If you care to read the judge's notes you'll understand that employing purple prose in the form of in my head I saw it was Patrik, doesn't get you off a charge of deliberately and cunningly trying to pervert the course of justice by pointing law investigators to a person you know is innocent.
...and all because the lady loves Milk Tray.
B&E doesn't refer to stealing, it refers to illegally accessing a property by breaking and entering, for example, forcing a lock or smashing a window. Guede has never been convicted of Breaking and Entering. You claim AK removed objects from this person's room, but I am sorry, that is technically not only B&E but also burglary proper. So historically, Knox is the real burglar. Guede only ever got charged with 'being in possession of stolen property'. No amount of trying to pin the solicitor's office break in and the theft of a gold watch from some old lady living nearby, by you, makes it true.
In the current case under topic, the issue of whether there were 'astonishing flaws' in the investigation was never established as a fact by a merits court (first or second instance merits and/or appeal). It is simply a hypothetical blurting out by Marasca- Bruno because they could think of no other reason to claim grounds for an acquittal due to 'insufficient evidence'. A judge can only quote what has been pleaded in court, so clearly, Marasca-Bruno are quoting the words of Bongiorno, in her astonishingly long two-day marathon 'twenty-minute skeleton' argument. It shows you what a piss-poor barrister she is if that's the best argument she could come up with and how dreadfully improper M-B were, quite aside from their breaching the CPP deadline in issuing their MR, extended by some three months, as they tossed and turned at night trying to work out how to word something so pitifully absurd and illogical and not determined by the facts found at trial. Now we know why Dr. Sollecito hired Bongiorno: he wanted someone who, quote, 'could make water run up hill'.
It wasn't one story it was several. She put them up on her MySpace page into the public domain and wrote yet another one whilst in Capanne. It's by her own account, so hardly my 'falsehood'. As for the ridiculous claim by Stacyhs that it was a school class assignment to write about anti-rape, that is just something made up on the hoof to 'explain' it. As if any English teacher instructs a class of minors to write a lurid composition about rape and violence.
Would could should again. So by your would could shoulding, Guede's rent was due so he said to himself, I know what, I'll just pop along to the cottage and see if Mez has rent money lying around. Instead of knocking, I'll shimmy up a drainpipe. Please stop it.
And to complete this lovely romantic tale, to promote her latest cash-earning project, she arranged to finally go to see the statue of St. Francis of Assissi, the lovely patron saint of cute little animals and birds, with the former great love of her life, Raffaele, the owner of a brand new Audi, until the wicked evil prosecutor tore them apart. But everyone lived happily ever after in a PR photo opportunity for the cameras to promote the new venture. Ah, how sweet.
Erratum: soz, it looks like I mistook Vinci for someone else. Vinci is:
No sorry, as Guede arrived in Italy as a child aged five, it is clearly racist for Burleigh to insinuate he is a poverty-stricken low class criminal, when he was adopted into a wealthy Italian family, or at the least she is appealing to people's racist instincts in the same way we see the far right doing. IOW she is saying, well, here's your obvious murderer no need to look at the facts found from the evidence presented in a criminal court.
This post is a typical example of Guede's supporters playing the race card.
Your post reflects an extreme ignorance of the Italian legal process and its laws of criminal procedure. You should do some reading of the CPP, starting with CPP Article 606, on the authority of the CSC to make rulings on the grounds of a judgment, which would include the investigative phase and its results.
Well duh! I didn't say she was undressed before the knife wound, I said she was undressed while still alive. If she's aspirating blood, she is alive. So no, not wrong.
And where is your evidence she died by the closet or that she was dragged by her hair? You don't have either.. it's speculation at best.
No, he claimed only a female would cover their victim, and he was wrong about that. Stop lying.
Wow, are you making a whole series of baseless assumptions. Who ever said Guede knew there was €300 lying around? He was there to steal whatever he could steal. Of course, Meredith comes home and surprises him, they get into a confrontation and it leads to her death. Now he just wants to get out of the cottage WITHOUT taking things that can connect him to the murder. Of course, once he realized he needed the keys to get out of the cottage, he went into Meredith's handbag, found her wallet, found the money, cards and phones, and took them, later deciding to toss the phones for fear they'll connect him to the crime.