Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

In fact Peggy knows to ban is to create problems, but she kept refusing my posts with polite messages. I was replying to specific posts by these four people on the board, but being disallowed.
So I sent them emails legitimately. This was declared by Randy Whoever Fly by night as being subterfuge.
It is obviously not subterfuge to be a member of a forum, and to use the portal, that totally protects all information besides their username, to attempt to communicate what is denied by the administrators, in this case Margeret Ganong and Randy Jackson. (not totally certain of the latter). I do know that he interfered with a presentation in Seattle where Raffaele Sollecito was launching his book by broadcasting a huge image of M Kercher behind him. His wife handed out flyers at the function to better educate the suckers that might be hoodwinked by Raffaele.

Early on, when Ganong was asked why she bans some people and not others, she says her criteria is to ban people who interfere with a train of thought, and were boring in the predictability of their posts.

 

[Dan O.]

Translating the highlighted part into English:
If the police beat you in an interrogation, and they don't leave marks or injuries visible to an MD (assuming you are allowed to see one within a few days after the beating), DON'T YOU DARE TELL THE TRUTH THAT YOU WERE BEATEN. YOU WILL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL CHARGE AGAIN YOU. AS WILL YOU LAWYER AND ANYONE WHO REPEATS WHAT YOU SAY IN PUBLIC.

The highlighted part is not strictly true. Amanda's parents talked about what Amanda said while back home in Seattle and they were charged. But the reporter that wrote up the story and the paper that published it were never charged.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's apparent that they use a process where each successive court defers to the prior court. Main problem is that the prosecutor suppresses evidence in the preliminary proceedings, so by the time you get to the real trial, the deck is already stacked against you based on a bogus set of facts. The most obvious example of this is the most recent isc's insistence that there had to be multiple attackers, beacause some other court said so (in some other guy's trial), but it has happened throughout the case.

All of this is totally illegal, of course (Art 6 ECHR guarantees an impartial and independent tribunal).

There is also the phenomenon in Italy of a court being able to have its prosecutor bring a hypothesis, somewhat "consistent with the facts," but otherwise unsupported by evidence.

One of the crimes Knox and Sollecito were convicted of was the act of bringing the kitchen knife to the cottage from Raffaele's apartment. There simply is not one scintilla of proof that this actually happened - Massei said that Knox must have carried the knife "for protection," when not one person ever saw that happen. Nencini said that since the two abodes were so close, there must have been some interchange of kitchen utensils when not one person ever said that that ever happened.

However, either of those two things are within a realm of some remote possibility. So if Nencini is signed off upon on March 2015, that latter explanation becomes a judicial fact.

Judicial facts are more important than truth or evidence, apparently.

 

[Dan O.]

Is there some Italian theory of indeterminacy in that the actuall kitchen drawer of a utensil at rest cannot be known with any accuracy and that the sphere of this uncertainty can encompass multiple villas?

 

[Numbers]

The highlighted part is not strictly true. Amanda's parents talked about what Amanda said while back home in Seattle and they were charged. But the reporter that wrote up the story and the paper that published it were never charged.

And who says that selective prosecutions aren't done in Italy? (The prosecutors are legally obligated to charge ALL crimes. But de facto is not de jure once again.)

 

[Bill Williams]

. If memory serves, Hugo (is he still around?) or somebody did a truly fatuous, attention-seeking PowerPoint to prove the impossibility of chucking the rock from the car park area premised on some bat-**** crazy theory or other the details of which I forget. It was greeted with deafening silence, which occasioned great mirth on my part.

BRMull once spent some time chucking grapefruit at the china cabinet...... and recording the results.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's apparent that they use a process where each successive court defers to the prior court. Main problem is that the prosecutor suppresses evidence in the preliminary proceedings, so by the time you get to the real trial, the deck is already stacked against you based on a bogus set of facts. The most obvious example of this is the most recent isc's insistence that there had to be multiple attackers, beacause some other court said so (in some other guy's trial), but it has happened throughout the case.

All of this is totally illegal, of course (Art 6 ECHR guarantees an impartial and independent tribunal).

Isn't this in essence what all courts do? An appeals court is stuck with "the record" that the lower court generates, unless there is new evidence submitted unavailable to the lower court?

