Supreme Court Confirms All Three Were There And Lied, RS & AK Apologists Desperate To Downplay That
Posted by Machiavelli
1. Shocking Sentencing Report
In contrast the language, logic and law of the Marasca/Bruno Report are about as weak as Rome lawyers have seen. The Fifth Chambers normally handles only appeals of verdicts for fraud, defamation, and other mundane non-violent personal and family injuries and they are forbidden from judging evidence. Their reports are almost invariably 1-3 pages long.
No finding by any experienced murder judge ever stretches logic and law and evidence as much as this. This grim situation for RS and AK still remains.
- (1) The report very firmly places all three at the scene of the crime with extensive language on a long list of proofs; but though bizarrely it separates two from the crime itself.
(2) The final verdict is not “assoluzione” meaning acquittal or innocence but simply “proscioglimento” meaning the dropping of charges (not usually used in a court context, see the note in the final paragraphs of translation) which can be subject to appeal.
(3) The report does nothing to help Knox and Sollecito to get beyond their calunnia, villiipendio and diffamazione trials. It makes a win against either or both Knox and Sollecito in a wrongful-death suit more or less an assured thing. And it pre-emptively dismisses the frivolous appeal by Amanda Knox to ECHR Strasbourg.
If the appeal by Knox and Sollecito against the Nencini court findings and guilty sentences had been handled without chicanery, it is the First Chambers which deals with murder cases and which annulled most of the Hellmann appeal outcome in 2013 which would have got this appeal. Almost certainly those judges would have simply rejected the appeal, and sent Knox and Sollecito right back to jail.
The report makes lawyers question why Knox and Sollecito were not at minimum found guilty of being accessories to murder after the fact. Even the defense teams seem to have realised the risks in the shaky judgement
2. Passages Finding Knox And Sollecito Were There
In chapters 4, 9 and 10 the Marasca/Bruno report makes very clear that Knox and Sollecito were both at the house on the night. They find that the proof of that stands up. Highlighted in the translation below are passages amount to the firm conclusion that Knox definitely was there, with blood on her hands, and Sollecito logically also.
From Chapter 4
4.3.1 As for the first question, the use of the [Guede’s] definitive verdict in the current judgement, for any possible implication, is unexceptionable , since it abides with the provision of art. 238 bis of Penal Code [sic]. Based on such provision “(…) the verdicts [p. 26] that have become irrevocable can be accepted [acquired] by courts as pieces of evidence of facts that were ascertained within them and evaluated based on articles 187 and 192 par 3”.
Well, so the “fact” that was ascertained within that verdict, indisputably, is Guede’s participation in the murder “concurring with other people, who remain unknown”. The invoking of the procedural norms indicated means that the usability of such fact-finding is subordinate to [depends on] the double conditions [possibility] to reconcile such fact within the scope of the “object of proof” which is relevant to the current judgement, and on the existence of further pieces of evidence to confirm its reliability.
Such double verification, in the current case, has an abundantly positive outcome. In fact it is manifestly evident that such fact, which was ascertained elsewhere [aliunde], relates to the object of cognition of the current judgement. The [court’s] assessment of it, in accord with other trial findings which are valuable to confirm its reliability, is equally correct. We refer to the multiple elements, linked to the overall reconstruction of events, which rule out that Guede could have acted alone.
Firstly, testifying in this direction are the two main wounds (actually three) observed on the victim’s neck, on each side, with a diversified path and features, attributable most likely (even if the data is contested by the defense) to two different cutting weapons. And also, the lack of signs of resistance by the young woman, since no traces of the assailant were found under her nails, and there is no evidence elsewhere [aliunde] of any desperate attempt to oppose the aggressor; the bruises on her upper limbs and those on mandibular area and lips (likely the result of forcible hand action of constraint meant to keep the victim’s mouth shut) found during the cadaver examination, and above all, the appalling modalities of the murder, which were not adequately pointed out in the appealed ruling.
And in fact, the same ruling (p. 323 and 325) reports of abundant blood spatters found on the right door of the wardrobe located inside Kercher’s room, about 50 cm above the floor. Such occurrence, given the location and direction of the drops, could probably lead to the conclusion that the young woman had her throat literally “slashed” likely as she was kneeling, while her head was being forcibly held [hold] tilted towards the floor, at a close distance from the wardrobe, when she was hit by multiple stab wounds at her neck, one of which – the one inflicted on the left side of her neck – caused her death, due to asphyxia following [to] the massive bleeding, which also filled the breathing ways preventing breathing activity, a situation aggravated by the rupture of the hyoid bone – this also linkable to the blade action – with consequent dyspnoea” (p. 48).
Such a mechanical action is hardly attributable to the conduct of one person alone.
