Great beauty set to acquit  Suprema Corte di Cassazione, Rome
Great beauty set to acquit
Suprema Corte di Cassazione, Rome


So, we got to a retrial, to bother some more the two unfortunate students. What can you do? You need a lot of patience when troubles happen. The good news is that it was for legal reasons, not for a big conspiracy of Italian judges against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.


2.1 The Case in Which a Guilty Verdict Would Have Been “Comprehensible”

Once the retrial started, we were prepared to witness a guilty verdict, and a subsequent confirmation by the Supreme Court, in case a biological substance belonging to Kercher would have been found in the re-testing of the trace “I” on the knife.

It would have been an injustice, but comprehensible, since judges can’t have the scientific knowledge of the complex DNA phenomena. We have learned the way they reason, and we know that they would have considered Kercher’s DNA on the blade as they usually consider a fingerprint. That’s why, in their view, Kercher’s DNA on the blade would have been an insuperable proof, just as it looked to all of us for a while, when it was announced, two weeks after the arrest of Knox and Sollecito. It would have been just that proof the S.C. ordered a retrial to search for, and no defense argument could have saved Knox and Sollecito.

2.2 The Actual Case

It happened, instead, that the search for Kercher’s DNA on the knife was negative. So, the reason for which the S.C. had legitimately ordered a new trial found an answer: the proof wasn’t found, the indications of guilt couldn’t be united in story that made sense, and Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito should have been acquitted.

But the Florence court convicted them anyway.

The trial didn’t appear to have been conducted with serenity, with defense lawyers stopped and frustrated all the time, yelled at, and with their arguments getting ignored. While debating once about Stefanoni’s test, the judge mentioned the value of Italian science, which “can’t be taught anything by the science of other countries.”

It looked, then, that that old Stefanoni test was representative of all science in Italy, or even of Italy itself, and had to be defended.

In case there was any doubt about his intentions, he once stopped the trial to dictate word by word to the stenographer a request of restricting measures proposed by the prosecutor for Sollecito. He looked, in sum, to have already decided, and for the worst.

It looked like patriotism played a role, and the insults, implicit and explicit –that were coming from overseas to the Italian “science,” or judicial system, or to Italy as a whole– had to be avenged.

Still, observers didn’t believe the judge would have convicted, since there wasn’t proof. Instead, he did it. Approached by incredulous journalists right after the verdict, he revealed that he needed to convince the jury, who had doubts (therefore, by law, they should have acquitted).

In other words, he convicted Knox and Sollecito even if the proof wasn’t formed, and showing then, with the report, to have not even bothered to study the case (which makes sense, if he had already decided). He thinks, for instance, that on the blade of the knife was found, originally, “the mixed DNA of Meredith Kercher and Raffaele Sollecito,” when even the most distracted reader of the case knows that there was, according to that contested test, only the DNA of Meredith Kercher.


Luckily, though, we are in Italy, where the system predicts that a judge can do something wrong. Despite the appearances, the system already worked quite well, since the error of the first instance judge was amended in second degree, and Knox and Sollecito were freed. The error is now much more evident than at the time of the first appeal, and defense lawyers shouldn’t have any problem in showing it to the five-judge panel of the S.C. It’s for those things that the S.C. exists, to fix inconsistencies.

Since S.C. judges gave proof of not belonging in a huge conspiracy aimed to convict two students, lawyers just need to understand the way they reason, and ask them to exercise their supreme function: amend judicial mistakes.

By Consequence Knox and Sollecito will be Acquitted

According to the way the S.C. judges reason, Knox and Sollecito should have been convicted if Kercher’s DNA were found in the re-testing of the knife, because that would have been The Proof, and would have allowed the putting together of all indications of guilt in a story that made sense.

But Kercher’s DNA was not found, therefore their conviction in the retrial was, according to the way S.C. judges reason, a judicial mistake.

Had the report been something rigorous and accurate it would have been kind of difficult for lawyers to require an annulment. With this report, instead, and with the judge already reprimanded by CSM, it couldn’t be easier.

Only the last phase will be at the stake in Rome. Lawyers just need –avoiding, this time, “psychologism”, fears and divisions– to simply explain why the “unification” project, that was legitimately proposed by the S.C., has legitimately failed; and why the Florence verdict was wrong, arbitrary and inconsistent. And Knox and Sollecito will be acquitted.