 

[Numbers]

There is also the phenomenon in Italy of a court being able to have its prosecutor bring a hypothesis, somewhat "consistent with the facts," but otherwise unsupported by evidence.

One of the crimes Knox and Sollecito were convicted of was the act of bringing the kitchen knife to the cottage from Raffaele's apartment. There simply is not one scintilla of proof that this actually happened - Massei said that Knox must have carried the knife "for protection," when not one person ever saw that happen. Nencini said that since the two abodes were so close, there must have been some interchange of kitchen utensils when not one person ever said that that ever happened.

However, either of those two things are within a realm of some remote possibility. So if Nencini is signed off upon on March 2015, that latter explanation becomes a judicial fact.

Judicial facts are more important than truth or evidence, apparently.

Actually, Kokomani (sp?) testified to seeing her with Raffaele and Guede outside the cottage waving the (or a big) knife around. He scared her off from harming him by throwing olives at her. This was in the first-level trial (unless it was some preliminary hearing?). Then, when asked to identify Amanda, he testified he could do so easily since she has a big gap between her front teeth. Except Amanda has no such gap.

This is the quality of the perjured testimony that the prosecution brought to the case. The problem is, the prosecution-party judges stick to the script even when the witnesses screw it up. Some judges in Italy are very loyal to these prosecution lies. They don't need no stinkin' evidence to convict.

 

[Bill Williams]

OK, I'm glad to know I got your basic theory right. But you need to work out the details, because rank speculation is hardly convincing if you don't even know exactly what it is you are speculating. The prosecutor's footprint expert says both Amanda and Raffaele made some of the luminol footprints. Did they take turns sliding on the mat, or did they slide together, in tandem?

Or did each of them have their own fabric vehicle, so to speak? (That would be less romantic than a tandem slide, but it might be more efficient.)

Also, did Mignini or any of the other trained monkeys present this mat-sliding theory in court, or is it (as I suspect) a Machiavelli//PMF/TJMK original concept? If it's your idea, maybe someone in your little club of enthusiasts could perform a video simulation of the mat sliding, to show the world how it happened. You could have someone slide up to a shuttered window with a rock and break it from the inside so it bounces the way Massei described in his report. If you presented this demonstration at a forensics conference, it might pick up some media. It would definitely make an unforgettable breakout session for the attendees who chose it. Have you thought about doing that?

What is telling is how this crime continually needs reinvention for a conviction to be maintained. It is something I have noted in three years of being at this - no one believes Judge Massei any more.

For instance, Judge Massei includes not one, but two reports which say that the phantom striation on the kitchen knife (the one supposedly used to contain the Meredith DNA) is not visible. This is the way Stefanoni put it, according to Judge Massei's motivations.....

(Stefanoni) stated that the other knives that were analysed were kept separate. She
reaffirmed that on the blade of knife Exhibit 36 a striation was visible but ‚placing
the exhibit under a source of illumination < like the conventional sort that has a
Reprovit, which is the instrument we use for photography; it was possible to observe
it only by placing it under a strong spotlight and by changing the angle at which the
light hit the blade, it was only in this way that these striations became visible to the
naked eye < photos were attempted but it was too reflective < only white spots of
light came out‛ (page 246).​

Yet, PMF/TMJK can post a picture of that knife and say, "Look - you can see the groove, it is as plain as day."

 

[Numbers]

Isn't this in essence what all courts do? An appeals court is stuck with "the record" that the lower court generates, unless there is new evidence submitted unavailable to the lower court?

The so-called "appeal" courts in Europe are apparently not the same as US (and maybe other common-law) appeal courts. The European (at least Italian) "appeal" courts are really 2nd level trial courts that rehear evidence (can be new evidence, if the judge admits it).

In the US, a defendant in a criminal trial gets a trial; the trial is by jury (unless the defendant opts for a bench trial [judge trial]). If found guilty, the defendant can appeal to the next level court, typically on points of law. The appeal court consists of a judge (rarely 3 judges) who reviews the law and procedure of the original trial; if the defendant can show that there was some credible problem with the evidence, or if there is credible new evidence, the appeal court can order a new jury trial. The appeal court does not retry on evidence. Rarely, the appeal court finds such severe problems in the evidence that it acquits (on the basis of insufficient evidence).

 

[Bill Williams]

The autopsy report showed that a single perpetrator was perfectly possible.

The autopsy indicates exactly the contrary. But the pro-Knoxes fail to apply their reason and don't acknowledge it. Once you deny things, it's easy to come to your desired conclusion.

Yet 8 of the nine experts who testified to Judge Massei in 2009 said that the single attacker theory was perfectly plausible.

They must not have been schooled by Machiavelli in what to say to ensure a guilty verdict.

 

[Machiavelli]

Translating the highlighted part into English:
If the police beat you in an interrogation, and they don't leave marks or injuries visible to an MD (assuming you are allowed to see one within a few days after the beating), DON'T YOU DARE TELL THE TRUTH THAT YOU WERE BEATEN. YOU WILL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL CHARGE AGAIN YOU. AS WILL YOUR LAWYER AND ANYONE WHO REPEATS WHAT YOU SAY IN PUBLIC.

No.
Maybe you are missing a step.
In Italy (as well as in several European countries) there is a legal option, available to everyone, called complaint, which is a declaration you submit to a judicial authority.
You are not expected to "tell the truth" that you were beaten just to newspapers or in public occasions; you are expected to file a formal document about it. And you are expected to do that immediately, you may do that within 3 months but basically if you don't declare that immediately than probably no authority would believe you unless you have further proof.
There is also another mistake in what you say: that is about the lawyer. The lawyer has a privilege but may not just "repeat what you say" in court if what you say entails a calunnia and may not do that in public if it entails a defamation. But on the other hand, the lawyer also has a duty to submit a complaint if his/her client is under custody and makes a claim that the lawyer deems credible, or if the client has some interest for complaining about something or if just wishes an investigation to be set about that.
When you talk about rights, you must take in account that a right is not something that stands in isolation, one specific right such as "right to free speech" is just part of a set of rigths and duties connected between each other. When you consider the specific right to say some things, you need to consider the right to submit complaints as well. You need to consider the spirit of the law pushes for a requirement for an early declaration to authorities, which for instance is what Amanda Knox decided to waive on Nov. 8.. When she was before Matteini she could have declared that she gave a false testimony incriminating Lumumba only because she felt coerced and/or threatned by the police; instead she chose to invoke her right not to answer questions. She even refused to make a spontaneous statement.
Even though the two things are not automatically consequential to each other, also a possible mistreatment by the police could have been investigated. It does not automatically excuse Knox's false testimony, but could have been investigated. The lawyers could have submitted a complaint requesting an investigation if they deemed it useful to their client's interest.
Amanda Knox could also have turned a complaint to the garante dei detenuti (an authority within the prison system which protects the rights of people under custody).

 

[Planigale]

The autopsy report, the lies and story changings of Sollecito, the lies and the calunnia from Knox, the double-DNA kitchen knife, the bra clasp DNA, the luminol prints, the telephone records contrasting with their alibies, the false computer record alibi, physical evidence of staged burglary;

all this exists. It's not made up. So I don't see what's wrong with ruling cautionary measures.
That "the police didn't look for any" is your judgement, in my opinion completely unfounded. The 'break in' appears to me as obviously fake and also the physical evidence of multiple perpetrators is obvious.
That Sollecito is a weak and depending subject was also true; and that Knox was a dangerous subject, well it is something that some the evidence of which may dispute when we looka at it on a physical level, but I consider this a reasonable inference because of her lies and calunnia and because of her clearly manipulative intent (evidence of this in her hand writen note).

What is the physical evidence? What we know is that the prosecution allege the window was broken from the inside. They carried out no forensic analysis of the broken glass to determine the direction of breakage. (Either they were incompetent in failing to do this or they did and are concealing exculpatory evidence - why does this seem to be a continued refrain - confirmatory tests on blood, possible semen, mitochondrial analysis of hair, fibre analysis etc. not carried out or concealed).

There was an empirical study of glass distribution from breaking identical windows with similar rocks, this shows that the distribution of glass matched with that found with throwing a rock from outside in but not from throwing the rock from the inside. This falsifies the prosecution hypothesis. So the staged break in was disproved. The prosecution presented no expert witness to contradict these findings. In modern scientific detection if expert opinion as the result of a scientific experiment disproves the prosecution hypothesis and there is no contradictory expert opinion this should be accepted by the court. But not here. Where is the contradictory evidence from the prosecution? Remember it is the prosecution who should prove BARD that the break in was staged. They need to do this because it was a separate charge. It is not for the defence to disprove. (Although I do remember that Mach said that when the defence wanted to introduce evidence contradicting prosecution opinion the burden of proof was very high - obviously higher than the burden of proof that the prosecution is expected to meet to support an opinon. In general from this case Mach appears right - the level of evidence to prove innocence expected of the defence seems greater than that of the prosecution to prove guilt.)

Interestingly the first use of DNA in crime detection was a somewhat similar case a man had been convicted of a rape murder, principally because of a confession. The police wanted to tie him to a second murder so they approached geneticists who were doing paternity testing to see if they could help tie a semen sample from the second murder to the convicted man. The results came back that semen samples from neither crime were those of the convicted man. The police informed the defence and reopened the murder inquiry. It was a false confession, the true murderer was subsequently convicted. It would have been easy for the police to have ignored this new methodology.

 

[Kauffer]

Italian deception

There is also the phenomenon in Italy of a court being able to have its prosecutor bring a hypothesis, somewhat "consistent with the facts," but otherwise unsupported by evidence.

One of the crimes Knox and Sollecito were convicted of was the act of bringing the kitchen knife to the cottage from Raffaele's apartment. There simply is not one scintilla of proof that this actually happened - Massei said that Knox must have carried the knife "for protection," when not one person ever saw that happen. Nencini said that since the two abodes were so close, there must have been some interchange of kitchen utensils when not one person ever said that that ever happened.

However, either of those two things are within a realm of some remote possibility. So if Nencini is signed off upon on March 2015, that latter explanation becomes a judicial fact.

Judicial facts are more important than truth or evidence, apparently.

This is the big conceit and it has a fancy philosophical name. The knife, they argue had Ms Kercher's DNA on it; therefore it was the murder weapon and therefore it was brought to her flat. Ms Knox must have brought it there and of course it's got her DNA on it, so that proves she was doing murderous cutting and not bread cutting with it.

More deftly, there is no evidence of Ms Knox in the murder room but there are luminol hits outside, therefore it's blood. The blood must have come from the murder room so now we know that Ms Knox was in the murder room because the blood in the luminol was sort of in the shape of feet.

You can prove just about anything you like really if you do it like this. And the moon really is made of cheese - probably Pecorino.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli yet again runs from in depth discussion and circles back to his wall of lies.

Thank you. You are wasting a line just to insult me.

What about that staged breakin Machiavelli? How exactly do you believe it was so obviously accomplished?

I am still after the thread of the Rudy Guede trousers-washing theory. I'd prefer to develop a one theory at a time, if it's possible.

Under the table where the bag of clothes was knocked over by the rock, there are fragments of broken window glass under the clothes.

You say that (but you can't see from the pictures something if it actually under a cloth, it must be on the edge, stick ou a bit for you to see it. But the rock has bowled on a paper bag that has ripped under its weight, and the ripped part has fallen on top of the scattered clothes.

On the other side of the window where the clothes fell out of the wardrobe, there are fragments of glass under the clothes there too.
What none of the photographs reveal is this glass on top of the clothes suposedly indicative of a staged breakin.

Filomena ROmanelli however testifies of this. But the staged break in does not depend on this. It may be an important element to some judge, but not for me.

We have the glass spray into the room, the rock deflected towards the desk, the damage to the inner shutter, all consistent with an actual breakin with the rocks trajectory comming from the direction of the car park area. How long do you think it took to stage this? When did it occure? You must have these answers if the staging is so obvious to you.

It occurred at some time between approximately midnight and approximately 6am.

Why are Italian crime scene investigators so incompetent that they can't document an obviously staged breakin in a way that shows how it was obviously staged?

It was well documented that it was obviously staged. Your problem is you just don't see it.
You don't consider, for example, the illogical point of entry, or the position of outer shutters, or the untouched drawers, or the fact that cloths hanging in the wardrobe could have no interest to a burglar, just to say some, as evidence that the break in was staged.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is the big conceit and it has a fancy philosophical name. The knife, they argue had Ms Kercher's DNA on it; therefore it was the murder weapon and therefore it was brought to her flat. Ms Knox must have brought it there and of course it's got her DNA on it, so that proves she was doing murderous cutting and not bread cutting with it.

