I still think it is possible the court's meaning here is that there needs to be, as Wikipedia would say, disambiguation. The court may be saying that both the prosecution as well as the defense need finally and concretely to establish the legitimacy of their claims, so they finally and concretely can be accepted or rejected.
Having looked over the translation a little bit, I tend to agree with Coulsdon that the SC did point out some potential legal irregularities by the HZ court. The SC may have felt they had to comment on some of the problems with the acquittal ruling, but their ultimate hope is to put this thing to rest in a way that engenders fewer questions and objections in the future.
Someone (I can't remember where) suggested that the SC gave the legal guidelines from their decision to some clerk for the purpose of writing the motivations, and then the clerk, having little else to work with, just copied and pasted from the Massei ruling.
There is reason to doubt this positive interpretation, Mary. I mean, did the ISC really simply send this back wanting (as someone else put it) 100 more pages in a Hellmann-like motivations report - fully expecting that they'll end us signing off on acquittals?
They could have signed off on Hellmann on March 26, sustaining the acquittals, and then used the motivations report to clean up the outstanding legal issues. I mean, are they really in the job-creation business in Italy - so that both Raffaele and Amanda have to spend another $1M, and the Kerchers have to wait another year before Italy tells them what happened to their kin?
I don't see it. The ISC did not quash the acquittals by criticizing both the prosecution and the defence - they quashed the acquittals mainly saying that Hellmann came to the wrong "facts" of the case. Also in the case of motive, they say that Massei essentially ruled the wrong way, too.
You see, I could buy this positive interpretation you put on it, if the ISC had simply left it at.....
osmotically demonstrate the presence of the two defendants in the locus delicti commissi, but possibly to delineate the subjective position of the co-conspirators of Guede, in the face of the range of hypothetical situations
Because THAT by itself could have meant they felt that Hellmann erred in procedure by not evaluating enough "facts" to properly come to ruling it an acquittal.....
....... instead they said that Hellmann made the wrong finding of fact in relation to Curatolo, Nara, and the motive. It is as simple as this. Hellmann heard Curatolo and disbelieved him. Hellmann heard Nara and disbelieved her. That's what fact-finding judges do - they hear the evidence and make a decision on its factuality.
It's not what the ISC does; if you believe what Italians say the ISC does. The ISC wants a reexamination of at least those three findings of fact and there is plenty of room to say that the ISC is directing the Florence court to come to a specific decision about it - or else the table tennis match continues....
... and the Kerchers get further uncertainty, and Knox and Sollecito spend more money - perhaps until they cave in and cop a plea for lack of funds.
Truly I wish the way you interpret it is true, Mary. It may have been true if the ISC had simply ruled on some sort of "osmotic" principle without the other comments about facts.
However, we will see. If the first thing the prosecutor does on Sept 30 is request that all charges against Knox and Sollecito be dropped for lack of evidence, I'll eat my hat and apologize to you profusely.
If in December or January a suddenly speedy Florence court once again acquits the pair, I'll eat YOUR hat.
I will not eat anyone's hat if the Florence court convicts them. That's what I think will happen, because Italy (for some weird reason) needs to win this one. For me, that's what the ISC is telegraphing.
But be still your gentle heart. I have not successfully predicted ANYTHING in relation to this.
I'm perfect!