[Ed note: Firm settling on motive is not required in Italian law.] On the other hand such factual finding, when adequately valued, could have been not devoid of meaning as for researching the motive, given that  the extreme violence of the criminal action could have been seen – because of its abnormal disproportion – not compatible with any of the explanations given in the verdict, such as mere simple grudges with Ms. Knox (also denied by testimonies presented, [even] by the victim’s mother); with sexual urges of any of the participants, or maybe even with the theory of a sex game gone wrong, of which, by the way, no mark was found on the victim’s body, besides the violation of her sexuality by a hand action of Mr. Guede, because of the DNA that could be linked to him found inside the vagina of Ms. Kercher, the consent of whom, however, during a preliminary phase of physical approach possibly consensual at the beginning, could not be ruled out.
Such finding is even less compatible with the theory of the intrusion of an unknown thief inside the house, if we consider that, within the course of ordinary events, while it is possible that a thief is taken by an uncontrollable sexual urge leading him to assail a young woman when he sees her, it’s rather unlikely that after a physical and sexual aggression he would also commit a gratuitous murder, especially not with the fierce brutality of this case, rather than running away quickly instead. Unless, obviously, we think about the disturbed personality of a serial killer, but there is no trace of that in the trial findings, since there are no records that any other killings of young women with the same modus operandi were committed in Perugia at that time.
From Chapter 9
9.4.1 Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial, in accord with her own admissions, also contained in the memoriale with her signature, in the part where she tells that, as she was in the kitchen, while the young English woman had retired inside the room of same Ms. Kercher together with another person for a sexual intercourse, she heard a harrowing scream from her friend, so piercing and unbearable that she let herself down squatting on the floor, covering her ears tight with her hands in order not to hear more of it.
About this, the judgment of reliability expressed by the lower [a quo] judge [Nencini, ed.] with reference to this part of the suspect’s narrative, [and] about the plausible implication from the fact herself was the first person mentioning for the first time  a possible sexual motive for the murder, at the time when the detectives still did not have the results from the cadaver examination, nor the autopsy report, nor the witnesses’ information, which was collected only subsequently, about the victim’s terrible scream and about the time when it was heard (witnesses Nara Capezzali, Antonella Monacchia and others), is certainly to be subscribed to.
We make reference in particular to those declarations that the current appellant [Knox] produced on 11. 6. 2007 (p.96) inside the State Police headquarters. On the other hand, in the slanderous declarations against Lumumba, which earned her a conviction, the status of which is now protected as final judgement [giudicato], [they] had themselves exactly that premise in the narrative, that is: the presence of the young American woman inside the house in via della Pergola, a circumstance which nobody at that time – except obviously the other people present inside the house – could have known (quote p. 96).
According to the slanderous statements of Ms. Knox, she had returned home in the company of Lumumba, who she had met by chance in Piazza Grimana, and when Ms. Kercher arrived in the house, Knox’s companion directed sexual attentions toward the young English woman, then he went together with her in her room, from which the harrowing scream came. So, it was Lumumba who killed Meredith and she could affirm this since she was on the scene of crime herself, albeit in another room.
Another element against her is the mixed DNA traces, her and the victim’s one, in the “small bathroom”, an eloquent proof that anyway she had come into contact with the blood of the latter, which she tried to wash away from herself (it was, it seems, diluted blood, while the biological traces belonging to her would be the consequence of epithelial rubbing).
(Ed: This next passages on hypotheticals shows how ignorant of murder jurisprudence Marasca & Bruno were, they had never handled a murder case before.] The fact is very suspicious, but it’s not decisive, besides the known considerations about the sure nature and attribution of the traces in question.
Nonetheless, even if we deem the attribution certain, the trial element would not be unequivocal, since it may show also a posthumous touching of that blood, during the probable attempt of removing the most visible traces of what had happened, maybe to help cover up for someone or to steer away suspicion from herself, but not contributing to full certainty about her direct involvement in the murderous action. Any further and more pertaining interpretation in fact would be anyway resisted by the circumstance – this is decisive indeed – that no trace linkable to her was found on the scene of crime or on the victim’s body, so it follows – if we concede everything – that her contact with the victim’s blood happened in a subsequent moment and in another room of the house.
Another element against her is certainly constituted by the false accusations [calunnia] against Mr. Lumumba, afore-mentioned above.
It is not understandable, in fact, what reason could have driven the young woman to produce such serious accusations. The theory that she did so in order to escape psychological pressure from detectives seems extremely fragile, given that the woman  could not fail to realize that such accusations directed against her boss would turn out to be false very soon, given that, as she knew very well, Mr. Lumumba had no relationship with Ms. Kercher nor with the Via della Pergola house. Furthermore, the ability to present an ironclad alibi would have allowed Lumumba to obtain release and subsequently the dropping of charges.
However, the said calunnia is another circumstantial element against the current appellant, insofar as it can be considered a strategy in order to cover up for Mr. Guede, whom she had an interest to protect because of fear of retaliatory accusations against her. This is confirmed by the fact that Mr. Lumumba, like Mr. Guede, is a man of colour, hence the indication of the first one would be safe in the event that the latter could have been seen by someone while entering or exiting the apartment.
