Hoax: To Modena’s La Pressa Innocence Project - Knox NOT An “Exoneree”
1. Knox Definitely Not Exonerated By Cassazione
Knox again and again claims “exoneration” and blames the media for getting it wrong.
But few in the US and UK realise the final written Supreme Court judgment left a huge black cloud over her head.
Duped organizer Professor Luparia claims to reporters to have read the entire report - and that Knox came out fine.
Untrue. In fact, Luparia lies. Knox rightly served three years. And even Cassazione’s Fifth Chambers managed to get in many digs against Knox.
Commendably Modena’s paper “La Pressa” has today tried to at least set some Italians right.
We have translated in full their excellent report.
La Pressa, Modena
Knox returns as ‘heroine’ to Italy
But here’s what the Marasca/Bruno motivation report says
Date: 12 June 2019 - 22:38 / Category: La Nera
Author: Editorial La Pressa
This is the first time Amanda Knox returns to Italy after acquittal of murder for lack of evidence.
We are reporting here very controversial but not widely known passages of the 2015 Cassazione sentence
Tomorrow the long-awaited Criminal Justice Festival begins in Modena. A festival promoted by the Criminal Chamber of Modena together with the Italy Innocence Project and which has had national and international importance for the Saturday presence of Amanda Knox who will address the topic of the ‘Media And Criminal Trials’ together with the lawyer Guido Sola, Raffaella Calandra, Andrea Mascherin, Vinicio Nardo and Martina Cogossi.
This is the first time after 8 years that Amanda Knox returns to Italy after being acquitted in 2015 for the murder of Meredith Kercher with the sentence of the Fifth Criminal Chambers of Cassation signed by the Court president Gennaro Marasca and by the rapporteur Paolo Antonio Bruno. With that declaration the sentences of Raffaele Sollecito and Knox were canceled without referral [back down to Florence, the correct legal path], absolving them for not having committed the crime due to a lack of certain evidence and the presence of numerous errors in the investigations.
As an acquittal sentence that closed the case, so, on the eve of Knox’s return to Italy, we wanted to reread in its entirety and it deserves to be included in the conversation, however controversial the 52 pages of motivation are. Here are seven passages that we want to reproduce in full with the original pages of the sentence, perhaps never published in its entirety before.
1. It is an established fact, in the [2010] trial motivation report, that Knox was in Meredith’s home at the time of the murder.
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,
2. Knox was present, because she was aware of details of the murder that the police did not yet know, and she was also aware of the non-presence of Lumumba.
[continues] 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).
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…
3. In the [2010] trial motivation it is ‘incontrovertible’ that other people participated in the murder besides Guede (we recollect the condemned man with the abbreviated trial route). And this derives not only from the final judgment on Guede but from ‘other evidence that confirms its reliability’.
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…
The motivation certifies that the alleged burglary in the home is in fact a “staging”. It should therefore be noted that these are judicial truths present in the motivations of the final sentence of acquittal: that is, the fact that Knox was certainly present and that Meredith was physically killed by other people besides Guede.
4. The sentence certifies that Knox has washed her hands of the victim’s blood, which is called an “eloquent proof”; for this reason the Court envisages only two possibilities: either Knox was directly involved in the homicidal action, or the contact with the blood occurred at a later time in the ‘probable attempt to remove the traces’ in order to ‘cover someone’ and “Remove suspicion from oneself”. The Fifth Section says this.
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.
5. The motivation certifies that Knox washed her hands of the victim’s blood, which is called an “eloquent proof”; for this reason the Court envisages only two possibilities: either Knox was directly involved in the homicidal action, or the contact with the blood occurred at a later time in the ‘probable attempt to remove the traces’ in order to ‘cover someone’ and “remove suspicion from oneself”. The Fifth Section says this.
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). 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.
6. During the interrogation [it wasnt but however] of 6 November 2007 to Knox, who did not speak Italian well, an interpreter or lawyer was not made present. This is why in January of this year the Court of Strasbourg (ECHR) condemned Italy to compensate her. [Italy has appealed.] Well, stated in the 2015 motivation report is that a possible ruling in favor of Knox by the European Court could not ‘in any way tarnish’ Knox’s conviction of guilt for criminal slander for her false accusations against Lumumba.
And also, a possible decision of the European Court in favor of Ms. Knox, in the sense of a desired recognition of non-orthodox treatment of her by investigators, could not in any way affect the final verdict, not even in the event of a possible review of the verdict, considering the slanderous accusations that the accused produced against Lumumba consequent to the asserted coercions, and confirmed by her before the Public Prosecutor during the subsequent session, in a context which, institutionally, is immune from anomalous psychological pressures; and also confirmed in her memoriale, at a moment when the same accuser was alone with herself and her conscience in conditions of objective peacefulness, sheltered from environmental influence; and were even restated, after some time, during the validation of the arrest of Lumumba, before the investigating judge in charge.
7. The motivation report defines as ‘simply not credible’ the idea that Sollecito was not also present. As mentioned, the presence of Knox is quite 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.
It remains anyway strong the 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.
Duped Organizer and Modena lawyer Guido Sola
2. How Were Lupária, Sola, And Cagossi Duped?
In addition to obviously not reading the final ruling, consider these many red flags they ignored.
1. Knox’s disastrous 2009 stint on the stand
Click for Post: Italy Shrugs: Why Amanda Knox’s Testimony Seems To Have Been A Real Flop
She had repeatedly failed opportunties made available to free her in the 20 months before that.
2. Knox is a felon for life
Knox emerged from court in 2009 with a criminal-libel prison sentence that eventually amounted to three years.
NOT ONE COURT ever believed she was forced to finger Patrick - and by the way, she did NOT confess, she blamed another, so the ECHR was wrong (and Italy is appealing Knox’s award) it was not a “must” she have a lawyer.
3. Massive evidence ignored
The real case against Knox was enormous as the dummies should have found out. Watch this.
Click for Post: Why The Totality of Evidence Suggests Knox And Sollecito Are Guilty Just As Charged
4. Knox serially defames Italy
There’s probably nobody alive in the whole world who has done Italy’s image more harm. She works at it full-time.
Thus American tourism has dropped and American exchange students have dropped more. Addicted to stalking and blood-money, Knox has worked to make everybody scared. Encouraging her act comes at a real cost.
Google “amanda knox” and “kangaroo court” and see what shows up. Try “amanda knox” and anything “medieval” or “third world” and you will get some hits.
Click for Post: Amanda Knox Case Prompts U.S. Students To Shy Away From Italian Study Abroad Programs
5. Other lawlessness by US students
There’s much evidence they could have found that Americans, not Italians, were at fault.
In fact American universities took a wave of actions in light of this case - to protect themselves from lawsuits and make their exchange students behave.
Click for Post: In Perugia Why Some Students Tend To Run Wild
Click for Post: Report Students Studying Abroad on Average Double Or Triple Their Alcoholic Intake
Click for Post: Could One Good Outcome Of This Sad Case Be That Italy Sees Less Foreign Student Druggies?
Click for Post: An Excellent Report By Andrea Vogt On The University Of Washington Reforms
Posted by Machiavelli on 06/13/19 at 03:37 PM in