Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Jack by the hedge]

The pair had their convictions annulled because of a loophole usually used by politiicans such as Andreotti or Berlusconi. Nobody considers either of these two as really being innocent.

If you mean of Meredith's murder, I do consider them entirely innocent. If you don't mean of Meredith's murder maybe stop playing word games implying that you do.

 

[Vixen]

Who were clearly mistaken. I wonder if they reconsidered in light of the evidence.

Napoleoni was Head of Homicide. She was experienced in attending murder scenes. Or maybe, like Mignini, she also 'had it in' for Knox and Sollecito, rather than bother finding the real perps? Is that your theory? How plausible do you think it sounds?


.



.

 

[Vixen]

If you mean of Meredith's murder, I do consider them entirely innocent. If you don't mean of Meredith's murder maybe stop playing word games implying that you do.

I was talking about the loophole 'insufficient evidence'. In both Andreotti's and one of Berlusconi's (of his many, many charges of corruption) acquittal based on 'insufficient evidence', likewise Knox and Sollecito.

Consider this, Person X stands trial and after a full merits hearing with witnesses on both sides, and the verdict is 'guilty', the case having been proven on the strength of evidence presented.

Person X takes it to appeal as is automatic in Italy on a point of law of new evidence. So the case is sent back down with the evidence re-looked at on the particular point as directed by the appeal court.

The second merits/appeal court re-examining said evidence, using top scientific experts from all sides, in Italy, the prosecution, the defence and the civil parties (including the victim's family). Again, guilty verdict concluded. Motivational Report spells out facts found and proven from the evidence presented. Evidence can be circumstantial, including forensic and scientific evidence and chronology, it can be direct eye witness (or in the case of Kercher, ear witnesses who heard the harrowing scream and loud banging on the metal stairs by the underground carpark).

It goes to the Supreme Court as is usually automatically allowed in Italy. In the case of Italy for Kercher, a lawyer manages to argue off record that rejected evidence at the lower merits court should be rejected and reinstalled and substituted by defence advocates who were never cross-examined. The Supreme Court agrees to annul the sentences on the grounds that the crime scene 'might'* have been contaminated but the facts found at merits court and the intermediary appeal court stands. That is, all of the proven evidence remains: that Knox was definitely at the scene as proven, her blood was there mixed with Kercher's, Sollecito's knife definitely was there as per imprint on bed and his footprint on the bathmat, the burglary was proven staged, with only Knox' DNA left in Filomena's room co-mingled with the victim's DNA, the pair did both switch off their phones ahead of the murder, did spend a lot of time cleaning up with Sollecito even dismantling his sink U-tube, lying about being at his pc all evening, etc. All of this remains a proven fact. The injuries suffered by Mez are consistent with two different knives used, one a pen knife and the other a kitchen knife, which did have the victim's DNA on the blade and Knox' on the hilt. A knife carried from Sollecito's apartment to 7 via de Pergola in premeditation.

These absolute facts all remain, and as proven.

Question, do you really believe that simply having your sentence annulled on a legal loophole means Person X isn't damned by the sheer weight of evidence against them? Or do you think it is enough just to 'get away with it'?

For the perp that might be fine but it isn't justice or anything to be proud of.


As a by the by, I don't think anyone is interested in your personal opinion of guilt or innocence any more than they would be of mine.

What is important is the legal situation. And it stands at the unsatisfactory, 'insufficient evidence' level, amongst all the rest of the very strong evidence.


*Based on defence 'gun-for-hire', Dr Peter Gill, appointed by the defence to say so based on a report by Hellman-appointed experts Conti & Vecchiotti, who were expunged as 'intellectually dishonest' and caught advocating on behalf of the defence by Hellmann himself, ironically.

ETA whilst people such as Vecchiotti and Conti and Gill might believe they are acting compassionately in helping spring - what they see as two poor people they feel sorry for - from prison, I would say they are misguided and simply subvert the whole point of the rule of law.

.
.

 

[Numbers]

Napoleoni was Head of Homicide. She was experienced in attending murder scenes. Or maybe, like Mignini, she also 'had it in' for Knox and Sollecito, rather than bother finding the real perps? Is that your theory? How plausible do you think it sounds?

