I was not there during the murder or trial. I do not know whether Knox was directly involved or not. I know only that she was convicted in a situation where the court system is very flawed (not that US is perfect by any means) and the police work was, by any standards I can think of, shoddy. That, unfortunately does not make Knox either guilty or innocent, it just means the Italian court and jury acknowledged the shoddiness of the case (and the system). No one except those directly responsible for the killing knows if Knox is guilty or innocent and therefore no guessers are right or wrong - including Fiona. Note, I have no idea which side Fiona was on but I am sorry she left over something that will likely never be adequately proven without direct verifiable proof/statements by all involved.
Fuelair, you are mistaken, a conviction in the trial of the first instance means nothing. It's like a bill passing the House of Representatives. It has to be passed by the Senate and then signed by the president, otherwise it's nothing. Same with the Italian process, it must go through the first trial, then a motivations report published and the defense writes the appeal documents, and then the second trial commences. Then it goes to the Supreme Court to be finalized. All of this is automatic, unless the defendant chooses the 'fast track' option like Rudy Guede did, where the first trial is abbreviated, and the second one basically skipped before ratified by the Supreme Court. Something on the order of 40% of trials of the first instance are overturned or adjusted, what happened in this case is not unusual in Italy.
The judge indicated it's a 530.1 decision, that's the exoneration code, meaning it's not like they just acknowledged the holes the case, that would be a 530.2 verdict which he specifically said it would not be. If you're still interested and in doubt wait a few months for the Hellmann Report and you will see the 'evidence' addressed as it deserves, which will be a far cry from how Massei did. There'll be no 'bloody footprints,' the bathmat stain will be returned to Rudy etc. A motivations report is a post-hoc rationalization for a verdict, the judge
has to go through the evidence and tie it to the murder and come up with a narrative that shows the defendant's guilt. Basically the stupider it sounds and the more tenuous the connections the more likely they're innocent. At the beginning of the trial the judge indicated the entirety of the Massei Report was baseless when he said in reference to it 'the only thing for certain is Merdith Kercher is dead, which basically flushed all those silly 'it's possible, indeed probable' formulations down the commode. It made for excellent satire material though!
I know you can find media reports saying different things, quotes from the judge that it's possible they were involved, that there's evidence they were and of course the deluded prosecutor still thinks they're guilty and will appeal. Just
give it time, wait for the report. Currently there's a fair number of second-string reporters with egg on their faces attempting to justify four years of reporting prosecution lies as absolute truths, they're not filling in the context and explaining the logic of the Italian courts, much like those who simply reported Mignini and Maresca's distortions of the meaning of Rudy Guede's Motivations report as though it was going to damn Raffaele and Amanda somehow even though they weren't represented at that trial.
That's obviously ridiculous, just as some of the things they're saying now are. Think of it as a trial where the defendant is found guilty but the lawyer still proclaims his client's innocence and vows there will be an appeal. It's meaningless, except there's a prosecutor soon facing court for his corruption charges who'd love to keep the idea alive he might still garner a conviction from the case where he did the same damn thing as he was convicted for himself in the Monster of Florence case. That sort of recidivism doesn't really look good for his suspended sentence, which could be increased at the second trial to the point it's no longer suspended....
For example, here's how it works in the logic of the Italian Courts: It's possible you were involved in the murder, there exists evidence you were, and there's a witness who says you were. Me--right now!
The Massei Report for you would read that you don't have an alibi for the murder and a witness places you at the scene. The evidence is you're 'lying' about the case, 'obviously' in an attempt even at this late date to obscure your involvement. Since you're 'lying' about that you must be lying about not being there--you've placed yourself at the scene!
(this is no less stupid than the misunderstanding about the door being locked which was considered 'evidence' in the first trial)
The Hellmann Report would read: you don't have to prove an alibi, I cannot corroborate my seeing you there at all, in fact I don't even know what you look like, and my passport doesn't even indicate I was in Italy that night. I must be on drugs if I'm saying I saw you. Regarding your mis-statement: it has nothing to do with the murder, it's more probable you're going off mistaken media accounts, and it's damned idiotic to think that means you're lying about not being there.
I suspect you're unaware of the breadth of the evidence that Raffaele and Amanda were not involved, it will take some time to be disseminated. Until now there was a natural reluctance to accept arguments from the defense, and a tendency to assume the prosecution might still be right.