And moreover, the staging of a theft in Romanelli’s room, which she is accused of, is also a relevant point within an incriminating picture, considering the elements of strong suspicion (location of glass shards – apparently resulting from the breaking of a glass window pane caused by the throwing of a rock from the outside – on top of, but also under clothes and furniture), a staging, which can be linked to someone who – as an author of the murder and a flatmate [titolare] with a formal [“qualified”] connection to the dwelling – had an interest to steer suspicion away from himself/herself, while a third murderer in contrast would be motivated by a very different urge after the killing, that is to leave the apartment as quickly as possible.
But also this element is substantially ambiguous, especially if we consider the fact that when the postal police arrived – they arrived in Via della Pergola for another reason: to search for Ms. Romanelli, the owner of the telephone SIM card found inside one of the phones retrieved in via Sperandio – the current appellants themselves, Sollecito specifically, were the ones who pointed out the anomalous situation to the officers, as nothing appeared to be stolen from Ms. Romanelli’s room.
Elements of strong suspicion are also in the inconsistencies and lies which the suspect woman committed over the statements she released on various occasions, especially in the places where her narrative was contradicted by the telephone records showing different incoming SMS messages; by the testimonies of Antonio Curatolo about the presence of [the same] Amanda Knox in piazza Grimana in the company of Sollecito, and of Mario Quintavalle about her presence inside the supermarket the morning of the day after the murder, maybe to buy detergents.
Despite this, the features of intrinsic inconsistency and poor reliability of the witnesses, which were objected to many times during the trial, do not allow to attribute unconditional trust to their versions, in order to prove with reassuring certainty the failure, and so the falsehood, of the alibi presented by the suspect woman, who claimed to have been at her boyfriend’s home since the late afternoon of November 1st until the morning of the following day. Mr. Curatolo (an enigmatic character: a clochard, drug addicted and dealer)  besides the fact that his declarations were late and the fact that he was not foreign to judiciary showing-off in judicial cases with a strong media impact, he was also contradicted about his reference to young people waiting for public buses to leave in the direction of disco clubs in the area, since it was asserted that the night of the murder the bus service was not operational; and also the reference to masks and jokes, which he says he witnessed that evening, would lead to believe that it was on Halloween night, on October 31., and not on Nov. 1. instead.
The latter point apparently balances – still within a context of uncertainty and ambiguousness – the witness’ reference to (regarding the context where he reportedly noticed the two suspects together) the day before the one when he noticed (at an afternoon hour) an unusual movement of Police and Carabinieri, and in particular people wearing white suites and head covers (as if they were extra-terrestrials) entering the house in Via della Pergola (obviously on November 2., after the discovery of the body).
Mr. Quintavalle – apart from the lateness of his statements, initially reticent and generic – did not offer any contribute of certainty, not even about the goods bought by the young woman noticed on the morning subsequent to the murder, when he opened his store, while his recognizing Knox in the courtroom is not relevant, since her image had appeared on all newspapers and tv news.
Regarding the biological traces, signed with letters A and I (the latter analysed by the RIS) sampled from the knife seized in Sollecito’s house and yielding Knox’s genetic profile, they constitute a neutral element, given that the same suspect lived together with Mr. Sollecito in the same home in via Garibaldi, although she alternated with the via della Pergola home, and – as for what was said – the same instrument did not have blood traces from Ms. Kercher, a negative circumstance that contrasted the accusation hypotheses that it was the murder weapon.
On that point, it must be pointed out that – again following a disputable strategic choice by the scientific police genetic experts – it was decided that the investigation aimed at identifying the genetic profile should be privileged, rather than finding its biological nature, given that the quantity of the samples did not allow a double test: the quality test would in fact would have “used up” the sample or made it unusable for further tests. A very disputable option, since the detecting of blood traces, referable to Ms. Kercher, would have provided the trial with a datum of a formidable probative relevance, incontrovertibly certifying the use of the weapon for the committing of the crime.
The verified presence of the same weapon inside Sollecito’s house, where Ms. Knox was living together with him, would have allowed then any possible deduction in this respect. Instead, the verified identification of the traces with genetic profiles of Ms. Knox resolves itself in a not unequivocal and rather indifferent datum, given that the young American woman was living together with Mr. Sollecito, sharing time between his dwelling and  the Via della Pergola one. Not only that, but even if it was possible to attribute with certainty trace B to the genetic profile of Ms. Kercher, the trial datum would have been not decisive (since it’s not a blood trace), given the promiscuity or commonality of inter-personal relations typical of out-of-town students, which make it plausible that a kitchen knife or any other tool could be transported from one house to the other and thus, the seized knife could have been brought by Ms. Knox in Via della Pergola for domestic use, in occasion of convivial meetings or other events, and therefore be used by Ms. Kercher.
What is certain is, that on the knife no blood traces were found, a lack which cannot be referred to an accurate cleaning. As was accurately pointed out by the defence attorneys, the knife had traces of starch, a sign of ordinary home use and of a washing anything but accurate. Not only, but starch is, notoriously, a substance with remarkable absorbing property, thus it is very likely that in the event of a stabbing, blood elements would be retained by it.