How many murder scenes had Napoleoni or the other Perugia police attended? Please provide a citation backing your claim.

I recall reading that the murder of Meredith Kercher was the first murder in Perugia for over about ten years, but I don't have a citation at hand. The inexperience and relatively small size of the Perugia police force (of the Italian State Police) probably was among the motivations for the Italian Ministry of Justice sending Giobbi and members of his group, from the Major/Serious Crime Unit, from Rome to Perugia.

I also recall reading that Napoleoni was the leader of the police "flying squad" (rather than a "homicide squad") at the relevant time. A flying squad in this context may be defined as a rapid-response unit of a police force, able to move quickly in an emergency.

 

[Vixen]

Who were clearly mistaken. I wonder if they reconsidered in light of the evidence.

Well, no, Batistelli knows what time he turned up and also the exact time recorded on police logs when Sollecito first rang his sister and then the police [actually, the Carabinieri]. Sollecito rang after his arrival. Batistelli says the pair were visibly surprised and embarrassed at his appearance as they clearly were not expecting him. Batistelli looked into Filomena's room and said he noticed the glass was on top of the clothing strewn across the floor. Police are trained to be observant and that is what he observed, as did others.


.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Obviously I was not talking about what the policemen observed but rather the clearly wrong conclusions they drew.

 

[Numbers]

If readers here wish to consider the current situation of the Knox - Sollecito case, the legal situation remains that Knox and Sollecito were finally acquitted of all the murder/rape charges.

Sollecito is awaiting a judgment from the ECHR on his application* complaining of violations of Convention Articles 6.1 (unfair trial) and 6.2 (denial of the right to be presumed innocent) by the CSC in their rejection of his request for compensation for unjust detention.

Knox's conviction for calunnia was annulled by the CSC on the basis of the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy, but was then re-convicted in another miscarriage of justice, in which the CSC looked at the same evidence that had led to the impugned conviction but from another angle. The DEJ/CoM is in bilateral contact with Italy attempting to obtain an Action Plan or Report from Italy. Italy is currently about 5 and 1/2 years tardy in supplying a Plan or Report to the DEJ/CoM.** (Thanks again to TomG for pointing out this change in the Status.)

* Communication to Italy

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights

The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...

hudoc.echr.coe.int

** Status of Execution

HUDOC-EXEC

hudoc.exec.coe.int

 

[Vixen]

Obviously I was not talking about what the policemen observed but rather the clearly wrong conclusions they drew.

As per protocol, Batistelli lodged his report based on objective observation - without evaluation or judgement - as soon as he was back at the police station. As he had stayed around to see Altieri kick down the door, his immediate observations are important. Same day. On the spot.


.


.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Question, do you really believe that simply having your sentence annulled on a legal loophole means Person X isn't damned by the sheer weight of evidence against them? Or do you think it is enough just to 'get away with it'?

I believe that having your sentence annulled in law, whether you mean-spiritedly call it a 'loophole' or not, means your sentence is annulled. I don't think anybody is damned by the sheer weight of repetition of weak and contested claims which are batted away as worthless every time they get repeated. Knox didn't get away with it. She is totally innocent of the murder.

As a by the by, I don't think anyone is interested in your personal opinion of guilt or innocence any more than they would be of mine.

Since you declared that nobody considers them entirely innocent it seemed reasonable to point out that isn't true.

 

[Vixen]

I believe that having your sentence annulled in law, whether you mean-spiritedly call it a 'loophole' or not, means your sentence is annulled. I don't think anybody is damned by the sheer weight of repetition of weak and contested claims which are batted away as worthless every time they get repeated. Knox didn't get away with it. She is totally innocent of the murder.

Since you declared that nobody considers them entirely innocent it seemed reasonable to point out that isn't true.

There are plenty of cases of people having their sentences annulled, Russell (Babes in the Wood), Barry George, Casey Anthony, Ryan Ferguson, Damien Echols, etc., etc, who've all had their sentences quashed (Russell was reconvicted of murder some many years later) but it doesn't mean the legal facts do not follow them.