By Frank Sfarzo


  • Niteangel

    Very interesting (both articles). Thank you!

    • wcnauthor

      It’s one article…

  • euroneighbour

    Thanks for your input, like always very much appreciated. But the more I get explained the less I comprehend.
    For example Hellmann “made an inconsistent ruling” regarding calumny, but just “that inconsistency remained unexplained” NOT for them, because Capriglio affirmed exactly this conviction and did not send it back for review (and we know for what: It’s partly instrumental for the murder conviction). Or was this a (unintentional) stunt to open a faster occasion for a complaint in Strasbourg, where for the first time after Hellmann/Zanetti some adults read Massei and Capriglio.

    • wcnauthor

      Wait a second, Hellmann didn’t make an inconsistent ruling regarding calumny. Hellman made an inconsistent ruling. Meaning that either you acquit her for murder and calumny, or you convict her for murder and calumny. Acquitting for murder and convicting for calumny gave the occasion to the accusers to say that the ruling was inconsistent. The SC could have fixed everything by canceling the calumny conviction, but… when they have to acquit people they find all sort of excuses for not to…. There was the trace I untested, there was the ruling about Guede… So they chose to cancel, instead, the acquittal for murder, and order a new trial….

      • euroneighbour

        Ahh, I see! Thanks for your reply. “…when they have to acquit people they find all sort of excuses for not to…” – apparently one core of the problems. We may hope the next judges will not (or maybe cannot?) follow this mindset? And how will they handle the calumny conviction in the hindsight to reach their desired consistency?

        • wcnauthor

          Unfortunately the human mind is set on presumption of guilt, not on presumption of innocence, and judges don’t make exceptions. But to convict you need a proof, not a conjecture. The DNA on the blade + the conviction for calumny and all other circumstantial evidence, would have formed, IN THEIR OPINION, a proof.
          But the DNA was NOT FOUND, and the sole calumny conviction + the other stuff is not enough to form a proof (and it’s even sub judice at the ECHR).
          This article wants to be optimism. I don’t think there’s corruption everywhere, there’s also error and mind set. BUT, if we understand that there’s no proof the SC judges will understand it much better this time. At least, if lawyers talk clearly…

  • Noel Dalberth

    Based on the number of violations in this motivation not to mention in the entire handling of this case one would hope that the SC quashes the latest verdict. If not, Italy can face the ECHR which I would assume they hope to avoid. Amanda & Raffaele’s innocence is as clear today as it was day one.
    They didnt commit this murder nor participate. This is a disgrace to Meredith’s memory & justice for her.

    • wcnauthor

      In short they’ve been very precise in overturning the acquittal, they went to pick those minor legal reasons. Now to overturn this one there are some huge legal reasons, so…

  • jrpppp

    Really interesting perspective. It would explain a lot. It’s hard not to look on at this case from afar, and not see the agonizing hardship that wrongful accusation and wrongful conviction has had on these two innocent people. I do believe Amanda and Rafaele were treated extraordinarily harshly in this case, having been held in prison for 4 years, prior to acquittal. And the stress of re-conviction is no small burden; rather it must surely be devastating. Perhaps we do owe the Italian Supreme Court our patience and respect, and hope they will finally recognize the innocence of these two blameless defendants. Italian police apprehended the sole true culprit in this crime in less than 2 weeks, and in that regard they were the model of efficiency in any country.

    • wcnauthor

      Now it’s just a technical matter…

    • Corrado Massa

      Perhaps we do owe the ISC our patience and respect ???? Please jrpppp don’t jest.

      • Huaimek

        After all the events so far , I don’t think the ISC is worthy of anybody’s patience or respect !!! The whole Italian Justice System is outdated and deliberately incompetent , add to that internal corruption as exercised to great lengths in this case . Italy needs to throw out the present system and find a new one . The supreme court should be answerable to a superior deparment of justice that is independent f the supreme court . The British crown prosecution service is an example . Neither judges nor prosecutors should have the power to initiate a prosecution . In the British system charges are made by police , in a serious case it’s passed to the crown prosecution service for indepenent evaluation as to whether it should go to trial .
        Lawyers/Baristers serve as both defence or prosecution and are not part of the judiciary . Judges are invited from among Baristers with a longstanding and honorable career in adverserial law . Judges should impartially judge , not involve themselves in any other way with the court proceedings .

