"The formulas "the fact does not exist" and "the accused did not commit the act" represent the broadest acquittal, denying the historical basis of the accusation.!
Whilst the legal template might indeed say that, the facts of the case established at the merits hearings/appeal stage remain unchanged because facts cannot be appealed against.
So all of the facts found remain. And this is reflected in Marasca-Bruno's final motivational report, in which they even add a fact of their own: that Knox accused Lumumba to cover up for Guede.
In addition, all of the MR's confirm the burglary was staged, Knox had the victim's blood on her hand and that she WAS present as of the time of the murder.
Can't wish it away.
.
Perhaps it's not surprising that your post above continues to show gross ignorance of Italian law through its false statements. It also contains false statements about the specific "judicial facts" in the MRs, but to keep my post relatively short I'm going to discuss only the Italian law issues in this reply.
You make the absurd and false statement that "facts cannot be appealed against". This statement is false for: 1. an appeal from a first-instance court to a Court of Appeals and 2. an appeal from a Court of Appeals (or first-instance court) to the Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC).
The content of an appeal from a first-instance court to a Court of Appeals is governed by CPP Article 581. Here's a Google translation of the relevant paragraphs of that article:
1. The appeal is lodged with a written document indicating the contested provision, its date and the judge who issued it, with the specific statement, under penalty of inadmissibility:
a) of the heads or points of the decision to which the appeal refers;
b)of the evidence whose non-existence, failure to take or failure or erroneous assessment is inferred;
c) of the requests, including investigative ones;
d) of the reasons, with an indication of the legal reasons and factual elements that support each request.
1-bis.The appeal is inadmissible for lack of specificity of the reasons when, for each request, the critical observations in relation to the factual or legal reasons expressed in the contested provision are not stated in a precise and explicit manner, with reference to the heads and points of the decision to which the appeal refers.
I've emphasized with highlighting and italics the reference to "facts" including "evidence", "erroneous assessment [of evidence] is inferred", "requests [for] investigation", "factual elements", and "factual reasons". Note that an assessment of evidence or an inference based upon evidence is a "fact" in the meaning of "judicial fact".
So Italian law allows "facts" to be appealed from a first-instance court to a Court of Appeal.
The Italian law for an appeal to the CSC is governed by CPP Article 606; some of its language is more general than that of CPP Article 581. Here's a Google translation of the relevant sections of CPP Article 606:
1. An appeal to the Court of Cassation may be filed for the following reasons:
b) failure to comply with or incorrect application of the criminal law or other legal provisions, which must be taken into account in the application of the criminal law;
d) failure to obtain decisive evidence, when the party has requested it during the course of the trial, limited to the cases provided for in Article 495, paragraph 2 [that is, the defense is entitled by law to offer evidence against each item of evidence presented by the prosecution, and vice versa, and each is entitled to appeal if this condition is not met during trial];
e) lack, contradictory nature or manifest illogicality of the motivation [report], when the defect is evident from the text of the contested provision or from other procedural documents specifically indicated in the grounds for appeal.
The general terminology of CPP Article 606 needs some commentary to show how it links to "facts" or "judicial facts".
Italian law governs the treatment of "facts" or "judicial facts" in a trial. Evidence (and thus facts) derived by influencing or overcoming the self-determination of an individual (for example, coercion) shall not be used in a trial (CPP Article 188 with 191). CPP Article 191 prohibits the use of evidence (and thus facts) gathered in violation of prohibitions set by (procedural) law. CPP Article 192, paragraph 2 governs the generation of facts (or judicial facts) from evidence: a fact may not be inferred from evidence unless the evidence is serious, precise, and consistent. CPP Article 2, paragraph 3 prohibits the use of statements from a person accused of the same crime, whether or not in joined proceedings, unless reliable evidence corroborates such statements. Thus, CPP Article 606, paragraph 1, section b applies to "facts" or "judicial facts".
CPP Article 606, paragraph 1, section d applies to whether the defense has been allowed to offer all relevant evidence to counter the evidence presented by the prosecution (and vice versa). Since "facts" or "judicial facts" are inferred from evidence, those facts are challenged by an appeal under this provision of procedural law as well.
CPP Article 606, paragraph 1, section e applies to a broad range of potential appeal points relating to "facts" or "judicial facts" in a motivation report or other procedural document. If the derivation of a fact or judicial fact is alleged to be illogical (unreasonable), or if there is a contradiction between facts (judicial facts) or in the derivation (inference) of a fact from evidence, or if a relevant fact is missing or insufficient to support the MR's argument, then an appeal under this provision is an appeal on a "fact" or a "judicial fact".
In conclusion, your statement that Italian law does not allow an appeal on the basis of an allegation related to a fact or judicial fact, whether to a Court of Appeal or the CSC, is false.
.