.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

As per protocol, Batistelli lodged his report based on objective observation - without evaluation or judgement

You're changing the subject. I responded to your remarks on their initial conclusion that the rock could not have come from the outside, which was wrong.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

There are plenty of cases of people having their sentences annulled, Russell (Babes in the Wood), Barry George, Casey Anthony, Ryan Ferguson, Damien Echols, etc., etc, who've all had their sentences quashed (Russell was reconvicted of murder some many years later) but it doesn't mean the legal facts do not follow them.

Annullment of a wrongful conviction doesn't mean the original conviction didn't happen, but nor does it mean you committed the crime but got away with it. You do get that, right?

 

[Numbers]

If readers wish to understand why Knox's re-conviction for calunnia was a miscarriage of justice and contrary to international (ECHR) law, the first resource I know of would be the ECHR judgment Serrano Contreras v. Spain (No. 2) 22236/19 final 26/01/2022. The brief summary of the case states:

[Violation of] Art[icle] 6 § 1 (criminal) • Unfairness of revision proceedings before Supreme Court due to distortion of European Court [of Human Rights] judgment which had found a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial • Complaint connected with execution of Court’s earlier judgment but sufficiently distinct to permit its examination • Art 6 § 1 safeguards applicable to revision proceedings in present case, in light of the scope of Supreme Court’s scrutiny

The general assessment used by the ECHR ("the Court") in the Serrano Contreras v. Spain (No. 2) case is important because that is ECHR case law that would apply to Knox's re-conviction, should that appear before the ECHR as Knox v. Italy (No. 2). The general assessment appears in paragraphs 32 - 34:

32. The Court reiterates that its judgments have binding force, pursuant to Article 46 of the Convention. Admittedly, States remain free to choose the means to be used in order to comply with them. Moreover, the aim is to put the applicant, as far as possible, in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of the Convention not been disregarded (restitutio in integrum – see Emre v. Switzerland (no. 2), no. 5056/10, § 69, 11 October 2011).

33. A finding by the Court of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention does not automatically require the reopening of the domestic criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, this is, in principle, an appropriate, and often the most appropriate, way of putting an end to the violation in question and of affording redress for its effects. In most of the Contracting States the reopening of proceedings is not automatic and is subject to admissibility criteria, whose observance is supervised by the domestic courts, which have a broader margin of appreciation in that sphere (see Moreira Ferreira (no. 2), cited above, §§ 52-53).

34. Likewise, it is not for the Court to deal with alleged errors of law or fact committed by the national courts unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention – for instance where, in exceptional cases, such errors may be said to constitute “unfairness” incompatible with Article 6 of the Convention. The Court should not act as a fourth-instance body and will therefore not question under Article 6 § 1 the national courts’ assessment, unless their findings can be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (ibid., § 83).

The ECHR had, in Knox v. Italy, indicated that Knox's Memoriale 1 and subsequent writings were renunciations of her (allegedly) coerced statements against Lumumba. In its MR, the CSC rejected the ECHR view and abitrarily and unreasonabley adopted its own view, that Memoriale 1 was an endorsement of Knox's statements - which the CSC did not reasonably examine in relation to the factors leading to the ECHR's rejection of the entire first set of trials and conviction for calunnia.

Reading paragraphs 37 - 40 of Serrano Contreras v. Spain (No. 2) show how the ECHR views its judgments and the limitations of the margin of appreciation the respondent states have in interpreting those judgments. When the ECHR finds that the trial as a whole, and thus the conviction, has been unfair as a result of some factor, especially one entering early in the proceedings, the respondent state is not allowed under ECHR case law to make arbitrary or unreasonable adjustments in the re-trial proceedings or reasoning in an attempt to re-convict the applicant rather than to redress the violations found by the ECHR in the first trial.

37. In order to decide on the applicant’s application for revision, the Supreme Court extensively examined the grounds for his conviction contained in its judgment of 14 October 2005 (see paragraph 11 above). On that basis the Supreme Court considered that the applicant’s convictions for fraud and forgery of commercial documents did not entail any breach of Article 6 § 1 and that, for that reason, the Court’s findings in the judgment of 20 March 2012 could only apply to his conviction for forgery of official documents. However, the question whether the applicant’s convictions [as a whole, as discussed in paragraph 38] complied with Article 6 § 1 had actually been the object of the Court’s judgment of 2012. That issue had been settled – in the Court’s view with sufficient clarity – for the reasons set out below. It follows that, despite the margin of appreciation that the national authorities enjoy when deciding on the reopening of proceedings, the Court’s findings in its earlier judgment should have been respected.

