Here's the conclusion from Lorefice v. Italy on the unfairness of a Court of Appeal convicting over an acquittal or other lesser conviction (Google translation):
And your qualifications as a pathologist are..?
Oh, we have yet another armchair pathologist in the house. Last week we had a bunch of DNA forensic experts.
Because of the knife, identified as Sollecito's, fit the neck wound, fit the outline on the mattress, near-full DNA profile of Mez on blade, Knox on knife hilt at a point in which a thrusting stabbing movement could be determined (as opposed to slicing food). At the cottage when the housemates were taken to the scene, Knox had a breakdown at the knives, blurted out some kind of confession - which we are not privy to, as it is off the record - but it was enough to make Napoleoni escort her to the police car with her head covered by a blanket. The LCN on the hilt is the one C&V - on the orders of their US masters - refused to analyse, claiming it was 'too LCN' but which Nencini got Berti and Barni* [_sp? ] of the Rome RIS to analyse. The claim there is no equipment to cope with LCN is laughable as LCN analysis is used in embryology, for example, all the time.
So says the person with the superiority complex who reads the minds of people involved. Considering her comment had nothing to do with pathology is just icing on the cake.
The poster claims Mez didn't defend herself because some guy with a knife at her throat. Yet the real pathologists (and no, they are not 'Mignini's slaves') said the nature of the injuries indicated (a) a prolonged assault, (b) deliberate targetted cruelty (torture), and (c) multiple assailants. But let's all take the word of an armchair
What knife? The court knew NOTHING of the knife as it was not introduced into evidence. It was nothing more than rumor, speculation. There was no evidence it fit the neck wound (it didn't), no evidence it fit the imprint on the bed sheet (it didn't), no evidence Meredith's DNA was on the blade (it wasn't). So the court made a MAJOR ruling - Guede did not inflict the fatal wound - based on a theory that the court didn't hear. I believe the court violated the law.
The other factors - and the courts' conclusions are based on ALL the evidence - include the finding of fact the 'burglary' was faked and that someone came back to move the body later and rearrange the scene. Only Mez' possessions were stolen. Given there were three laptops - then quite expensive - and Filomena's camera and jewellery, not to mention the students' hi-fi systems downstairs and further laptops downstairs, it is clear burglary was not the motive.
First, why not be honest about what Stacy said. Specifically, she wrote "Holding a knife to a woman's throat might make her comply with his demands?". So no, she did not say that's what happened, she was stating one of many reasons why a victim might not have as many defensive wounds as one might expect.
Only one of the seven, Professor Norelli, concluded the injuries indicated more than one assailant. And while a lone assailant can commit "(a) a prolonged assault, (b) deliberate targetted cruelty (torture)", the pathologists almost unanimously agreed the injuries did not prove more than one assailant - you just made "(c) multiple assailants" up.
The poster did no such thing, so another one of your misrepresentations. All of us can go back and read what was written.
Completely irrelevant. As you yourself claimed in your initial response, Guede's court made a ruling based on speculation, assumption, a completely unproven claim about a knife NOT entered into evidence during the trial.
This is completely wrong, but that's beside the point. I said that even if you don't accept that the first and second toes are merged, it's still obvious that the bathmat print looks nothing like Raffaele's reference print.
I've extended this analysis of the number of ECHR Communicated cases per state to the last 5 years, this being the filter point next greater to 12 months in the HUDOC database, to give a broader view of the levels of relative human rights issues among the CoE states. Here's the list of the states with the highest number of Communicated cases over that period as well as those with populations very roughly similar to Italy's:
It's very basic. Before a court can proceed with a criminal trial for murder, then of course, it has to determine how that murder took place. Second point: Guede had no convictions at all as of the time of the murder. So yours and Nina Burleigh's propaganda ('the real killer was a Black migrant cat burglar' ~ her words) is a pure classic attempt at trying to influence people's basest prejudices (as if a five-year-old could be a automatic criminal). Compare and contrast both Knox and Sollecito each having been cautioned by police in the past. Third point: there would be no point Guede risking life and limb to scale a thirteen-foot sheer wall, with jagged shards of glass to push through, without burgling something. Why take a couple of cheap phones when you can easily cart off a load of laptops in one of Filomena's bags?
Without either RS or AK represented at Rudy's trial, at that trial both sides had reason to simply 'stipulate' the knife and staging evidence, without testing it through things like cross-examination. Rudy's lawyers were more than happy to agree to them, since it pointed away from their client. Effectively, the Italian prosecutors pulled a fast one, having items accepted as 'judicial facts' before even AK or RS could be heard, and without the factuality of them being tested.
Knox had committed B&E's against her fellows at Washington, except when she does it, it's a 'prank', sole aim to cause distress and anxiety. As for a real burglar, you don't think they keep what they steal? It's immediately passed on to a fence. This is likely how Guede got that lawyer's laptop; bought it cheap in a pub. Even if RG was a burglar and he took the phones as loot, then as a burglar, he'd know how to get rid of the SIM-cards before you do anything else. Professional burglars don't spend time ripping up bits of paper and scattering them around. Their aim is to be in and out as fast as possible. They don't even use the loo, they defaecate and urinate where they stand, they have no time for niceties. A professional criminal understands the need for speed. They don't hang around the joint for hours, fetching towels to stem a neck wound, cover the body or find a key to lock the door. Burglars carry a swag bag for a reason: it's for carrying as much loot out as possible. There is no way a real burglar would shimmer thirteen feet up a sheer wall and through dangerous glass without something to put the swag in.
This was all argued in court.
That's what defence lawyers do.
In essence, Mignini used Guede's fast-track trial as preparation for the trial of Knox and Sollecito, which itself could be considered as an effort by the Italian authorities to cover up the violations of Italian procedural and criminal law that took place during the interrogations of Knox and Sollecito.