• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
I remember when Rudy's case was reviewed by the Supreme Court how so many on the side of guilt claimed it to be a referendum on Raffaele's guilt. Now that the actual opinion has been released, the early reports show it as the supreme court telling the appeal court, "Look, if you find them innocent, you have our blessing."

In my opinion it is significant and as I said earlier, a major setback for the prosecution in the appeal. The appeals court no longer needs to worry about contradicting the supreme Court. As Christiana said, the Appeal court now has the option of rendering a fair judgment.
An interesting interpretation. Maybe you can you use your skill of finding information about this case and track down judge Micheli motivational report on Guede's trial, that would at least set the context of the Supreme Courts decision.
 
An interesting interpretation. Maybe you can you use your skill of finding information about this case and track down judge Micheli motivational report on Guede's trial, that would at least set the context of the Supreme Courts decision.


IIRC, the Micheli report did make explicit reference to Knox and Sollecito. This is actually a grossly unfair piece of judicial ruling, regardless of whether or not Knox and Sollecito are ultimately found guilty or not guilty.

Micheli's job was to judge Guede, and Guede alone. He should not have made any reference whatsoever to other named individuals who had not yet stood trial for these offences. In mu opinion, Micheli's reference to Knox and Sollecito would be pretty decent grounds for an appeal at the Supreme Court stage (if it ever gets that far).

In that context, the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Guede can be seen in two different lights: firstly, the Supreme Court is rightly and properly disassociating any judgement on Knox and Sollecito from any judgement on Guede; and secondly, there may (or may not) be a subliminal message being sent to the assize appeal court in Knox's/Sollecito's appeal trial that it's perfectly judicially proper for Guede to be found guilty of a murder which his trial adjudged was a group crime, but for others accused of being part of that group to be acquitted.
 
Hi all,
Just passing this along.
It seems like Mignini's favorite hobo, Antonio Curatolo, -(who testified against Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox in their trial),
has been sentenced to 1 1/2 years for, no, not lying in court, but dealing drugs. Wasn't this heroin?

http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/cronaca/2011/02/25/465167-anno_mesi.shtml
and
http://www.umbriajournal.com/mediac...ntonio-curatolo-clochard-testimone-in-ca.html

At least he will stay warmer at night...

It would be lovely to see Mignini spend his 16 months in jail as Curatolo's cellmate. :D

Aren't all prison sentences in Italy of less than two years suspended automatically?

I think Toto and the Troll would make wonderful cellmates personally. Once Mignini gets his second abuse of office charges from this case and Curatolo receives his perjury charge(s) then they can add all those years together and both should be at about four years a piece, after reductions, wouldn't you think? What a fitting number, just a little longer than Raffaele and Amanda!

I also think Monica Napoleoni and Stefanoni would make fetching roomies, as long as we're pairing them together in prison.
 
IIRC, the Micheli report did make explicit reference to Knox and Sollecito. This is actually a grossly unfair piece of judicial ruling, regardless of whether or not Knox and Sollecito are ultimately found guilty or not guilty.
Micheli's job was to judge Guede, and Guede alone. He should not have made any reference whatsoever to other named individuals who had not yet stood trial for these offences. In mu opinion, Micheli's reference to Knox and Sollecito would be pretty decent grounds for an appeal at the Supreme Court stage (if it ever gets that far).
Firstly, what is IIRC?

I may have this wrong. I believe Micheli was the presiding judge in the committal hearing for Amanda, Guede and Raffaele, once committed to trial Guede opted for a fast track trial whilst Amanda and Raffaele opted for a full trial. Micheli was the judge that sentenced Guede to 30 years.
In that context, the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Guede can be seen in two different lights: firstly, the Supreme Court is rightly and properly disassociating any judgement on Knox and Sollecito from any judgement on Guede; and secondly, there may (or may not) be a subliminal message being sent to the assize appeal court in Knox's/Sollecito's appeal trial that it's perfectly judicially proper for Guede to be found guilty of a murder which his trial adjudged was a group crime, but for others accused of being part of that group to be acquitted.