It is completely implausible the accusative assumption on the point, that the young woman would be used to carrying the bulky item with her for a self-defence purpose, using – it is said – the large bag she had for that purpose. It wouldn’t be actually understandable why the woman, if warned by her boyfriend to pay attention during her night time movements, was not in possession of one of the small pocket knives surely owned by Sollecito, who apparently had the hobby of that kind of weapon and was a collector of a number of them.
Finally, the matching with the current appellant woman of the footprints found in the place location of the murder is far from being certain.
9.4.2 Also the evidential picture about Mr. Sollecito, emerging from the impugned verdict, appears marked by intrinsic and irreducible contradictions. His presence on the murder scene, and specifically inside the room where the murder was committed, is linked to only the biological trace found on the bra fastener hook (item 165/b), the attribution of which, however, cannot have any certainty, since such trace is insusceptible of a second amplification, given its scarce amount, for that it is – as we said – an element lacking of circumstantial evidentiary value.
There remains anyway the strong suspicion that he was actually in the Via della Pergola house the night of the murder, in a moment that, however, it was impossible to determine. On the other hand, since the presence of Ms. Knox inside the house is sure, it is hardly credible that he was not with her.
And even following one of the versions released by the woman, that is the one in accord to which, returning home in the morning of November 2. after a night spent at her boyfriend’s place, she reports of having immediately noticed that something strange had happened (open door, blood traces everywhere); or even the other one, that she reports in her memorial, in accord to which she was present in the house at the time of the murder, but in a different room, not the one in which the violent aggression on Ms. Kercher was being committed, it is very strange that she did not call her boyfriend, since there is no record about a phone call from her, based on the phone records within the file. Even more if we consider that having being in Italy for a short time, she would be presumably uninformed about what to do in such emergency cases, therefore the first and maybe only person whom she could ask for help would have been her boyfriend himself, who lived only a few hundred meters away from her house. Not doing this signifies Sollecito was with her, unaffected, obviously, the procedural relevance of his mere presence in that house, in the absence of certain proof of his causal contribution to the murderous action.
The defensive argument extending the computer interaction up to the visualization of a cartoon, downloaded from the internet, in a time that they claim compatible with the time of death of Ms. Kercher, is certainly not sufficient to dispel such strong suspicions. In fact, even following the reconstruction claimed by the defence and even if we assume as certain that the interaction was by Mr. Sollecito himself and that he watched the whole clip, still the time of ending of his computer activity wouldn’t be incompatible with his subsequent presence in Ms. Kercher’s house, given the short distance between the two houses, walkable in about ten [sic] minutes.
An element of strong suspicion, also, derives from his confirmation, during spontaneous declarations, the alibi presented by Ms. Knox about the presence of both inside the house of the current appellant the night of the murder, a theory that is denied by the statements of Curatolo, who declared of having witnessed the two together from 21:30 until 24:00 in piazza Grimana; and by Quintavalle on the presence of a young woman, later identified as Ms. Knox, when he opened his store in the morning of November 2. But as it was previously noted, such witness statements appeared to have strong margins of ambiguity and approximation, so that could not reasonably constitute the foundation of any certainty, besides the problematic judgement of reliability expressed by the lower [a quo] judge.
An umpteenth element of suspicion is the basic failure of the alibi linked to other, claimed human interactions in the computer of his belongings, albeit if we can’t talk about false alibi, since it’s more appropriate to speak about unsuccessful alibi.
Finally, no certainty could be reached [was acquired] about the attribution to Mr. Sollecito of the footprints found in the via della Pergola house, about which the technical reports carried out have not gone beyond a judgement of “probable identity”, and not of certainty (p. 260/1).
9.4.3. It is simply the case to observe, that the declaration of the lacking of a probative framework, coherent and sufficient to support the accusatory hypothesis regarding the more serious case of the homicide, reverberates on the residual, accessory charges referred in point d) (theft of the phones) and e) (simulation of crime).
From Chapter 10
10. The intrinsic contradiction of probative elements emerging from the text of the appealed sentence, undermines in nuce the connecting tissue of the same sentence, causing the annulment of it.
And in fact, when facing a picture marked by such contradiction, the appeal judge was not supposed to issue a conviction but rather – as we observed above – they were compelled to issue a ruling of acquittal with reference to art. 530 paragraph 2 of penal procedure code.
At this point the last question remains, about the annulment formula – that is, whether it should be annulled with remand or without remand. The solving of such question is obviously related to the objective possibility of further tests, which could resolve the aspects of uncertainty, maybe through new technical investigations.
The answer is certainly negative, because the biological traces on the items relevant to the investigation are of scarce entity, as such they can’t undergo amplification, and thus they won’t render answers of absolute reliability, neither in terms of identity nor in terms of compatibility.
The computers belonging to Amanda Knox and to Ms. Kercher, which maybe could have provided information useful to the investigation, were, incredibly, burned by hazardous operations by investigators, which caused electric shock following a probable error of power source; and they can’t render any further information anymore, since it’s an irreversible damage. [Ed: unproven how damage occurred, all records were recovered.]
