I wonder how Machiavelli reconciles the Supreme Court stating that Knox and Sollecito "should have been excluded from having participated in the murder'' given the evidence!
A premise: I really don't think I have to "reconcile" things in a paper written by Mad Hatter and March Hare. The motivations is a joke, completely barmy and inconsistent, it cannot be reconciled with reality, law or with itself.
The SC 5th section anyway does not state what you claim. It seems you are twisting and misquoting. It seems you are quoting § 9.4 at p.45, which itself says something different. What the para says is that there is "one element (of evidence)" of "sure relevance" which points "
in the direction" of "excluding the
physical participation to the murder of Knox" even in the event that she was present on the murder scene when Meredith was killed. In fact, the following paragraph 9.4.1 the report goes on (still p.45) pointing out that it is a "
proven fact" that Amanda Knox was present in the house where the murder took place at the time when Meredith was killed.
Incidental observation. The above reasoning is in fact nothing more than one of the most common pro-Knoxes' pseudo-scientific mantras (the idea that Knox could not be the killer because no DNA of her was found in the room). The Bruno-Marasca is obviously self- contradictory here, insofar as it had just stated that SC court should not assess the merits (criticizes Chieffi panel for doing this, p. 22), and states that courts should not be held competent of making direct assessment in scientific matters (§ 7.); and yet, what they do is making assessment in the merits, and making up conclusions on forensic matters on their own pseudo-scientific reasoning!
All this is just part of a comical pattern of inconsistency. But let's put aside this, and just look at what the report says.
What it says, at p. 45 is that it is an absolutely proven fact Knox was inside the apartment where the murder was committed at the time when Meredith was killed. It also says Knox's statements manifestly contain "incongruenze e mendacio" (inconsistencies and lies) (p.47.).
The report also states that it is an "irrefutable fact" that Knox is guilty of committing calunnia on malicious grounds (p.25), repeats again that this is a strong element of suspicion against Knox (p.46), and in § 2. states again that her guilt of calunnia is obvious, that the calunnia conviction would stand in any event, even alleged violations of human rights would be irrelevant, because it is obvious that she wrote her written memoirs voluntarily (p.20).
And also, the report says (p.26) that another fact to be hold as undisputable is that Guede committed the murder
together with other people, they state this in §4.2 (p.25), and then emphasize this in the following paragraph (p.26) motivating how a lone-perpetrator scenario would make no sense ("elements exclude that Guede could have acted alone").