That is certainly one view. The Supreme Court could have just confirmed Guede conviction and sentence, end of report. However, they confirmed Micheli’s original findings from the committal trial which were subsequently confirmed in Guede’s trial and first appeal and that is Guede and others were responsible for Meredith’s death, no one else has been arrested and sent to trial for Meredith’s murder apart from Amanda, Guede and Raffaele.

It really depends on what unfolds in Amanda and Raffaele appeal.
 
Thank you. I was hoping for an English translation.

My docstoc page is giving me some problems lately and I have about 4 documents that I have not yet posted, including a Google translation of this one. PM me and I will e-mail it to you if you are interested.

You can sign on to Google, go to the translator toolkit and upload it for translation as well (after you copy it to a word document), then download the translation back to your computer.
 
Firstly, what is IIRC?

I may have this wrong. I believe Micheli was the presiding judge in the committal hearing for Amanda, Guede and Raffaele, once committed to trial Guede opted for a fast track trial whilst Amanda and Raffaele opted for a full trial. Micheli was the judge that sentenced Guede to 30 years.


That is certainly one view. The Supreme Court could have just confirmed Guede conviction and sentence, end of report. However, they confirmed Micheli’s original findings from the committal trial which were subsequently confirmed in Guede’s trial and first appeal and that is Guede and others were responsible for Meredith’s death, no one else has been arrested and sent to trial for Meredith’s murder apart from Amanda, Guede and Raffaele.

It really depends on what unfolds in Amanda and Raffaele appeal.


IIRC = If I recall correctly

Micheli was indeed one of the preliminary judges who agreed that there was a case to answer against Knox and Sollecito. But the trial of Guede should - from a point of view of judicial propriety and fairness - have solely determined his guilt/non-guilt and his alone. It was not the role of Guede's trial to pass any sort of judgement on whether or not Knox or Sollecito were Guede's "partners in crime" - that was a gross abuse of the system.

It should not make a jot of difference to Knox's and Sollecito's judicial outcome whether Guede's trial outcome (confirmed by the supreme court) adjudged that Guede acted as part of a group. To take another example, Micheli's court (upheld on appeal) adjudged that the murder took place by 10.30pm - totally at odds with Mignini's/Massei's 11.45pm ToD theory in Knox's/Sollecito's trial.

But each court is entitled to reach its own reasoning, regardless of whether this reasoning is contradictory (as in the ToD here). In the same way, it's perfectly judicially correct for Guede's trial to conclude that he acted as part of a group, but for Knox's/Sollecito's appeals to conclude that there was a lone assailant (or at least that Knox/Sollecito are not guilty as charged).
 
If anyone wants Guede's Appeal Motivation, also send me a PM and I will e-mail it to you (you will have to trust me on your e-mail and you will get mine back with the documents). Let me know if you want the Italian, Google English translation, or both. Same with a Google translation of the Rinaldi1 document, with pictures.
 
IIRC = If I recall correctly

Micheli was indeed one of the preliminary judges who agreed that there was a case to answer against Knox and Sollecito. But the trial of Guede should - from a point of view of judicial propriety and fairness - have solely determined his guilt/non-guilt and his alone. It was not the role of Guede's trial to pass any sort of judgement on whether or not Knox or Sollecito were Guede's "partners in crime" - that was a gross abuse of the system.

It should not make a jot of difference to Knox's and Sollecito's judicial outcome whether Guede's trial outcome (confirmed by the supreme court) adjudged that Guede acted as part of a group. To take another example, Micheli's court (upheld on appeal) adjudged that the murder took place by 10.30pm - totally at odds with Mignini's/Massei's 11.45pm ToD theory in Knox's/Sollecito's trial.

But each court is entitled to reach its own reasoning, regardless of whether this reasoning is contradictory (as in the ToD here). In the same way, it's perfectly judicially correct for Guede's trial to conclude that he acted as part of a group, but for Knox's/Sollecito's appeals to conclude that there was a lone assailant (or at least that Knox/Sollecito are not guilty as charged).

