Wrongful Conviction News an Injustice anywhere website
RULING BASED ON THE STATEMENTS OF CURATOLO AND OF RUDY GUEDE!!!!
THE BLADE BECOMES “31 CENTIMETERS LONG”!!!
ON IT NOW: “THE DNA OF MEREDITH KERCHER AND RAFFAELE SOLLECITO”!!!!!!
Kercher killed for “personal reasons of instantaneous type”!!
BONGIORNO: “AT LEAST TEN ERRORS PER PAGE.THIS RULING WILL BE CERTAINLY ANNULLED IN ROME”
Florence, 29 April 2014
“Thinks this court that an alternative explanation of the facts is not possible, and that the complex of the indications of guilt, if critically evaluated, affirms the criminal responsibility of both defendants.”
“None of the indications of guilt was found eccentric” –(they were all wise).
“We verified if by the exam of the body of indirect evidence it is possible to form an evidentiary framework, that affirms the criminal responsibility of the defendants” –(looking for a conjecture?).
“The proof of guilt is formed only if a different explanation is not reasonably conceivable.” And quotes Suprema Corte, 2010: “Conviction is possible only if there is not the minimum clue for a different hypothesis, which would be out of the natural order of things and of normal human rationality” –(so, let’s remember: the hypothesis that Guede committed the crime alone didn’t meet the minimum clue; it is out of the natural order of things and of human rationality).
“The idea that Rudy Guede entered the house before Meredith was there is baseless.”
“Meredith came back home while Amanda Marie Knox was with Raffaele Sollecito at his place, presumably watching with him a movie they had downloaded.”
“Amanda Marie Knox had gone out of Sollecito’s house to go work in Patrick Lumumba’s pub, received Lumumba’s sms to not go to work. Therefore she returned to Raffaele Sollecito’s house” –(since when?).
INTERACTION AT “ABOUT 21:20”!
“The last certain datum for the presence of the defendants in Sollecito’s apartment is an interaction on the computer, at about 21:20 (and not “exactly at 21:26,” as ascertained).
“The witness Curatolo put them in Piazza Grimana from 21:30-22:00 to 23:00-23:30” –(not “at 9:28-9:27 up to almost midnight”, as he said?)– “and this jury believes it reliable.”
“The cottage can be observed from Piazza Grimana” –(the cottage, or the gate of the cottage?)– “and Curatolo saw Sollecito looking toward the cottage several times” (and how to doubt Curatolo?).
“A first datum the trial acquired is that both defendants, at 21:30-22:00, were around the cottage.”
“We know with certainty that right after the murder in the cottage there were three persons, two men and one woman.” “We deduce that from the genetic analysis and from the luminol traces.”
“A print on a cotton carpet was attributed by the investigators to Raffaele Sollecito, and this Jury agrees with that.” “One of the footprints revealed by luminol was attributed to Amanda Marie Knox, as well as mixed DNA in the bathroom was attributed to Amanda Marie Knox.”
“Essentially we have reliable, multiple and consistent clues of the presence of Rudi Hermann Guede, Amanda Marie Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the house right after the murder.”
“Unlike what was maintained by him, it emerged that Meredith Kercher didn’t have any appointment with Rudi Hermann Guede.”
“The only two possible hypotheses for Rudi Hermann Guede entering the house are either together with Amanda Marie Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, or because Meredith Kercher opened the door to him (it being excluded that he could have entered through the window). What counts is that both defendants and Rudi Hermann Guede, reasonably between 21:30-22:00, were present inside the cottage.”
“The determination of the motive is not important when there are precise and consistent indications of guilt.” ”The motive can be easily read when the crime is committed with an evident finality (lucre, for instance).” (So, finality is not synonymous with motive…)
“When there are personal reasons of an instantaneous type, though, as it is in this particular case, the individuation of a motive can become extremely complicated” (especially in the particular case, when the defendant is innocent).
“Between Amanda Marie Knox and Meredith Kercher there weren’t good relations. Meredith Kercher was conducting a very regular life made of study, attending to her compatriots and, finally, she also had a relationship with one of the boys living in the basement” –(not also taking care of his plants)– “and wasn’t tolerating the life of Amanda Marie Knox, who was bringing in the house strangers, mainly men; she wasn’t tolerating that Amanda Marie Knox wasn’t taking care of the cleaning duties.”
