I have thought it through, indeed. Which is why I understand the miserable parade of jailhouse losers the defense presented to the court earlier this summer. The Italian Supreme Court has already determined that more than one attacker was involved; the best the defense can do at this point is to suggest other unknown parties as Guede's partners in crime, when reasonable observers will already tend to conclude that Knox and Sollecito are the other parties.
For the zillionth time:
The Italian Supreme Court does not rule on the facts of a case. It only rules on the law -- that is to say, whether the verdicts of the lower courts were legally reached. (It is possible for a court to follow all procedures correctly and still arrive at an erroneous verdict; in that case, the Supreme Court is powerless to do anything about it!)
But even if it
did rule on the facts, your position would
still be absurd to the point of risibility. Do you actually realize what it is that you're saying? If the legal system worked like you are suggesting it does,
there would be no point in Knox and Sollecito having their own trial! Guede's trial (*) would have served as the trial for Knox and Sollecito, if (as you believe) it were capable of ruling in a binding way on facts relevant to Knox and Sollecito's guilt. And if Guede's trial had served as the trial for Knox and Sollecito, then
Knox and Sollecito would have been tried without their having legal representation or any opportunity to present their own side!
The Italian Supreme Court has yet to rule on Knox and Sollecito's case. Hellmann's court is
not in any sense bound by any factual ruling made by any court during the prosecution of anyone other than Knox and Sollecito -- any more than Massei's court was bound by the findings of the appeals court (a higher-level court!) in Guede's case. (Did you consider that?)
Also: except in the case of Aviello, the "parade of jailhouse" losers had nothing to do with establishing the guilt of anyone other than Rudy Guede. Most of them were there simply to report on the fact that they heard Guede say Knox and Sollecito were innocent. That's it.
I generally try not to get this heated, but the following must be said: your stated position displays not only ignorance of the case details and of legal principles, but a profound lack of common sense.
(*)Note that, consistent with the way the Italian system works, I am using "trial" here to refer to any and all of the three stages: first instance, second instance ("appeal"), and
Cassazione ("Supreme Court").