IIRC :o

Again I could be wrong but Micheli presided over the committal trials of all those arrested for Meredith’s murder and also Guede’s trial his motivational report was a combination of the committal trial and Guede's trial.

I must stress I could be wrong as I can't recall were I read Micheli's motivational report.
 
Last edited:
IIRC :o

Again I could be wrong but Micheli presided over the committal trials of all those arrested for Meredith’s murder and also Guede’s trial his motivational report was a combination of the committal trial and Guede's trial.

I must stress I could be wrong as I can't recall were I read Micheli's motivational report.

Matteini handled the detention order for Amanda, Raffaele, and Patrick. I never saw one for Guede but I assume that was Matteini as well.
 
Why are the translations so lousy?

POSTAL POLICE ARRIVE
1. On the morning of November 2, 2007, at different moments, the owners of the dwelling located at 5 Via Sperandio-bis of Perugia found two mobile phones in the yard which is in proximaty of the property, and what is told to the Postal Police of the city for an incident Report (this applies equally to the singular coincidence he had received in the hours before, a strange phone call threatening that he dreaded the presence of explosive devices in the bathroom, then turned out to be the fruit of imagination of a kid). Carried out on the first phone in question, the users of its sim card appeared to belong to the R. F. [ Romanelli Filomena ], domiciled in Via della Pergola 7, a crew of Postal Police would rise at the address found, but - in place of R. [ Romanelli Filomena] - We found the presence of two other young men, the American K. A. M. [ Knox Amanda M ] (which was another of the rooms occupied dwelling) and her boyfriend
S. R. [ Sollecito Raffaele ].
 
Last edited:
(beginning of) Micheli report translation

Why are the translations so lousy?

FWIW, I started working on a translation of the Micheli report last year, before Massei-Cristiani came out. Here is as far as I got:

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

On the morning of November 2, 2007, at different times, the owners of the house located at Via Sperandio 5b in Perugia discovered two cellular telephones in the interior of the building's garden, and contacted the Postal Police to report the incident. (By coincidence, they had also received, in the preceding hours, a strange threatening telephone call warning of explosives in the bathroom, which was later revealed to be the result of a young boy's fantasy.) Checking the first of the telephones in question revealed that the corresponding sim card belonged to R[omanelli] F[ilomena], a resident of Via della Pergola 7: a team from the Postal Police was thus dispatched to deliver the recovered object, but -- instead of R[omanelli] -- they encountered two other youths, the American K[nox] A[manda] M[arie] (who occupied another room of the house), and her boyfriend S[ollecito] R[affaele].

These two individuals claimed to have already called the Carabinieri due to some circumstances that they had found worrisome; in truth, later investigation established that the supposed call to "112" (of which there were, in actual fact, two, immediately after a first call that S[ollecito] made to his sister, a uniformed officer in service elsewhere) followed, and did not precede, the arrival of the officers, but it must be clarified that the present report will henceforth be concerned with circumstances established in the proceedings against the other defendants only to the extent that they are strictly indispensable to an examination of the role of G[uede] R[udy] H[ermann]. As a point of departure for the line of argument pursued in the present report, and also as a substantially historical datum (it being a document well known by now to attorneys for the above-named defendant), we shall refer, in the sequel, to the order ex art. 299 c.p.p. issued by this Office following a preliminary hearing in the proceedings against the other defendants, but to nothing more. By way of example, then, we shall refrain from reconstructing the movements of K[nox] during the morning, as she described them to investigators, since -- regardless of whether or not her account turns out to be reliable -- these are matters that do not bear one way or the other on the evaluation of the evidence relating to G[uede].

According to what was reported to Inspector BATTISTELLI, K[nox] and S[ollecito] had detected spots of blood in some of the rooms of the apartment, in particular in one of the bathrooms, as well as signs of an apparent burglary (although neither of the two claimed to have noticed that anything was actually stolen) in R[omanelli]'s room, where there was a broken window and a large rock on the floor. In the other bathroom there were feces left unflushed in the toilet.