“The fact that the relations weren’t idyllic” –(but Luca Altieri, who was there, had defined them “idyllic,” didn’t you read his testimony?)– “is adequately illuminated by the testimonies of the English girls.”
“Guede said that Meredith Kercher had discovered that money was missing from her room, and had immediately attributed that subtraction to Amanda Marie Knox” (and he believes Rudy Guede!). “And this was compatible only with a negative evaluation of the defendant by the victim.”
IN TURD WE STILL TRUST
“The disappearance of the money and the credit cards could constitute one of the elements that ignited the discussion, besides the fact that Rudi Hermann Guede had actually used one of the toilets at least in a casual way.”
“Amanda Marie Knox let Rudi Hermann Guede enter the apartment and he had poorly polite behavior.” “The two facts could have constituted, as recalled by the General Prosecutor, a valid reason for Meredith Kercher, who didn’t have sympathy for the defendant, to require explanations.”
“It’s therefore reasonable that at one point the discussion ignited and that the reaction of the defendants wasn’t accommodating.”
THE CAMERA IN THE APARTMENT AGAIN
“We know by the statements of the defendants that they had used drugs and they had had sex in via Garibaldi.” “In the cottage they also used drugs and Amanda Marie Knox and Raffaele Sollecito reunited in intimacy” –(insatiable)– “using drugs too, while Meredith Kercher was in her room and Rudi Hermann Guede was using the house as he liked. In this apparently normal situation we have a progression of aggression, within which we can place the sexual assault which concluded, for what concerns Rudi Hermann Guede, in the satisfaction of his own sexual instinct, and for what pertains to Amanda Marie Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, in a will of prevarication and of humiliation of the English girl.”
ON “THE SCRATCHES” OF THE BLADE “THE MIXED DNA OF MEREDITH KERCHER AND RAFFAELE SOLLECITO”!
“As a matter of fact at one point the events took a rush; the English girl was attacked by Amanda Marie Knox, by Raffaele Sollecito, who was supporting his girlfriend, and by Rudi Hermann Guede, and forced within her room, where the final phases of the attack and the stabbing took place.” “The girl was attacked by all three. Rudi Hermann Guede didn’t hold any knife, using his hands to realize the sexual assault and to keep the victim immobilized.” “The girl was hit by two different weapons.” “Thinks the Jury that the weapon that produced the wound in the right side of the neck was held by Raffaele Sollecito. He pulled the bra clasp with the purpose to move it from the back of the girl and allow the introduction of the blade that cut the bra. It was certainly a weapon of small dimensions” –(why?)– “perfectly compatible with the wound on the right side of the neck, and of the kind that the defendant was used to bringing with him” (“seco”, ancient Italian).
“The knife, with a blade about 31 centimeters long” –(no, that’s from another movie! In this movie it’s only 17 cm)– was examined, and in some scratches almost imperceptible to the naked eye” –(very imperceptible since there weren’t any)– “was found the mixed DNA of Meredith Kercher and Raffaele Sollecito” –(you get an F! As every reader knows nobody ever maintained there was DNA from Sollecito on the knife).
IMAGINATION OF THE FATAL BLOW WITH (FURTHER) MISTAKE
“On the knife, then, was found a second trace of DNA, which Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni attributed to Amanda Marie Knox.”
“Besides that, during the return judgment, was ordered the analysis of the trace ‘I’. The Carabinieri of RIS attributed that too to Amanda Marie Knox, essentially without dispute.”
“Both traces attributed to Amanda Marie Knox were on the handle of the knife, in the ending part, next to the blade” (wrong again, the trace “I” was instead on the blade,next to the handle).
“The evaluation of the complex of these elements derivable from the seized knife brings this Jury to think that that is one of the two weapons used for the murder,,and that the same was held by Amanda Marie Knox, who would have then hit Meredith Kercher on the left side of her neck, causing in that way the only mortal wound.”
And so on, fantasizing and mistaking.
Inconceivable that the Suprema Corte di Cassazione doesn’t annul this completely arbitrary, illogical sentence which shows total disinformation about the case. Not even worth it to comment. One only mystery remains: why Amanda is always Amanda Marie Knox, Rudy is always Rudy Hermann Guede and Meredith is never Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher? Justice for Meredith!
Written By Frank Sfarzo
