witnessed as being there as of the time frame. So I tend to believe him when he says he saw Knox, Guede and Sollecito outside 7 via Pergola absolutely stoned out of their minds, waving a knife and claiming to be waiting for a friend 'to give her a birthday party' (presumably the knife Knox was waving was to cut the birthday cake, in explanation). It all fits with what likely happened, especially as Knox and Sollecito said afterwards they would never take drugs again.

 

[Vixen]

Yes I am aware. It's indentured servitude. They are not owned nor bought and sold. It's disgusting, but that doesn't make it slavery, nor does it make it a racist law.


Please quote where I said Italy had the same systemic racism as the US or anywhere else. I'll wait. (Here's a hint, you can't because I never said it)


This is word salad. It doesn't make sense, it isn't coherent English, and I have no idea what you meant to say.
Which is not what I claimed, nor argued.


You don't need to teach me, I suspect I'm considerably better versed in current affairs than you, mostly because I understand what the 13th amendment is. I understand that the USA has a serious problem with incarcerating people of colour. That does not make the 13th amendment a racist amendment. You were asked to provide a racist, federal law from the USA. All you're doing is pointing to the fact that Louisiana refused to ban indentured servitude for prisoners. I am aware it did that. I'm also disgusted by it. That doesn't make it what you were asked for.

We've been down this route with you before on more than one subject. You make a bold claim, then when called on it point to a much lesser version of the thing you were claiming and state that it is equivalent. It is not.



I was not claiming that the USA and Italy were identical. You made the apparent claim that systemic racism is a uniquely US problem. That is clearly nonsense. All I want you to do is provide evidence for the claims you have made.

So what is your theory as to why Mignini would victimise 'the kids' as the PIP call them?

(No examples of bent prosecutors from the US Southern States, please, as though such corruption is perfectly normal everywhere.)

 

[MarkCorrigan]

So what is your theory as to why Mignini would victimise 'the kids' as the PIP call them?

(No examples of bent prosecutors from the US Southern States, please, as though such corruption is perfectly normal everywhere.)

Why do you keep trying to make me answer questions that I'm not attempting to answer?

I am merely highlighting that your assessment of systemic racism is wrong.

 

[Welshman]

Having heard the submissions and further weighing of evidence, as stipulated by Chieffi Supreme Court, from all parties, the Nencini Appeal Court preferred the case presented by the prosecution, and that is why Crini's submissions are the legal facts found, as set out in the Nencini motivations report.

How can the prosecution present a case when they don't have a case except Mignin's lurid fantasies.

 

[Numbers]

...

Let's assume this is a discussion about Italian law, since Kercher was murdered and raped in Italy, and Knox and Sollecito were tried in Italy under Italian law. Then one must consider the structure of the Italian judicial system and how Italian procedural law works in that system.
....

....

Fast forward to Marasca and Bruno CSC arising from an appeal by the defendants against Nencini upholding the lower courts conviction. .... Because it further failed to refer the case back to the second instance court, the legal facts found by Nencini stand.

....

....

The quoted post is interesting in that it demonstrates so many errors in logic and facts produced by a fixed biased opinion combined with ignorance of Italian law (or failure to read and understand the law).

....

Vixen, I've selected a specific part of your response to my post in hopes that you will be able to give a clear response to an alleged issue of Italian law that you claim to exist.

That is, you are claiming, if I understand your response correctly, that because the Marasca CSC panel annulled the Nencini appeal court conviction without a referral (in accordance with CPP Article 620), that the "legal facts" found by the Nencini court stand.

Now Italian law does have some complexity, so could you please explain exactly which Italian law justifies or supports your statement? (Please, no commentary on the laws of other countries - the case is an Italian case and Italian law applies.)

There don't seem to be any media reports from Italy of Parliament members, lawyers, or judges making any comments supporting your claim.