Furthermore, the door to one of the rooms, occupied by the English student K[ercher] M[eredith], was locked, and S[ollecito] claimed to have attempted unsuccessfully to force it open after the young woman failed to respond to K[nox]'s telephone calls. On the doorhandle, and in the general vicinity of the door, there were further traces of blood.

Meanwhile, two more youths came upon the scene: A.L. and Z.M., the latter claiming to be R[omanelli]'s boyfriend. Z. explained that he had received a call from his girlfriend, who had been alerted by K[nox] about the state of the apartment; she (who had spent the night with him elsewhere, but had already left with another friend) had immediately sent him to have a look, and he had asked A. to take him there. Within another few minutes, R[omanelli] herself and G.P. (A.'s girlfriend) arrived; it was R[omanelli] who, after explaning that the telephone with the card in her name actually belonged to K[ercher] (she had herself given it to her, since the fourth resident of the apartment, M[ezzett] L[aura], had similarly given another card to K[nox?]), who insisted that M[eredith]'s door be forced down.

Despite the fact (later reported by the two pairs of youths) that K[nox] had indicated to those present that M[eredith] was in the habit of locking the door even when going into the bathroom to shower (an assertion that appeared inconsistent with the previous attempt on the part of S[ollecito] to force open the door), R[omanelli] immediately showed alarm upon the discovery of behavior that she did not recognize as characteristic of her English friend. The Italian woman emphasized in particular that M[eredith] was never without her phones, especially the one with the British sim card that she used frequently in order to stay in contact with her mother; this very phone happened to be the second of the two discovered in the garden on Via Sperandio.

In light of the caution shown by the Postal Police officers, who were unwilling to inflict damage on a private property merely on the basis of these suspicions, it was A. who took the initiative of kicking the door open; no sooner had he taken a step into the room, however, than he was horrified to notice a large amount of blood and a bare foot -- evidently from a lifeless body lying on the floor - protruding out from under a quilt. The corpse was at once ascertained to be that of K[ercher], and displayed on the neck a conspicuous sharp-object wound. At that point, Inspector BATTISTELLI forbade all those present from entering the room, and sought the intervention of his colleagues from the Mobile Squad.

This led to a detailed inspection in the following days by personnel from the Scientific Police Unit, which found that:

The entrance to the apartment, where there were metail railings and a wooden door, did not show signs of forced entry; the latch of the lock on the shutter was stuck, but (as confirmed by testimony, primarily that of R[omanelli] and M[ezzetti]) that was due to the occupants themselves -- the result of a malfunction of the lock in question.

A small vestibule in front of the doorway [un piccolo disimpegno dinanzi alla soglia] led at once to a room used as a living-room/kitchen, which contained shoe-sole prints and small traces of blood.

To the right of the living-room was the door to the room occupied by M[ezzetti], inside which nothing of significance was found, while in a bathroom adjacent to said room, the toilet was observed to be unflushed, with feces and toilet paper inside.

On the opposite side, however, was the room of R[omanelli], in which doors and drawers were ransacked, with clothing and various objects thrown about on the bed and on the floor; regarding this, the inspection report of November 2, 2007 stated that:

"The room receives light from a window located in the middle third of the front wall facing the driveway of the house. It is protected externally by wooden Florentine shutters [una persiana fiorentina in legno] of green color, which were discovered half-open and lacking signs of forced entry. The shutter [anta] on the right side is equipped with a locking device called 'spagnoletta'. The window consists of two panels [imposte] of white wood with glass knobs [palli in vetro], which can be opened toward the inside, each of them equipped internally with a wooden shutter [scuro] of white color. The shutter for the right panel is equipped with a small latch, which happened to be hooked to its slot on the panel underneath, and with a second locking device ('spagnoletta') equipped with a larger [?] [più G.] latch, which happened to be open... The left panel displayed broken glass in the lower half and a hole of irregular shape, which measures 53 cm in length and 27 cm in width. On both the inside and outside, the sill [davanzale] is covered with glass fragments of various dimensions, present also in the interior of the room. The internal side of the shutter for the left panel, in correspondence with the hole in the glass, displays an obvious scratch in the wood of irregular shape, of about 2 cm, with fraying of the wooden fibers and small shards of glass embedded therein... The external windowsill is 3.78 m above the ground...