The set of court testimonies is exhaustive, given the accuracy and completeness of the evidentiary trial phase, which had re-openings both times in the instances of appeal [rinvio; sic].
Mr. Guede, who was sure a co-participant to the murder, has always refused to cooperate, and for the already stated reasons he can’t be compelled to testify.
The technical tests requested by the defence cannot grant any contribution of clarity, not only because a long time has passed, but also because they regard aspects of problematic examination (such as the possibility of selective cleaning) or of manifest irrelevance (technical analysis on Sollecito’s computer) given that is was possible, as said, for him to go to Kercher’s house whatever the length of his interaction with the computer (even if one concedes that such interaction exists), or they are manifestly unnecessary, given that some unexceptionable technical analysis carried out are exhaustive (such are for example the cadaver inspection and the following medico-legal examinations).
Following the considerations above, it is obvious that a remand [rinvio] would be useless, hence the declaration of annulment without remand, based on art. 620 L) of the procedure code, thus we apply an acquittal [proscioglimento *] formula [see note just below] of dropping of charges which a further judge on remand would be anyway compelled to apply, to abide to the principles of law established in this current sentence.
[Translator’s note: Under the Italian Procedure Code, the Italian word for “acquittal” is actually “assoluzione”; while the term “proscioglimento” instead, actually refers only to non-definitive preliminary judgements during the investigation phase, and it could be translated as “dropping of charges”. When applied to the investigation phase “proscioglimento” is normally meant as a not-binding decision, not subjected to double jeopardy, since it is not considered a judgement nor a court’s decision.]
The annulment of the verdict of conviction of Ms. Knox as for the crime written at letter A), implies the ruling out of the aggravation of teleological nexus as for the art. 61 par. 2 Penal Code. The ruling out of such aggravating circumstance makes it necessary to re-determine the penalty, which is to be quantified in the same length established by the Court of Appeals of Perugia, about the adequacy of which large and sufficient justification was given, based on determination parameters which are to be subscribed to entirely.
It is just worth to note that the outcome of the judgement allows to deem as absorbed, or implicitly ruled out, any other objection, deduction or request by the defences, while any other argumentative aspect among those not examined, should be deemed manifestly inadmissible since it obviously belongs to the merit.
3. Wrong Translation Circulated By Amanda Knox
This version was garbled apparently to try to show innocence. (It is a crime to deliberately garble Italian legal documents.)
OK. So she told Diane Sawyer she wasn’t there, right? Any other U.S. TV quotes that we can gather and compile as part of a media blitz. Let’s do it. Print alone is not gonna change anything. Nobody is gonna wade through this—and I pay my highest compliment to Mach; Catnip and all who work so hard to pare this down and get to the heart of the matter. Superb work! We’ve gotta mult-media the crap out of this in the US. We need to lean hard on the UK gov and the media to step up and seek justice for Merideth.
Whatswisdom, are you on Twitter?
Catnip, Machiavelli, and all others—thank you for this tremendous amount of work. Special kudos given how this seemed to be deliberately convoluted.
Something I don’t get: if the report goes on to conclude that Knox, Sollecito and Guede were there (together), why get nit-picky with things like the bra clasp? If they were together, regardless of precise role, wouldn’t traces of all 3 be ‘‘expected’‘? Wouldn’t it be irrelevant at that point?
Also, wouldn’t it make far, FAR more sense to simply defer the case back to Judge Nencini to re-evaluate AK/RS as mere accomplices? (Though that seems rather late).
‘‘They were there, they were involved, and we acquit them without any recourse’’ .... ????
@Whatiswisdon - Knox did at least 20+ interviews. More like 30 actually. There is tons of material available.
Interesting choice having the initial interview with Diane Sawyer. But then, Knox is not the first notorious killer Sawyer helped with a book deal:
Wonderful. So much work which proves once again and once and for all, that these two lying murdering bastards are guilty as charged. I could care less about the not guilty verdict from before which proves once again that the US state department got involved.(Or to quote) “She is an American citizen.”(close quote) which does not change anything. She is guilty and will always remain so.
I’m afraid the note by Grahame Rhodes could be quite accurate.
Thank you Dedicated Translators. Looking forward to Full Text.
@Catnip, Machiavelli and translators of this difficult legal verbiage: thank you for your work. It seems the Supreme Court agrees with Amanda who said in a bugged conversation in prison as she spoke to her parents, “I can’t lie, I was there.”
If it’s now legally certain that Knox and Raffaele were both “there” at the crime scene at the time of the murder, and proven that Guede assaulted Meredith and helped kill her with accomplices, are we now to assume that the lying Knox and Sollecito were not the accomplices, but that one or two other criminals were also on the premises at the same time and were helping Guede kill Meredith? That stretches credibility.
