With respect, Machiavelli, this makes no sense.
In Rudy Guede's trial, neither Ms. Knox, Mr. Sollecito, or their respective lawyers were parties or had any standing to cross-examine witnesses, call evidence, or make submissions, so it is not the case that the factual findings made by the court of first instance in Rudy Guede's trial are binding in any way, shape or form on the trials of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito. It matters not at all that the Italian higher court found that Guede's trial was such that no legal errors were made that would entitle him to a reversal of his conviction. There is a vast difference between findings of fact based on the evidence proffered by the prosecution and the defence, and errors of law.
To contend that the higher court's confirmation of Rudy Guede's conviction in his separate trial somehow binds the trial judges in the trial of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito as to findings of fact that were made in Guede's trial is incorrect, and demonstrates an egregious miscomprehension of the law.
When the trials of multiple accused persons are separated, there is always the risk of inconsistent verdicts insofar as factual findings are concerned because the evidence presented in one trial may be very different than the evidence presented in another. This is well known and recognized, but it does not serve to make the factual findings made in the trial of one of the accused binding upon the court hearing the evidence in the trial of the other accused. To suggest otherwise would be perverse, since the accused in the later trial were not parties to the earlier trial.
The reality in this case is that it was in Rudy Guede's best interests to promote the idea of multiple attackers, in order to try to minimize his own actions, and it was simultaneously in the best interests of the prosecution in Rudy Guede's trial to promote the idea of multiple attackers because the police and prosecution had already nailed their colours to the multiple attacker mast by prematurely jailing Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito (and Mr. Lumumba) and had long since wed themselves to a particular scenario that they set out to prove come hell or high water. But none of that makes any of the factual findings made in Rudy Guede's case - at any level - binding upon those hearing the case of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito, because they were not parties to that trial, had no representation at that trial, had no right of cross-examination at that trial, and no right to call evidence or make submissions at that trial.