"In the front area of the floor, underneath the window, at 0.93 m from the right wall, 0.66 m from the front wall and 2.31 m from the rear wall, is a paper bag of medium size...containing articles of clothing and a stone measuring approximately 20 cm x 15 cm x 15 cm; a second fragment of rock, small in size, rests on the floor outside the bag, next to the stone..."

The middle wall, with the doorways to R[omanelli]'s and M[ezzetti]'s rooms respectively to the left and right, opened to a narrow hallway (leading to two other bedrooms and a second bathroom), on the floor of which were additional footprints and traces of blood.

In the bathroom, which was used by the occupants of the latter two bedrooms (i.e. K[nox] and K[ercher]), there were numerous bloodstains, described as follows in the inspection report:

"On the floor, in the space underneath the sink, there is a cotton mat of blue color, 74 x 48 cm in size. The right rear portion of this mat is stained with blood... On the front left edge of the sink lies a plastic box containing cotton swabs, the lid of which on its lower right corner displays a smudge of blood...There are another three drippings on the left edge of the sink; at the same height, in the internal basin, there is a blood drop, which is expanding toward the drain...The aluminum faucet is noticeably stained with blood on its upper surface...Small traces of blood, in the form of drops, are found on the upper surface of the toilet lid..., as well as on the bathroom tiles, near the connecting tube of the toilet and on the aluminum pipe-cover ring [anello copritubo] Inside the bidet, there is streak of blood next to a blood drop of about 2 cm, proceeding toward the bottom. Another blood drop is found on the upper edge of the bidet, left side, at the height of the drain...On the plastic plate of the light switch is a drop of blood; a second drop is present on the switch itself...On the right border of the bathroom door is a blood dripping 26 cm in total length..."

While the bedroom used by K[nox] (first on the left) revealed nothing of investigative significance, it was obviously on the last bedroom, where the lifeless body of K[ercher] had been found, that investigators concentrated their attention. Beginning from the door, the reporters described the state of the room thus:

"The inside handle on the door, of brass-colored metal and 99 cm above the ground, is notably smeared with blood, largely on the upper part. Other small, leaking bloody spots are present across the brass plate of the inside handle and the knocker, as well as on the brass plate of the lock, lodged in the thickness of the door, and also on the adjacent wood, near the plate itself...In the front, a wardrobe with two smooth doors, which measures 1 m in width, 1.95 m in height and 0.60 m in depth. The left door is open on the right and on the left leg, inner side, left lower corner, there is an area smeared with leaking blood, with streaks of elongated and curved shape, probably made by the fingers of a hand, which lies 35 cm from the lower base and 58 cm. from the rear leg of the wardrobe...At the same height, on the very same leg, outer side, there is an irregularly-shaped blood smear...

"Along the left wall, with the headboard leaning on the front wall, is the single bed with the mattress covered only by the under-sheet, on top of which are: a beige-colored woman's purse in leatherette; two terry socks; a book...the cover of which is stained with blood on the upper right corner...; an ivory-colored terry towel, profusely smeared with blood...On the sheet, between the aforementioned towel and the purse, are two irregularly-shaped bloodstains which measure respectively 9.5 cm in length and 2 cm in width, and 14 cm in length and 3 in width.

"On the left wall, above the bed, at 0.61 m from the floor and 2.28 m from the back wall, is a small irregularly-shaped blood spot, of dimensions 3 cm in length and 1 cm in width, with threadlike parallel streaks in the upper part and a loop to the right...

"On the lower leg of the desk, inner side, two small blood drops are visible...