This ruling is unfathomable. I can only imagine the reaction of the Kerchers and of their Attorney Maresca. This ruling defies common sense. It seems to imply that Rudy committed the killing but that Knox and Raffaele were too afraid of him to tell the police, and instead helped him hide the crime at the risk of themselves being prosecuted for it? That fear alone was the inducement to run an eight year long charade of lies and dissimulation, not to mention years of prison? When Raf’s father is connected to important people and when Knox’s family could afford a PR campaign to reach television? Yet Knox is so afraid of Guede counter-accusing her and of Guede being believed, that she has denied everything and even covered for Guede? Preposterous.
Does Cassation think that Rudy set up the false burglary for his cover story, but then Knox and Raf lied to police about it for him? If Knox and Raf weren’t complicit in the crime but were there during its commission, what were they doing during the murder? Playing guitar and smoking weed? Knox and Raf overlooked Guede tracking blood around the cottage, heard Meredith’s scream but did nothing to aid her, too afraid to aid her and later ashamed of their cowardice? Were they threatened by Guede with the same fate? Or if they were hurting her along with Guede so that she did scream, they are still innocent?
And why would Knox be washing Meredith’s blood off her hands into the bidet and washing up blood from the murder scene rather than call police and denounce Guede as the killer? Knox could have begged for police protection She had the USA to flee to. Raf’s father could protect him, his sister was Carabinieri!
No. If Knox was washing Meredith’s blood off her hands, Knox was hiding her part in the murder.
This ruling contradicts its own reasoning. It has proved the greater yet says it can’t prove the lesser.
And didn’t the final word on the knife say that Meredith’s DNA was found on the blade after a second test was demanded, a test at first left undone by the Conti- Vecchiotti duo?
This ruling seems to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel. It finds Knox was present at the cottage during a murder, clearly lied about it, then left her DNA mixed with Meredith’s watered down blood, yet she probably had no part in the crime except pointing an accusing finger at her boss to declare that HE had done the killing.
Her boyfriend was there, too, along with her while Meredith was being killed? What were Knox and her boyfriend doing all this time? Eating pasta? Doped out of their minds snuggling in her bedroom?
The court does accept that Knox heard Meredith scream which implies she knew Meredith was being harmed. If she had Sollecito right there with her, Sollecito who always carried a knife, but didn’t scream or intervene or rush for help, why not? Fearing for her and her lover’s lives, they then had to clean up for a crime they didn’t commit and felt compelled to lie about it for fear of Guede’s (and his accomplices’ don’t forget) vengeance?
Yet testimony of Kokomani said Knox accosted him in the street waving a knife so that he had to throw olives and cell phone to defend himself from her? (hardly the meek and mild doves of peace, were Knox and Raf to Koko, and they seemed to be in cahoots with Guede not afraid of him?) (or did Cassation not accept Koko’s testimony at all?)
This report defies explanation, IMHO.
Hi jhansigirl: I don’t do social media so I’m not holding Twitter or FB accounts. I stare at a screen all day for my job and try to keep private when off. Wife is on FB. I will be glad to have her share as much as possible. I love this site and the community that works so hard for justice on this tragic and shameful epic. Will do my part as best as I can to spread the truth from my grass roots level. I’m here to serve, Peter, et al. Show me the way. Chimera, thanks for links. Knox was front and center at time of Diane Sawyer; we need to have her front and center again. (Misspelled Meredith’s name is my hastily written post. Sorry.) Again my gratitude to mach, catnip, yummi and the dedicated folks who’ve done such tremendous work for Meredith and the Kercher family.
I guess the impossible has happened:
Guede’s two accomplices, let’s call them ‘‘X’’ and ‘‘Y’‘, were able to help him murder Meredith without leaving any traces of themselves. Seems odd that if they were forensic ghosts, that Guede left traces of himself. Doesn’t Knox keep telling us that is impossible?
Aviello must have been right, Guede did it with ‘‘X’’ and ‘‘Y’‘. Just ignore those bribery accusations floating around.
Knox and Sollecito, though present, were not involved in any way, and Knox’s ‘‘Susan Smith’’ act is totally unrelated. And all those false alibis are just bad memories.
And of course, the evidence against AK/RS is probably contaminated, even though 5th Chambers definitively says they were there.
Rather than call the police and say they were innocent, Curt Knox hires a PR firm to tell the world Italy was framing them. Francesco Sollecito hires Bongiorno to go judge-shopping to help her ‘‘totally innocent’’ client. They could have been upfront, but wanted to protect their reputations.
And of course, even though this Cassation ruling completely wipes out the accounts of ‘‘Honor Bound ‘’ and ‘‘WTBH’‘, it doesn’t mean AK/RS are total liars. Nor does it suddenly make those $950,000 and $3.8 million book deals wrong, or blood money. They just needed to set the record straight.
Another ‘‘impossible’’ has happened. Suddenly Hellmann’s ruling is no longer the poster child for being bent.
I’d already had a look at the complete translation provided by the pro Knox morons over at amandaknoxcase.com. Even allowing for the fact that, as I’m sure we’re about to find out in posts to come (and as briefly shown above by some of Machiaveli’s work), the pro Knoxers have mis translated parts of it, it is nonetheless an extremely damning report if you are Knox or Sollecito.