    • Huaimek

      With due respect to you , I would say that by Guede being arrested on a train in Germany without a ticket , he was handed to the Perugia police on a plate .
      All they had to do was to put 2 and 2 together , to know they’d got their man .
      Had Perugia police been models efficiency , Guede would not have still been out on the street further breaking into other people’s property and Meredith would still have been alive . Does one have to grovel before the Italian judiciary and police , lest they extend their evil actions against Knox and Sollecito ?

  • Bully Disrespecter

    Great and informative articles. I believe and have faith that you’re right, meaning that these recent bogus surveillance photographs won’t enter into the Supreme Court Justices’ decision. They were discounted as evidence by both the defense and prosecutors before the first trial. Now, Amanda haters are taking it upon themselves to declare it so significant now. Pathetic.

    • wcnauthor

      That was a very bad taste to show that video, knowing that she wasn’t Amanda, just to raise suspicions on Amanda.
      It was published by anti-Amanda Knox and pro-Raffaele Sollecito reporter Remo Croci in the show Quarto Grado. Because that’s how it is now, there are even journalists who took not one side, but half a side….

      Previously it was proposed to me, but I preferred not to publish it. Not that I thought it could have an influence on the trial. Just not to trigger the crowds uninformed about the case, who would have said that the woman of the video was Amanda…

      • Bully Disrespecter

        That does reassure me. Thank you. I am shocked that it was put out by a pro – Raffaele reporter. But I’m glad it most likely won’t have an impact on the ISP decision.

        • wcnauthor

          pro Raffaele doesn’t necessary mean pro-Amanda

      • Huaimek

        Even at a brief glance it wasn’t Amanda !

  • mryan1956

    The two should never have been brought to trial; but they were to protect the Perugian keystones. They never should have been convicted for lack of evidence. The Calumma charge should never have been allowed to stand. The ISC’s reversal shouldn’t have resulted in a conviction. The ISC won’t uphold the conviction because there is no evidence. The only winners here are the attorneys.

  • Erik Forsgren

    Thank you Frank Sfarzo you give us hope. Hope that we live in a civilised world after all where shameful injustice can be corrected.

    • wcnauthor

      Bongiorno said that, and I agree. Optimism!

  • Karen

    I’m praying that the CC will see that Raffaele and Amanda are the truly innocent parties in this drama.

  • angriestdogintheworld

    Didn’t Nencini also cite the Knox’s statement implicating Lumumba? Given that that statement was not allowed as evidence, doesn’t that disqualify Nencini’s ruling?

  • Huaimek

    If Knox and Sollecito are aquitted , they should be entitled to huge compensation for wrongful conviction and wrongful imprisonment . Over so many years they have run up huge sums in legal fees and other expenses . Both their families have been devastated .
    I believe in Britain , the primary accusations probably wouldn’t have happened . It would have been thrown out by the crown prosecution service . Italy has a malfunctioning legal system , designed to only benefit the legal profession .

    • Rosa

      Good point Huaimek….why was no lawsuit filed for wrongful conviction from either of the wrongfully convicted??

  • Rosa

    I’m going to sound like a broken record but this is for those who have not read my previous thoughts. AMANDA KNOX CONVICTED HERSELF IN HER EMAIL TO HER FAMILY AND FRIENDS. She also tells you she was there by blaming an innocent black man of the crime and dna of a black man was found. The innocent black man just happened to be her boss, who had reduced her duties as a waitress/bartender to handing out flyers, who should have fired her but was too kind. I supposed it’s possible that the corrupt Italian police took Amanda’s lamp into Meredith’s room to frame her.

    • Julie Legler Jorgensen

      Give it up Rosa. Not only are you a broken record but your record is warped and scratched and good for nothing but the trash. You see only what you want to see and your vision and ideas are faulty and just plain false.

  • Antonio Curatolo

    When will you be thrown back into prison Frank?

  • Antonio Curatolo

    Heads-up. Next dates for Knox’s second calunnia trial, for malicious court claims against justice officials (repeated in her book, see series below, also in email to Judge Nencini and media interviews) are 3rd, 5th and 7th of next month, with first session less than two weeks away. Knox seems wrongly advised (or ignoring advice): in fact, as this is her second calunnia case she could face six years inside, and statute of limitations wont apply for 5-plus years. Note Knox’s own lawyers distanced themselves from her various claims, until they okayed the Knox book, neither of which sets her up well.