"On the front wall, at about 1.02 m from the left wall and 1.20 m from the floor, is an area of smeared blood, with streaks nearly parallel to each other, of elongated shape, probably created by the fingers of a hand...measuring 24 cm in length and 6.5 cm in width. On the floor, at 39 cm from the rear wall and 99 cm from the left wall, is a footprint with concentric-circular markings, made with blood... A second footprint with concentric-circular markings, made with blood, is at 1.89 m from the rear wall and 0.85 m from the left wall...A third footprint with concentric-circular markings, made with blood, is at 0.81 m from the rear wall and 1.13 m from the left wall...

"On the floor, at 1.50 m from the left wall and 0.78 m from the rear wall, is a brassiere of white color, soaked with blood, for the most part in the right strap and in the outside part of the left cup. The left non-elastic strap component has been torn from the plastic fastening-ring, and the strip of fabric to which the rear closing-hooks are attached is missing...

"On the floor, at 1.03 m from the rear wall and 1.58 m from the left wall, is a pair of women's briefs, black in color and coiled...On the floor, at 1.10 m from the rear wall and 1.08 m from the left wall, is a pair of blue jean....partially soiled with blood in the rear portion, at the height of the right pocket. On the floor, between the wardrobe and the nightstand, is a blue-colored bag of warm water and a pair of brown-colored leather boots, which are sitting in a large pool of blood...


"On the floor, above a woven carpet of blue color, at 1.52 m from the rear wall and 2.52 m from the left wall, is a bag with shoulder-strap, beige in color...On the same carpet is a tennis sock in white cotton, soiled on the lower part with blood...

"On the floor, at 1.20 m from the rear wall and 3.14 from the left wall, there is an area of smeared blood, which in its totality measures 15 cm in length and 11 cm in width, encompassing various small spots of irregular shape and hairlike formations...In the front right quadrant of the floor...is an area of smeared blood, of elongated shape, in a semicircular pattern with parallel streaks, which in its totality measures 69 cm in length and 40 cm in width, also containing hairlike formations, which is flanked by a ray of minuscule blood spatterings extending forward and to the right, making contact with both the left third of the right wall and the doors of the wardrobe...

"On the floor, in the space between the wardrobe and the bed, we observe the dead body of K[ercher] M[eredith]...

"The latter is lying face upward, with the head toward the front wall and the left foot toward the rear wall. Taking the navel [cicatrice ombelicale] as reference point for measurement purposes, it lies 1.84 m from the rear wall and 1.80 [m] from the left wall. The body is covered by a beige-colored duvet, with the exception of the left food and the upper half of the face, which are left outside...

"We uncovered the body at around 00:45 on 11-3-2007...The torso, intermediate and extended, lies with its back on the floor and with the gluteal region, right and left, on a pillow...The victim is wearing only a cotton shirt rolled up to the thoracic region, conspicuously stained with blood...

"In the course of inspecting the body, after rotating it, we observe on the floor the second tennis sock in white cotton, partially stained with blood, a green-colored terry towel, an ivory-colored terry towel, completely soaked in blood, the over-sheet of the bed, in white-colored cotton, stained in several places with blood, and a blood-stained shirt with a zipper, in sky-blue-colored fabric, and blue-colored collar and cuffs. Under the pillow, at 1.41 m from the right wall and 0.95 m from the front wall, we find the strip of fabric that was missing from the brassiere, to which the closing-hooks are attached."

The initial inspection report also dwelt on the wounds found on the victim's body, which nevertheless were to be later subject to detailed analytical description in the course of the autopsy and forensic investigation.

Dr. L. LALLI, the first consultant named by the Public Minister in the course of the initial inquiry, participated directly in the aforementioned inspection; later, after noting that the deceased young woman was in fact wearing two cotton shirts, both raised to reveal the breasts, he stated that at 00:50 on November 3 he obtained the customary time-of-death-related data, specifically:

"Rigor [mortis] in all muscular areas;

"Hypostases of red-wine color localized to the slopes of the face-upward position, turning pale upon application of pressure from the fingers;

"Rectal temperature 22°C, ambient temperature 13°C."