I don’t think I’ve ever read something more wrong headed or contradictory in my life. To basically accept that they were there and that Geude didn’t act alone but then deny that there is enough evidence to implicate them in the murder is the logic of a child. It is astonishing beyond belief.
The part about the knife trace not being tested for blood and that Meredith’s DNA could have got on there because Knox transported the knife back and forth for cooking purposes is anti Occam’s razor rambling of the very worst kind. Chimera’s comment about Hellman no longer being the poster child for being bent is absolutely on the money.
If we had human decency amongst lawyers, Guede’s lawyers would already be telling him to come absolutely clean on exactly what happened that night. He’s getting close to release anyway and all that would suffer would be his reputation. A reputation which is already in the gutter as a convicted murderer and sex offender so what’s to lose?
I know Geude has already hinted at his annoyance with his “How could I be the accomplice to myself?” comment but I just hope that his anger at the grinning faces and subsequent comments of Knox and Sollecito, and their attacks on him in their books, prompt him to come properly clean. He could potentially be the most powerful tool we have to continue to shine the light of justice on these murdering scum bags.
It might be wishful thinking but occasionally, just occasionally, dreams come true.
The reasoning is contradictory because they don’t consider all the evidence and the little evidence they do consider they consider it wrongly. It’s obvious this judge should never consider murder cases or similar because his threshold for evidence reliability is unreasonably high.
He takes the stance that knife and bra clasp traces were open to contamination, but provides no proof of such contamination or how it could have possibly occurred. He then makes the case that there are no traces in Meredith’s room of K or S because of this, which is not true.
There are the hairs found in the room and the luminol footprints and traces around the rest of the cottage. There are also the luminol traces at RS’s apartment. And hairs found RS’s apartment.
He does not use the combination of other evidence traces to any effect, but only considers each piece in isolation. This is flatly wrong. There are statistical probabilities involved.
It’s obvious there couldn’t have been 6 people at the cottage, since the only traces revealed are for G, K and S. Guede did not kill Meredith with two other persons. There are no significant traces of anyone else. Thrown in the lies, witnesses and calunnia and it’s a closed case, under normal circumstances.
In the end, the reasoning is a contradictory pretzel like Hellmann.
“...the US state department got involved”. Maybe.
My money is on the corrruption emanating from Bari, starting with the Hellmann charade. Papa Sollecito is likely very well connected and could probably have called in some favours.
Interesting article in The Telegraph today: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/palio/palio-interview/. Italians tend to be relatively nonchalant towards rule-breaking and there is a certain admiration for getting around the law. From the article: “As Tobias Jones notes in his book The Dark Heart of Italy, in which he set out to explain the popularity of the former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, “Furbo, cunning, is the adjective most usually used by Italians to describe, with both admiration and dismay, their fellow countrymen: Italiani, furba gente (‘cunning people’).”
It seems the prevailing mood towards corruption is close to “let him who is without sin cast the first stone”.(Up here in our more austere and Protestant latitudes there would be a crowd anxious to get the first hit. Good job too if the alternative can lead to bent supreme courts.)
Interesting. Do you think that article and book might have been written by Englishmen? I wonder. The other half of this picture of the Italians of course is as follows:
(1) the arms of the justice system are Italy’s most popular institution after the presidency, so Italians admire that also. Berlusconi’s gang was among the least popular.
(2) the justice system has a rigorous career path with formidable training and testing; Marasca and Bruno are among the very few who came up the other way (politically) now sealed off by the Council of Magistrates. Italians admire that also.
(3) by any standards the crime rate is low, even allowing for the mafias and the excessive tilt toward defendants. Italians admire that also.
(4) over 100 judges and prosecutors have been assassinated trying to push back against that excessive tilt and there is already pushback against this verdict. Italians admire that also.
Do sort out the Telegraph when you have a moment?
Another thought regarding the source of corruption. If we apply the same reasoning to that crime that we apply to crime detection in general (including the murder of Meredith)i.e. ask ourselves - who had the motive, the means and the opportunity - then Sollecito senior ticks all three boxes. The US State Dept., not so much (especially with regard to motive).
Nice to let the State Department off the hook, sort of, but we know from inside that the State Department understanding of the case was deliberately addled.
Isnt that corruption? Let’s ask Cantwell, Heavey, Douglas, Moore and Pruett what their roles were.
Signals unquestionably were “channeled” that an extradition request would be less than welcome right before a Presidential election year.
Ministers of justice and heads of the justice committee in parliament are political animals.
Please don’t get me wrong - I love Italy (In fact I’ve just got back from a holiday on the France/Italy border)and of course generalisations are always iffy. .
Paul Kendall may well be English for all I know, but he’s got a point of view that’s legitimate, even allowing for political correctness, last time I checked.
In any case, whatever the cause of the disgaceful verdict it’s bound to reflect on the judiciary surely - whether it was corruption or cock-up.
