Originally Posted by Stacyhs
(Barring the fact that it was actually the Chieffi SC ruling on Knox's criminal slander that placed her at the cottage at the time of the murder... and not Guede's SC confirmation....)
Exactly. What pro-guilt commentators (and, it would astonishingly seem, Maresca and Mignini) cannot or will not understand is that had the Marasca SC panel stated unequivocally that Knox was nowhere near the cottage at the time of the murder, this would have set up a judicial conflict between two different SC panels - a conflict which necessarily would have required a remedy, very possibly involving some sort of retrial.
Rather, the Marasca SC panel clearly and pointedly (through its choice of wording) decided to play the "realpolitik" game: it clearly decided that it simply wasn't worth butting up against the previous SC final verdict and opening up a messy, time-consuming judicial can of worms in Italy. Because, as it correctly says, even if
one accepts that Knox was there, there's still no evidence to convict her (or Sollecito, of course) of murder. And since it was purely the murder (and murder-related) crimes of Knox and Sollecito that the Marasca SC panel was responsible for considering, that was all that was important from a judicial/legal perspective.
It really is very simple, to anyone with any intelligence, foresight, understanding of the case, and understanding of Italian criminal justice. I can forgive (some of) the pro-guilt commentators their ignorance or low intellects, but it's impossible to believe that Marasca or Mignini don't understand the situation perfectly well. And that makes their comments nothing more or less than mendacious, mischievious attempts to mislead. Disgusting (but one expects nothing less from that pair, I suppose....)