39. Thus the Supreme Court, when making its own interpretation as to the scope and the meaning of the Court’s findings in the judgment of 20 March 2012, went beyond the national authorities’ margin of appreciation and distorted the conclusions of the Court’s judgment; the impugned proceedings therefore fell short of the requirement of a “fair trial” under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Bochan (no. 2), cited above, §§ 63-65; also contrast Moreira Ferreira (no. 2), cited above, § 98).

40. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

 

[TomG]

If readers wish to understand why Knox's re-conviction for calunnia was a miscarriage of justice and contrary to international (ECHR) law, the first resource I know of would be the ECHR judgment Serrano Contreras v. Spain (No. 2) 22236/19 final 26/01/2022. The brief summary of the case states:


The general assessment used by the ECHR ("the Court") in the Serrano Contreras v. Spain (No. 2) case is important because that is ECHR case law that would apply to Knox's re-conviction, should that appear before the ECHR as Knox v. Italy (No. 2). The general assessment appears in paragraphs 32 - 34:



The ECHR had, in Knox v. Italy, indicated that Knox's Memoriale 1 and subsequent writings were renunciations of her (allegedly) coerced statements against Lumumba. In its MR, the CSC rejected the ECHR view and abitrarily and unreasonabley adopted its own view, that Memoriale 1 was an endorsement of Knox's statements - which the CSC did not reasonably examine in relation to the factors leading to the ECHR's rejection of the entire first set of trials and conviction for calunnia.

Reading paragraphs 37 - 40 of Serrano Contreras v. Spain (No. 2) show how the ECHR views its judgments and the limitations of the margin of appreciation the respondent states have in interpreting those judgments. When the ECHR finds that the trial as a whole, and thus the conviction, has been unfair as a result of some factor, especially one entering early in the proceedings, the respondent state is not allowed under ECHR case law to make arbitrary or unreasonable adjustments in the re-trial proceedings or reasoning in an attempt to re-convict the applicant rather than to redress the violations found by the ECHR in the first trial.

Thanks for doing the spadework, Numbers.

The fact that the ECHR Judgment states the memoriale and prison intercept (phone call with her mother) were retractions is clear in the narrative. If Italy had any qualms about this, they should have stated it in their appeal. It wouldn't have mattered anyway since Italy's appeal was abruptly dismissed. The boat has already sailed in that respect.

I've been arguing here and elsewhere for ages that restitutio in integrum had not been addressed when Italy used the memoriale as their escape clause. The violations took place when Donnino arrived at the questura and started acting as a "mediator" instead of an interpreter. The proceedings should have been redressed to a point before Donnino's arrival. In other words, it should have been annulled in the same way as the murder charge. Italy can maybe throw in a few items of "strong suspicion" if they want, but IMO they still have to do it.

 

[TomG]

So you post photos of people standing at the rail in daylight and not sitting lower in a car across the street at night? That is NOT supportive of your claim that cars' headlights would light up FR's window. Just whom do you think this fools?

Here's a car I recorded driving by in daylight. Now, picture this at night with no light on the parking parapet just across from the window. Oh, you don't have picture it because I already provided photos taken at night.

View attachment 60270
View attachment 60271

Just admit the window wasn't visible from cars driving by at night.

Here are a couple showing the terrazzo. It might not be visible to a sackful of hedgehogs in a darkened room, but on the other hand....

Hoots

 

[SpitfireIX]

I don't know why you persist with the false story of a '21-year-old [err, no, he was 20], male, semi-professional basketball player!' . Police (Officer Brocchi) at the scene the same day the body was found said that whilst doing the usual obligatory walk around the building, that her shoes were so muddy, she couldn't understand why there would be no muddy marks on the wall had a burglar entered by that process.

Granting, arguendo, that this is true, If Guede walked around the cottage on the walkway, he would have only walked on the grass for a short distance. And the photos clearly show that the ground under the windows was covered with leaves. Further, the rain had happened the night before; it's certainly possible that not every area of ground around the cottage was muddy, depending on drainage and soil type. Finally, as I mentioned, and you ignored as usual, it is possible that Guede climbed from the planter onto the top of the lower window frame, which would have definitely avoided any contact with grass or soil.