Note also that Amanda Knox has visited Italy twice since the Marasca CSC judgment and was not subject to any police action, and Raffaele Sollecito has apparently lived in Italy since that judgment, likewise without being subject to any police action. This would suggest that the Nencini appeal court verdict was indeed quashed, and the alleged "legal facts" in the Nencini appeal court judgment are likewise annulled, insofar as they were specifically contradicted within the Marasca CSC panel judgment.

 

[Welshman]

Read Sollecito's own signed police statement where he confirms he was lying.

The statement was signed during an interrogation when Raffaele was denied access to lawyers and there was no tape of the interrogation contrary to Italian law. Raffaele says the statement was prepared by the police and he was forced to sign similar to the statements the police prepared for Amanda to sign naming Lumumba. Vixen is dishonest regarding the statement. If Amanda and Raffaele were such prolific liars why is it necessary to resort to lying to support this claim?

I found it grossly offensive that Vixen thinks she can brush off her lies as a non issue. In addition to the points I listed previously, there is another major reason why Vixen's lies are a major issue. Vixen attacks Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba of a crime. By lying Vixen is using false information to imply Amanda and Raffaele committed a crime. As per the post below Vixen makes a false allegation that Hellman received a bribe to find Amanda and Raffaele not guilty.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11669633#post11669633

 

[Welshman]

You've never heard of a victim of a sexual assault being assaulted more than once, or by more than one person?

Let's suspend credulity and imagine for the sake of academic argument that Guede was indeed paying a social visit to Mez and they got romantic, as he claims, but he didn't have any condoms, hence just heavy petting (and his bodily fluids were not present internally). So then as he claims Knox turned up, angry because Lumumba had just rung up telling her not to come in, believing that Kercher had stolen her job. Kercher is angry that her rent money is missing (and her fingerprints were found looking in the drawers of Knox' room). Guede claims he objected to Mez' tone. The courts decided Guede held Mez' arms behind her back whilst a fatal knife wound was inflicted on one side of her neck and two more lesser stabs with a different knife on the other side. There are also numerous knife flicks marks suggesting a period of torture and tormenting. There were no defence wounds aside from a minor one, which is why the court determined there wer multiple assailants, and as upheld by Marasca-Bruno CSC. So Guede claims the pair ran off, leaving him to fetch towels to try to stem the wounds. Luminol shows his shoeprints heading directly to the front door, away from the murder room. There were no bare footprints identified as Guede's.

So, who returned to (a) drag the body from its original position by the closet [wardrobe], (b) place it onto a sheet [cops said they believed this was a sign of wanting to carry the corpse away), (c) undress it, with the bra cut off or torn off with a knife, a pillow placed under the hips and placed so that anyone entering the room would be met with the obscene vision (cf Boston Strangler) except that someone decided to cover the body with a duvet. The court determined the burglary was staged because papers scattered from Filomena's room were on top of the duvet, therefore after the murder.

So why would Knox and Sollecito want to return to stage a rape and burglary scene (and a theatrical one at that when nothing was stolen except Mez' phones and credit cards)? Precisely for the same reason Knox pointed at Lumumba: to divert suspicion away from herself, as being resident there. To cover up the signs of a sadistic torture based on her rage and Sollecito's need for 'extreme experiences' and his knife fetish.

Kokomanni is an unreliable witness, being heavily involved in Albanian gang drug smuggling of cocaine, but he was pinged in the area and witnessed as being there as of the time frame. So I tend to believe him when he says he saw Knox, Guede and Sollecito outside 7 via Pergola absolutely stoned out of their minds, waving a knife and claiming to be waiting for a friend 'to give her a birthday party' (presumably the knife Knox was waving was to cut the birthday cake, in explanation). It all fits with what likely happened, especially as Knox and Sollecito said afterwards they would never take drugs again.

It is a sign of the gross stupidity of PGP that they are still banging on about the absurd notion Amanda and Raffaele felt it was necessary to stage a rape when Guede had raped Meredith.