The rigor mortis and hypostatic signs were also noticed some hours later, in the course of further operations performed on the body at Perugia Hospital. There, with the assistance of Dr. GIORGIO EPICOCO, a specialist in obstetrics and gynecology, the technical consultant [il C.T.] noted that:

"The examination of the vulvar region does not show injuries or indications of trauma...On the inside face of the labia minora, parallel to the line of insertion of the hymen, approximately from the border between the medial third and the posterior third, are purple-colored bruises heading toward the fourchette, both to the left and to the right. The mucous membrane of the vaginal canal, in the proximal tract, appears regularly folded [plicata], pale, and without signs of trauma...At the anal-rectal line, on the border between the anal semi-mucous membrane and the mucous membrane of the ampulla, are small mucosal discontinuities of doubtful origin...Posteriorly, there are also small bruise-like injuries of purple color."

Dr. LALLI accordingly performed vaginal and anal swabs, which were delivered to Scientific Police personnel. In describing the results of the external examination of the body, the technical consultant found, among other things:
 
I agree with christianahannah's and CoulsdonUK's comments. I think the Supreme Court is not commenting on either Amanda or Raffaele simply because that is not the case before them. The evidence against them was not presented during Rudy's trial but their own and the SC has no basis to comment other than agree Rudy did not act alone. They cannot confirm who the others were if they did not hear the evidence for and against Amanda and raffaele. At this stage is not the opinion given on facts of law only, not a review of evidence?

Reading the news reports of Court of Cassation’s Guede ruling my heart sank, but after reading Frank Sfarzo’s blog and your comment, I got to thinking:

If the Court of Cassation rules only on law, did they have the option to find Guede to be the sole perpetrator? What effect would that have on Guede’s lower trials, which were based on the theory that Guede acted with others? Could Guede demand to be retried?


Did the Court elevate the role Guede played in the crime, relative to his portrayal in his own early trials? He seems to have gained a more prominent role relative to his depiction in the Knox/Sollecito trial.

If the Court accepted Guede’s guilt and sentence without comment, wouldn’t Court in the same act also incorporate the assertions made in Guede’s lower trials that Knox/Sollecito were co perpetrators? Would the Court be stuck requiring Knox/Sollecito to be co-conspirators, even if the Knox/Sollecito appeals found the pair innocent? By clearly saying that the Guede ruling did not incorporate claims against Knox/Sollecito, and further, going on to describe Guede’s co-conspirators generically as ‘others’, is the Court setting the stage to be able to uphold Knox/Sollecitos appeal, should they be found innocent?

I guess I am coming around to a view that the Court's ruling was a political expedient which allowed them to find Guede guilty without rocking the boat of the lower trials, while at the same time creating the opportunity to find Knox/Sollecito innocent.
 
"The inside handle on the door, of brass-colored metal and 99 cm above the ground, is notably smeared with blood, largely on the upper part. Other small, leaking bloody spots are present across the brass plate of the inside handle and the knocker, as well as on the brass plate of the lock, lodged in the thickness of the door, and also on the adjacent wood, near the plate itself...”

How can this line, among many others similar to it, appear in the Guede motivational report, and yet the Massei report implicate Knox/Sollecito in some sort of massive cleanup of the room? Why weren’t more of the press bothered by these two trials with sometimes contradictory evidentiary thrusts customized for each defendant? For Guede, the room is a mess of bloody evidence. For Knox/Sollecito, the evidence in the room obliterated by a cleanup. I don’t get it.
 
Blood spatter on the bra

Getting back to the blood spatter on the bra...I'm no expert on brassieres but isn't the blood spatter shown in the picture on the INSIDE of the cup? Reading some of the comments gave me the impression that some assumed it was the outside of the cup. I could be wrong but that is how I see the picture. Just sayin...
 
FWIW, I started working on a translation of the Micheli report last year, before Massei-Cristiani came out. Here is as far as I got:

Yours is the better translation. Much better in fact.

Is Italian difficult to translate? It seems a lot has been lost in translation at times like "Good night, see ya later". I guess idioms don't translate word for word.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom