Sunday, October 04, 2015

TJMK/Wiki Translation Of The Marasca/Bruno Report #4 Of 7: Continuing Dismissal Of Various Claims

Posted by Our Main Posters

Another Italian masterpiece on justice (in this case brutal justice, by Caravaggio)

1. Overview Of The Series

Marasca/Bruno Report #1 Of 7: The Four Opening Summaries
Marasca/Bruno Report #2 Of 7: Summaries Five And Six
Marasca/Bruno Report #3 Of 7: Dismissal Of Appeal Claims, Nencini Scope
Marasca/Bruno Report #4 Of 7: Continuing Dismissal Of Various Claims
Marasca/Bruno Report #5 Of 7: Some “Incongruencies” By Previous Courts
Marasca/Bruno Report #6 Of 7: Why The DNA Evidence Was All Useless
Marasca/Bruno Report #7 Of 7: Attempt At Why Court Blinked At Guilt

2. Overview Of The Post

Only two more posts after this one (we promise!).

Machiavelli already posted what constitutes Part #7 and also the first few paras of this one.

Translation was by a professional translator with extensive finalization by Machiavelli with some help from the Wiki team of the judicial terms used and the accuracy of the English relative to what is in the report.

Again this seems like a lot of furious backpedaling away from the imperial, magisterial announcement by Judge Marasca back in late March.

Our further critiques will be posted separately in Comments and other posts. Please consider this pre-final. Suggestions for improved translation are welcome. The PDF version to go on the Wiki will be the final. 

3. On Further Appeal Grounds

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.

On the other hand such factual finding, when adequately valued, could have been not devoid of meaning as for researching the motive, given that [27] 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.

4.3.2.  With regard to the second matter, relative to the option of akkowing ““ as article 238 bis of the code of criminal procedure allows ““ declarations “against others” made by Guede in the context of his own procedures in absence of other defendants (with reference to declarations, not always coherent and consistent, during the preliminary investigations and noted in his sentencing reports, somehow involving Knox in the homicide, but never explicitly Sollecito, while continuing to plead innocence, despite the presence in the crime scene and on the victim’s body of multiple biological traces attributed to him), the ruling can only be negative. Such a mode of allowance would result in an evasion of the guarantees dictated by article 526 chapter 1- bis, of the code of criminal procedure, according to which “the defendant’s guilt cannot be proved on the basis of declarations produced by anyone who, in free will, had always voluntarily avoided the examination by the accused or his defense team”. And furthermore, it seems a clear violation of article 111, chapter four. of the Constitution, which dictates identical an prescription in order to harmonize judicial processes according to article 6 letter d) of the European Convention for Human Rights (Section F. n. 35729 of the 1st August 2013, Agrama, Rv 256576).

In this regard, it appears useful to refer to the principle of “non-substitutability”, accepted by the United Divisions of this Supreme Court under the category “legality of the proof”, meaning that, when the code establishes an evidentary prohibition or an expressed non-usability, it is forbidden to resort to other procedural instruments, typical or atypical, with the purpose of   surreptitiously avoid such obstacle (Section U, n. 36747 of the 28 May 2003, Torcasio, Rv. 225467; cfr,, also, Section U, n. 28997 of the 19 April 2012, Pasqua, Rv. 252893).

And also during this trial, Guede ““ asked to speak as contextual witness, following the accusative declarations of the convicted offender Mario Alessi (sentenced for the horrible homicide of a child) ““ after denying the accusations of the aforementioned, confirmed the content of a letter sent by him to his attorneys which was then, surprisingly, shared with a television news service, in which he accused the current contestants - has then, substantively, avoided cross-examination by the defendants. And in fact, after recognizing the authenticity of the missive, where he denied what was stated by Alessi, regarding some asserted confidences related to the innocence of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, he didn’t wanted to be cross-examined by the accused’s defense, claiming his presence (as contextual witness) was limited to the content of Alessi’s declarations, which was with regard to him. So, the non-usability of what he declared ““ in the part concerning the letter that related to the current contestants ““ that is not useable in a different procedural context because it was produced absent the prescribed guarantees.

Furthermore, facing such unmoving and non-cooperative behavior, the appeal judge [Hellmann] did automatically insist on cross-examination of the Ivorian, despite the final irrevocability of the sentence against him, and failed to resolve the incompatibility of speaking in the present proceeding, according to article 197 of the code of criminal procedure.

And in fact, according to article 197 bis chapter 4 of the same standard code of procedure, he could have not been obliged to depose on the facts for which he had received a sentence, having always denied, during the proceeding against him, his responsibility and, not being able, in any way, to depose on facts involving his responsibility regarding the crime for which he was accused.

4.4 Finally, continuing on the preliminaries, the matter of standards must be faced, as claimed by the defense, regarding the denial of the claim for renewed court hearings during the appellate trial, on the request of carrying out new external investigations as requested.

The appeal exception was founded upon the observance of the presumed obligatory nature of the request of evidential integration of article 627, chapter 2, second part, according to which “[”¦.] if a sentence in appeal has been annulled and the parties request it, the judge can order a reviewing of the court hearings by obtaining proofs relevant to the decision”

Clearly, the letter of this norm is far from the discipline of the regular powers of the appellate judge regarding this matter under article 603 of the code of criminal procedure “non-decidability of the state of proceedings”,  in the hypothesis above in part 1, that the defense request referred to evidences already collected or new; referring to the criteria of article 495, chapter 1, on the hypothesis of new evidences found after the first instance ruling; there is “absolute necessity” of its integration with supplementary investigations, in case of review ex officio, beyond the special subject matter (originally in application and now canceled, according to article 11 law 28 April 2014, n. 67) of the requested review in favor of a defendant absent from the trial in the first instance.

The Supreme Court here states that the particular formulation of the aforementioned rule does not require the appellate judge, in the hypothesis of annulment of the first instance ruling, to be obliged to renew the court hearings just because the parties request it. A different interpretation would not have a rational basis and, instead, would introduce a dystonic element in the discipline of the institution.

In fact, the first part of the second chapter of article 627 of the code of criminal procedure highlights that the appellate judge decides with the same powers of the judge whose ruling has been annulled, except only for limitations originating in the law.

For a harmonic reconstruction that follows the code’s architecture it is imperative, then, to consider that the specific observance of the trial ruling renewed during the appeal judgment should not create an exception to the general requirement dictated in article 603 of the code of criminal procedure.

Furthermore it is clear that the reference, in chapter 2 of article 627 of the code of criminal procedure, to the assumption of “relevant” evidence for the decision constitutes a mere repetition, given that the trial judgment is, necessarily, central to the evaluation by the appeal judge charged with the requirement of evidentiary integration and the same appreciation of absolute necessity inspiring the appeal. And in fact, in case of renewing of the trial hearings on appeal no evidence that is not “relevant” to the decision may enter the proceeding; and the same thing applies, more generally, to the whole evidential section of the criminal proceeding, according to the fundamental principle stated in article 190 of the standard code of procedure, according to which the judge has to approve the evidence requested by the parties, excluding, beyond the instances prohibited by the law, any “manifestly irrelevant or unnecessary” evidence.
In this sense, with this clarification, it is worth, therefore, restating the orientation expressed, regarding this matter, by this Supreme Court on similar occasions

(Section 5, n. 52208 of 30 September 2014, Marino, Rv. 262116, according to which “the appellate judge, charged with the proceeding following the annulment declared by the Court of Cassation, is not obliged to reopen the court hearings every time the parties demand this, because his powers are identical to the ones of the judge whose sentence was annulled, and he has to accept assumption of the suggested new evidence only if it is necessary for the new decision” according to article 603 of the code of criminal procedure, and article 627, second chapter, of the code of criminal procedure; Section 1, n. 28225 of 09 May 2014, Dell’Utri, Rv. 260939; Section 4, n. 20422 of 21 June 2005, Poggi, Rv, 232020; Section 1, n. 16786 of 24 March 2004, De Falco, Rv. 227924)

Also, without question, the use of the powers conferred upon the appellate judge regarding new investigation, has as always to be concretely motivated and the relative motivation is, of course, again contestable by the Supreme Court.