In addition - Nota Bene!- nothing to do with Mignini . . .

As I said, no one has claimed that every mistake or instance of misconduct was Mignini's fault, or, in this case, his fault alone.

. . . the first cop on the scene, Battistelli, and then later, Napoleoni, both said as soon as they saw the glass covering the clothes strewn on the floor they suspected it was staged . . .

So, by whom would they have suspected that it had been staged? That's a direct question, Vixen; kindly answer.

together with the fact there was just a six-inch gap in the shutters yet the rock was much larger, so could not have come from the outside.

To expand on Jack's responses, if Guede came in the window, it's possible, even likely, that he partially closed the shutters behind him, either to make the cottage appear more as it did before he entered, or to conceal any lights he might show, or both. It's also possible that he pulled them partially shut simply incident to climbing through. You may object, "Why didn't he close them all the way?" He might not have considered it necessary, or, he might have suddenly realized that Kercher was in the cottage.

Your continued insistence Guede came in through Filomena's window is pathetic. Perhaps revaluate your need to believe a proven lie.

You owe me a new irony meter. Further, and I should have mentioned this before, it is generally not possible to prove a negative. If you don't know this, you ought to have known it. You and other guilters have thrown out a few factoids that could at best arguably show Guede's entering through the window would have been difficult or unlikely. But that's not good enough. You would have to show that it's actually impossible. And nothing you've provided even comes within shouting distance of that.

 

[Numbers]

Here's another excerpt from an ECHR judgment, this one an evaluation of an infringement of Convention Article 46 brought by the Committee of Ministers against Turkiye (Turkey) for their failure to take action to release a wrongfully detained person, whose detention had in a previous ECHR judgment been found to be a violation of Article 5.1:

The bolded statements are general and would apply to Knox v. Italy and the re-conviction based upon the reclassification of Memoriale 1 as part of the chain of alleged evidence. The source is Kavala v. Turkiye [GC] 28749/18 final 11/07/2022*.

162. In this respect, the Court emphasises that, in the context of infringement proceedings following a finding of a violation of Article 5 § 1, read separately and in conjunction with Article 18 of the Convention, it cannot disregard the conclusions and indications addressed by it to the respondent State in the initial judgment on the sole grounds that a new charge has been brought against Mr Kavala under domestic law. A mere reclassification of the same facts cannot in principle modify the basis for the conclusions of the initial judgment, since such a reclassification would only be a different assessment of facts already examined by the Court (see paragraph 143 above). In its analysis, the Court must look behind appearances and investigate the realities of the situation complained of. If this were not the case, the obligation to comply with a judgment delivered by the Court would be deprived of its substance in practice. The Court’s examination is of paramount importance where, as in the present case, the immediate release of a detained person had been ordered by the Court following a violation of Article 5 § 1, read separately and in conjunction with Article 18 thereof.

* https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-218516

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't know why you persist with the false story of a '21-year-old [err, no, he was 20], male, semi-professional basketball player!' .

He turned 21 the next month after the murder since you want to be pedantic. What's the difference between 20 yr 11 month or 21yr 0 month old's athletic ability? You're still not a 20 or 21 year old semi-professional athlete, either. And he was a semi-professional basketball player as he played for Liomatic Perugia basketball team (John Follain). The Guardian also wrote, "Perugia basketball team lists a Rudy Hermann Guede as having played guard for the team from 2004 to 2005. I don't know why you persist on denying the facts.

Police (Officer Brocchi) at the scene the same day the body was found said that whilst doing the usual obligatory walk around the building, that her shoes were so muddy, she couldn't understand why there would be no muddy marks on the wall had a burglar entered by that process.

They were walking around the building in several places not just on the area below the window which had foliage and not bare dirt/mud. Why do you persist in claiming climbing the wall had to have left dirt/mud or debris when it was never established by any evidence other than what the police assumed? The police also thought RS's shoes were a 'perfect match' to the bloody shoeprints and that the rock was thrown from inside. So much for what they assumed without any testing.

In addition - Nota Bene!- nothing to do with Mignini - the first cop on the scene, Battistelli, and then later, Napoleoni, both said as soon as they saw the glass covering the clothes strewn on the floor they suspected it was staged,

Nota Bene!-they assumed that it was a staged break-in because they hadn't done an iota of investigation. It's called jumping to conclusions with no investigation. You continue to ignore the testimony of Romanelli who said she saw glass both above and below items. Maybe she was paid off to say that? Or maybe she was just trying to help out a couple kids like Jovana Popovic!

together with the fact there was just a six-inch gap in the shutters yet the rock was much larger, so could not have come from the outside.

Has it occurred to you that after breaking the window and climbing in, he pulled the green shutters closer together to hide the broken window from any of the cottage occupants which would have been in plain view as they walked closer to the front door down the driveway?
Someone with actual expert knowledge of ballistics, F. Pasquale, disagrees with you. But what the hell does he know? The fact the prosecution had NO expert testify otherwise should tell you something.

Your continued insistence Guede came in through Filomena's window is pathetic. Perhaps revaluate your need to believe a proven lie.

Your continued insistence that RS and AK are cold-blooded killers is pathetic. You continued insistence that every defense expert, witness, and acquitting court was 'bent', 'paid off' or 'incompetent' is pathetic. You're continued insistence that negative TMB results don't mean no blood is present is pathetic. Your continued insistence that Knox's DNA in Kercher's blood in the bathroom was also blood is pathetic. You're insistence that Knox was jealous or hated Kercher when no evidence of that exists is pathetic.

 

[Stacyhs]

It is official information entered into evidence:

Meredith Kercher case- comprehensive evidence list

This page has a comprehensive list of the evidence obtained during the investigations. The points are organized by subject matter. Meredith Kercher case file library archive.

themurderofmeredithkercher.net

Ahem...you claimed she was LYING ON A SHEET: "A cop who looked in on the scene said the fact the body had been placed on a sheet and moved eighteen inches towards the closet informed him that whoever did it, intended to dispose of the body later." (post # 2880)

Your own evidence says no such thing:
"4. Meredith's body lay on top of a pillow, a sock and a towel. An additional towel and fitted bed sheet were found next to Meredith's body and under the duvet."

What part of "next to Meredith's body" is confusing? Instead of continuing to insist on something your own evidence disproves, why not just admit she wasn't lying on a sheet?

You still haven't explained - and it's interesting Knox never mentions it in any of her books or interviews - what the heck was Knox' table lamp doing under the bed in the murder room, leaving her room without?

Do you have a memory problem? We've discussed this many times but yet again:
Knox does not have to explain it nor can she if she wasn't there that night. She testified she didn't know how it got there.
If she were guilty, knew how it got there, and needed to explain it away, all she had to do was say that Meredith borrowed it for her desk as Knox wasn't staying there at night so she didn't need it.
Thinking she wouldn't give an innocent explanation for it instead of just saying "I don't know" is the same illogical thinking that they'd have left and pointed out the bathmat footprint to the police if it had belonged to Sollecito and not Guede.

Given Knox' past history of ransacking a room mate's room and having to apologise for the distress and trauma caused, perhaps we have a significant clue here as to who staged this burglary scene.

LOL! Oh, please, stop with that rubbish. It's as dumb as claiming her noise violation ticket is evidence that she was a habitual criminal.

A burglary without a burgle.

Yet again, that same lack of logic or common sense is being displayed. If they went to all the trouble of staging a burglary, why claim nothing was stolen? Does that make sense to you? Apparently, it does.

 

[Stacyhs]

(snipped for nonsense)

The pair had their convictions annulled because of a loophole usually used by politiicans such as Andreotti or Berlusconi. Nobody considers either of these two as really being innocent. They just got away with it as powerful people. IMV getting away with it is nothing to be proud of.

Ah, yes...the old "the prosecution failed to prove evidence of guilt BARD" loophole used by so many courts to let guilty people off!
Wow... a 20 year-old, unknown, middle-class, language student was a "powerful" person? Who knew? Or maybe Trump, who at the time was just a NY land developer, was so powerful that the courts of Italy, including the SC, were just terrified of crossing him!