I’m glad to hear that political appointments have now been sealed off (as a result of this travesty?)
I know that judges and prosecutors have fought bravely against the mafia and perhaps they are turning the tide against criminality in general. Still, let’s not beat about the bush, something went seriously wrong in this case and we don’t do Italy any favours by pretending all is hunky dory.
“Paul Kendall may well be English for all I know, but he’s got a point of view that’s legitimate”. Yes Mr Kendall is English.
So did he make the same four points I made? Odd how those who look at Italy “legitimately” from the UK tend to leave out so much.
There’s been a bunch of these books and articles. It would be nice to see some balance. Right, Mr Popham and Mr Gumbel?
@Whatswisdom, here is one of various short clips I have been playing around with the last couple of weeks. I’ve been waiting for the translation which is why I have not pushed this aggressively.Let me know what you think. https://youtu.be/86NgjJ9vRzo
@davidmulhern and Odysseus
It is the confirmed view of very well informed people that Guede was got at. He was threatened with physical harm. This was after he had been beaten up when he first arrived in jail. The consensus was that Knox lawyers (Bordogni and company) were instrumental in this hence his silence. however when he is finally free and Sollecito senior will also lose his influence then I see him coming clean. We shall have to wait. One small step at a time eh?
As to the US state department interfering it is a given that both these factions used their influence. For example when I was contacted by the FBI in Seattle, (at which point I’m supposed to quake in terror) the so called FBI agent Len Carver (who is just a city cop, attached) told me he was “not interested in guilt or innocence.” (I’m sure his bosses would be really interested in that). So I went along with the gag.
It is interesting though that with that simple phrase he confirmed that there are other reasons for the protection of Knox. However they cannot hide from the truth and eventually everything will come out one way or the other and Knox will be branded for the lying murdering psychopath she really is.
Well certainly Popham and Gumbel are in a premier league of their own if we are talking about imbalance. In comparison Kendall is uncontroversial!
“Well certainly Popham and Gumbel are in a premier league of their own if we are talking about imbalance.”
All three of course were writing only in English. (Doug Preston, another Italy basher, though not English, toned down considerably his MOF when it was put into Italian.)
Surely we cannot like that. The Kerchers sure dont. You’ll be pleased to see that Gumbel at least has been caught out for malicious exaggerations and put on trial.
“You’ll be pleased to see that Gumbel at least has been caught out for malicious exaggerations and put on trial”.
Cheers Grahame Rhodes, your stoicism and unshakable belief that the truth will out is hugely admirable. You’ve certainly established yourself as the bete noire of the Knoxen. Something to be very proud of I say. More power to you sir.
As to other reasons for Knox being protected and as I wrote somewhere else. You will find that many of these so called Knights in shining armor (AKA Steve Moore) have their own web site they wish to promote. Then there is the ‘Innocence Project’ well funded by the federal government who will do and say anything in order to try the lost cause of proving innocence. Steve Moore, Bruce Fischer, Preston, Spezi John Douglas and the rest are parasitic filth and like the cancer they represent should be treated as such.
Terrific comments which really apply to the whole of the report by Olleosnep, Hopeful, Chimera and davidmulhern. And the forceful Grahame is right.
The hotheaded Curt Knox and Chris & Edda Mellas set Knox to riding a tiger and were forever doubling down 2007-2015, and she ran with that comfortably or uncomfortably upon release. But with this report she and her groveling entourage seem to have a great need for a Plan B which could include a confession and being nice.
Within six months or so the majority perception in the US will be of that. Obama’s State Department duped by knowing or unknowing mafia fellow travelers Cantwell, Preston, Heavey, Douglas, Pruett & Moore? State is absolutely not going to like that.
And what of fellow travelers Linda Kulman the shadow writer and Rachel Haot Sterne the Ground Report owner both on NY State Governor and Italian-American Andrew Cuomo’s staff?
Nightmare for anyone who is good at PR. Oh wait, they have noone like that. And with the lone wolf theory terminally collapsed, Guede might be having a few grins.
We have this beloved Pope in town (in his FIAT500L) and today he’s to be at the UN. Below is the sunrise from my place right now, Hudson River with Manhattan upper west side (Columbia University) at back. Reddest I’ve seen it in years. Seems the weather respects no man - or is it we who are messing it up? Is it sending a message here? Hmmm… Hopeful is good at these things.
The Pope (of all people - who would have thunk it?) is saying many things that have needed to be said for some considerable time, and it seems many people are very glad he’s saying them - even, or maybe especially, those dullards who have been too afraid of expressing similarly heretical anti-materialistic thoughts themselves.
This made me laugh - “The Pope Visits The Sick”:
“The defensive argument extending the computer interaction up to the visualization of a cartoon, downloaded from the internet” indeed.
Having read the Marasca/Bruno motivations report (and kudos to the translators and main posters who have posted these analyses)I can only sum up the court’s ruling as a cartoon and a ‘defensive argument downloaded from the internet’.