In this specific case, the appeal judge [Nencini] has given a concrete reason for denying further evidentiary incorporation, considering it irrelevant for his decision purpose.

Furthermore the motivations for the denial of appeal implicitly emerged from the judge’s motivational construct, which declared complete the evidentiary compendium.

Furthermore, there is no reason to assumne, even within the specific appellate judgment, that the general principle of neutral expertise separated from the viewponts of the parties and remitted to the discretional power of the judge, was not observed because “it doe not come within the category of decisive proof and the consequent ruling of denial is not arguable according to article 606, chapter 1, let. d), of the code of criminal procedure, because it represents the result of a factual judgment which, if supported by adequate motivation, cannot be reversed by Cassation” (Section 6, n. 43526 of 3 October 2012, Ritorto, Rv. 253707).

5. Now having resolved, in the sections above, the defense’s prejudicial claims,  and the preliminary standard ones, the “merit” of the judgment can now be considered, in relation to the substance of the appealed matters

Firstly, it has to be assumed that, according to the loss of rights claimed under point b), relative to the charge of illegal carrying of the knife, this is now beyond the statute of limitations.

This has to be accepted, even in absence of more favorable reasons for acquittal on the merit, referring to article 129, second chapter, of the code of criminal procedure, and also the declarations of guilt in the trial sentence and the second appeal court.

Moreover, according to the undisputed decision of this Court of Cassation “the acquittal formula on the merit prevails on the statute of limitations in appeal cases where, with a mere analysis, the absolute absence of the proof of guilty against the defendant that is in fact positive proof of innocence can be observed, though not in the case of mere contradiction or insufficiency of the evidence which requires a pondered judgment between opposing conclusions, n.10284 of 22 January 2014, Culicchia, Rv. 259445).


ThankYou all for this most difficult translation.

.....“Firstly, it has to be assumed that, according to the loss of rights claimed under point b), relative to the charge of illegal carrying of the knife, this is now beyond the statute of limitations.
This has to be accepted, even in absence of more favorable reasons for acquittal on the merit, referring to article 129, second chapter, of the code of criminal procedure, and also the declarations of guilt in the trial sentence and the second appeal court.
Moreover, according to the undisputed decision of this Court of Cassation “the acquittal formula on the merit prevails on the statute of limitations in appeal cases where, with a mere analysis, the absolute absence of the proof of guilty against the defendant that is in fact positive proof of innocence can be observed, though not in the case of mere contradiction or insufficiency of the evidence which requires a pondered judgment between opposing conclusions, n.10284 of 22 January 2014, Culicchia, Rv. 259445).”

What on Earth are they saying, and what does it mean?
The charge of illegal carrying of the knife must now be assumed beyond the statute of limitations even in absence of more favorable reasons for acquittal?

Isn’t the statute of limitations irrelevant?
Are there any reasons for acquittal?
Are there any legal reasons for acquittal?
Are there any favorable reasons for acquittal?
What reasons for acquittal are even more favorable than those favorable ones?
Is there an absence of proof of guilt?
Is there an absolute absence of proof of guilt?
Is the absolute absence of proof of guilt actual proof of innocence? (It was wrt Patrick Lumumba).

Are we being submitted to a deceptive appearance of learning in order to mask an absence of learning and the presence of decisive facts?


Posted by Cardiol MD on 10/13/15 at 11:15 PM | #

Hi Cardiol

Yes indeed, questions, questions… All such takes will prove really valuable.

Chimera posted this fine comment on the thread below suggesting that Bruno was by this point thoroughly rattled. As, surely, was Bongiorno, who had engineered his participation in the first place; for her pains back in March she recognised in horror overkill, and is now along with her client lamenting the opposite - underkill?

All sarcasm aside, here is my attempt to explain the ruling:

Bruno/Marasca and the gang did decide beforehand to throw the case out, but knew it would not be easy.  Therefore, an hour long hearing (in which most defence presentations should have been disallowed) stretched into 2 days.

B/M did not anticipate the public backlash that immediately followed after the AK/RS murder case was thrown out.  Perhaps they are also ‘‘tone-deaf’‘.

However, as the public immediately began demanding answers, B/M realize that they have essentially redone a ‘‘Hellmann’‘, and that their careers are at stake.  As everyone here knows, Hellmann tossed the case in 2011, and his convoluted ‘‘report’’ was wiped out by Cassation 1st Chambers in 2013

But B/M are determined not to go down Hellmann’s path, despite replicating his actions.  So the next 5 1/2 months become a tortured search to look for some justifications for their annulling the case.  They surely realize that (1) simply confirming Nencini’s ruling would have been safest, and (2) a less career-suicidal path would have been to send it back down.

Hence we get this report (translated by Catnip, Machiavelli, and others).  It seems to be a combination of Hellmann, which used tortured logic to acquit, and Nencini, who found no option but to uphold.  The problem is that you can’t ‘‘fuse’’ together or ‘‘merge’’ them.  You can’t make a legitimate verdict by ‘‘Frankenstein-ing’’ contradictory lower court verdicts.

And now the new standard for screwy has been set.  We used to score things on the ‘‘Hellmann Scale’‘.  Hellmann now scores a 6 on the ‘‘Bruno Scale’‘

Thanks again guys.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/13/15 at 11:35 PM | #

I started reading this and found it telling that in the first line of the second paragraph of the 4.3.1 translation, the learned idiots put the word “fact” in inverted commas. It feels as if they are being sarcastic as if they felt the original verdict regarding Geude’s involvement with others wasn’t a fact at all. But then they do go on to explain, quite reasonably, why the notion of Geude’s lone involvement is a non starter. They don’t repeat the trick of putting “fact” in inverted commas in the subsequent paragraphs, seemingly having decided it no longer warrants it. Were they drunk when they wrote this?

I must confess that I stopped reading this after several paragraphs anyway so incensed was I becoming at having to read and then re read each sentence/paragraph repeatedly to try and discern it’s real meaning and how it related to the immediately preceding sentences/paragraphs. It becomes especially excruciating after the initial paragraphs confirming Guede didn’t act alone. Maybe it’s the lateness of the hour but I suspect even with a clearer head, this report could induce a migraine in the unwary.

As Chimera noted, this bugger’s muddle of a report is laced with contradictions on both factual matters and wherever some subjectivity is necessary. It tries to be all things to all men and ends up being nothing that could be described as being remotely satisfactory for either side. It must be truly unique in such a high profile case to have such a low rent justification for the totally unjustifiable.

It is simply mind boggling that supposedly intelligent human beings could put their name to it.

Posted by davidmulhern on 10/14/15 at 02:22 AM | #

I did indeed have a migraine when this appeared. Migraines lessen my ability to be verbal, and my thoughts appear visually, and spatially, with synesthesia.
In other words like a film with no soundtrack!
This evoked a horror movie.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 10/14/15 at 09:02 PM | #

Best evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele is that they try /tried so hard to disregard what coronary said, that the murder and the wounds were committed by at least two or more different knives, and that there were more than one attacker. Since they deny this scientific evidence harder than an innocent person/true friend of Meredith ever would (since they would have nothing to do with the crime) it just proves that they know that there were no other attackers than themselves (Amanda, Raffaele) and Rudy.
Completely innocent person would say or defend themselves only with saying: I believe what police says about many attackers, but I was not one of them. And that those other attackers still are not found, and we must find them!
Since they try to disregard these findings about two knives, it just makes you think that they cannot be honest and innocent. If you want to honestly help police and help solve this murder, you would accept wholeheartedly everything that is proven by science and investigators about it.
That proves they are actually actively working against police and trying sabotage the investigation.

Posted by Poppins on 10/15/15 at 05:10 PM | #

Yes, more windbaggery from the judges in a pathetic and disingenuous attempt to square the circle.

I think Liz Houle has it about right in her article, except when she says “there were other Friends of Amanda who helped to push Amanda Knox’s alleged innocence in American media. So much so that Italy became weary of the bad publicity and gave in to their tyranny”.  I doubt that “Italy became weary” (anyway how does a country become weary in a way that directly influences Supreme Court judges, are the latter constantly seeking the views of focus groups?); much more likely that weird handshakes were exchanged and Euros gifted among the funny hats to ensure the outcome.

I don’t think Americans should beat themselves up too much over the acquittal, though some might feel less than proud ( like some of us in the U.K.) over the way the corrupt media simply rolled over throughout the case and waited to be tickled by PR from the defendants.

The strong focus now has surely got to be on the <u>illegality</u> of the acquittal. No right-minded person in Italy would weary of that.

Posted by Odysseus on 10/15/15 at 05:32 PM | #


Spot on. That should be always be borne in mind - the two of them have never, for one moment, behaved as the truly innocent would.

Posted by Odysseus on 10/15/15 at 05:43 PM | #

Poppins, spot on.  Whilst all the other foreign students were getting the heck outta there - or relocating to Rome - AK blithely stayed.  So no fear of a “killer on the run” there.

Neither AK nor RS bothered to get a lawyer, as though they were bending over to appear as though, “I have nothing to hide”.

As you say, at no time have either of them, or their supporters, shown any curiosity at all as to the anomalies in the knife wounds nor who the other parties could be.  They cling desperately to a Herculean fantasy of a super athletic RG, who then comes back to move and undress the body, before locking the room up.

Books have been written about “the lone wolf” killer, when logic says, let’s run with it, as the pathologists and courts believe so. Methinks they doth protest too much.  The FOAkers expend huge amounts of time, effort and bandwidth into constructing imaginary scenarios wherein “Rudy does it all by himself”.  Why?

What’s it to them if there is more than one killer?

As for the Bruno-Marasca report, they’ve completely lost me.  I have read very intricately argued complex judgments in my time, and they are NOT written in a style that’s incomprehensible.  On the contrary, a good legal argument should have one nodding your head in agreement and admiring the elegance and eloquence of it.

Bruno-Marasca is a turgid fudge of obfuscation, about as clear as mud.  I remain at a loss to understand their argument.

Posted by Slow Jane on 10/15/15 at 06:30 PM | #

@Slow Jane: Obfuscation is the point.  They are trying not to make a clear argument, as it would make it easier to challenge.  Kind of reminds me of the stuff Knox used to (and still does) write.

Re-writing a Hellmann report would stink of corruption, and probably cost them their careers as well.  So B/M quote other courts to make it seem more authentic.  That is about the simplest explanation.

*** Repeating the Hellmann decision while quoting Nencini and Massei ***

Enough said.

Posted by Chimera on 10/15/15 at 09:27 PM | #

Just to keep everyone in the loop I had a visitation from some friends of mine (the local cops in other words) who informed me that there had been an official squeak from Seattle telling me to “Lay Off Or Else”

Most gratifying because it underscored just how desperate these morons are. The point is simple, if Obnoxious wanted to stop me posting reminders on her blog that she is guilty and that eventually justice will be served all she had to do was block my posting. Anyway it was interesting to see just how far I could push the envelope before I got a reaction as though I give two hoots regarding their childish threats.

So far so good. You see the people who Knox surrounds herself with obviously go around with their fingers in their ears singing to themselves so they won’t admit the truth that has stared them in the face from day one. That of course is the undeniable guilt of these two.

But then it’s understandable since these carpetbaggers have their own little lives to protect. Just consider how many web off-shoots Obnoxious has created and how many livelihoods there has been, plus the need to keep the ball rolling so that their funds (either federal or State or people with the same intelligence as their shoe size.) will not dry up.

These people could care less about Knox anyway since she has just become a means of making money. I see that sometime in the future that all this will resurrect itself so that more cash can be generated.

The best part is that Sollecito and Guede are the weak links in this. Particularly Sollecito. That whining little twerp is going to blow the entire thing up one of these days. Knox must be quietly terrified. Which brings me back to my visitation from the law, usually a social visit since we had a beer at the local barbecue last week hosted by our local politicians. The main and only point though is if I never post again on her silly little blog it makes no difference since she knows where I am and she knows damn well what the future holds for her.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 10/16/15 at 03:20 AM | #

Keep on keeping on Grahame.

The fact that Knox is clearly still incensed that you keep calling her out must give you as much enjoyment as it does her angst. Marvellous. More power to your elbow my friend.

Posted by davidmulhern on 10/16/15 at 06:05 AM | #

@Slow Jane

Neither AK nor RS bothered to get a lawyer, as though they were bending over to appear as though, “I have nothing to hide”.

As you say, at no time have either of them, or their supporters, shown any curiosity at all as to the anomalies in the knife wounds nor who the other parties could be.  They cling desperately to a Herculean fantasy of a super athletic RG, who then comes back to move and undress the body, before locking the room up.

This, in my opinion, is called the circumstantial evidence and is the strongest and most direct evidence. And, circumstantial evidence is never contaminated.

But then, who cares? He who has the gold, makes the rule (the golden rule).

Posted by chami on 10/16/15 at 06:44 AM | #

Poppins, absolutely. I’m reminded of the TV programme, Columbo, where the culprits attempt to persuade Columbo into believing their staged crime.

Posted by DavidB on 10/16/15 at 10:56 AM | #

Graham, it’s sinking in with her that far from being exonerated and declared innocent in the true sense of the word, a cloud of suspicion of probable guilt hangs over her head in the eyes of the public.

She’s finding out being freed from prison is not the most important point, it’s the moral principles.  Light dawns there is nothing she can do to undo her guilt.

Her supporters can pretend it’s the “guilters” and “haters” to blame for this situation, but at the end of the day they have to accept it.  She did it.  As Misty says, “You did it”.

Posted by Slow Jane on 10/16/15 at 02:16 PM | #

It’s true. If you examine the names of people who write on her blog you will see that it’s always the same bunch. Point being that after Ground Report was grounded what do you think happened to the few (Paid for) bloggers who wrote extolling innocence?

(By the way according to CNN the current rate is something like $5.00 a day, or less, to write blogs either for or against depending on the subject)

Of course they call us “haters” and “guilters” in that they are right because we hate people who not only get away with it but the fact that they denigrate the victim and their family.

As to my friends the local cops. When I pointed out to them that they had been conned
(a-la the ability to block me is but a finger stroke away) we had a good laugh about it. You see not only were they conned into taking some esoteric action but the Seattle cops were conned also. All of this will one day come to bite Obnoxious and her sick cult buddies on the ass.

One thing these people cannot take is being laughed at and I for one will give a very loud belly laugh and toast the memory of Meredith because as sure as the sun will rise somewhere on the planet tomorrow justice is coming to Knox and Sollecito and they will pay dearly.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 10/16/15 at 07:07 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry TJMK/Wiki Translation Of The Marasca/Bruno Report #3 Of 7: Dismissal Of Appeal Claims, Nencini Scope

Or to previous entry The Third Book In Our Series On The Case “Under Suspicion” Has Been Released