More deftly, there is no evidence of Ms Knox in the murder room but there are luminol hits outside, therefore it's blood. The blood must have come from the murder room so now we know that Ms Knox was in the murder room because the blood in the luminol was sort of in the shape of feet.

You can prove just about anything you like really if you do it like this. And the moon really is made of cheese - probably Pecorino.

Having just reread the part in Massei's motivation report where this whole business is discussed....

It is stunning what they accept as evidence. Massei actually does a good job describing Stefanoni's method, where she said that this sample 36B was virtually stumbled upon, and that she was aware that it was so small to begin with that her collection method was perhaps destroying other equally small samples in the process.

Massei records Stefanoni basically saying that she got incredibly lucky, finding what she found while destroying (by necessity) other potential evidence. That's how shaky all this is.

And that's before factor in the admission that the striation probably isn't there to begin with - it is most certainly not visible to the naked eye, and it cannot be photographed.

And that is before the admission that because of its small size and the destructive test which awaits it, there can only be one test - and Stefanoni chooses to do the "identity" test, instead of the "composition" test. Stefanoni comes up withe 36B belonging to Meredith, but unless it is Meredtih's **blood** then what has it got to do with the crime, rather than contamination?

But then you explained it. Crimes like this have blood associated with it, so it must be blood, because we already know that this knife was used as the weapon!!!!

So far the reasoning goes like this: we know this is the murder weapon, therefore 36B proves that this is the murder weapon.

One other thing that just occurs to me. Part of ISC's March 2013 reversal of the acquittals was because Judge Hellmann (apparently) erred in deferring his judicial role to Vecchiotti, by in essence allowing Vecchiotti to determine whether or not 36I should be tested.

Well, my read of the Massei report, is that Judge Massei in 2009 deferred all sorts of things to Stefanoni - who admits that in the process of getting something off of that phantom striation, she had to potentially destroy other evidence - because the alleged striation was so small and the "samples" she assumed was within were smaller and fragile.

Was **that** not a judicial decision, the decision to potentially destroy evidence, in order to gain **something** from her activity? Why then is not Massei reversed? Why is not Nencini reversible?

 

[Machiavelli]

NONSENSE.
Meredith was on her hands and knees with Rudy straddling her and yanking back her hair in with his left hand as her stabbed her with the short knife repeatedly from the right side. When she protected the right of her throat with her hands her leaned down and stabbed and ripped her on the left, unprotected side, of her throat.
This is consistent with the facts to all but pro-guiltier crowd and most Italian judges.(...)

What you say is pure nonsense instead. Meredith was not on hand and knees when she was stabbed on the right side. Between the first stabbing on the right and the secon stabbing on the left, her body position was changed. And also her location in the room.
He also received 43 bruises over the course of the action, before the final stabbing.
She was not struck repeatedly from the right side, she was struck only once, and it was only a half-force blow; and there was certainly one knife which was not short, as the imprint on the bed sheet shows.
It makes no sense to assume she protected her wound with her nads: victims use their hands to catch the knife and stop the aggressor, they use their hands on the aggressor not on their wounds, they start doing this before they are wounded as well as they go on doing the same after.

 

[Bill Williams]

What you say is pure nonsense instead. Meredith was not on hand and knees when she was stabbed on the right side. Between the first stabbing on the right and the secon stabbing on the left, her body position was changed. And also her location in the room.
He also received 43 bruises over the course of the action, before the final stabbing.
She was not struck repeatedly from the right side, she was struck only once, and it was only a half-force blow; and there was certainly one knife which was not short, as the imprint on the bed sheet shows. It makes no sense to assume she protected her wound with her nads: victims use their hands to catch the knife and stop the aggressor, they use their hands on the aggressor not on their wounds, they start doing this before they are wounded as well as they go on doing the same after.

Nonsense. This was a factoid pulled out by Crini, with no supporting evidence, because he feared he was losing the kitchen knife as evidence. He feared this because of the RIS Carabinieri report on sample 36I.

Crini simply chucked the assertion into the courtroom with no supporting evidence. Even Judge Nencini was too embarrassed to include this in his report.

Now the pro-guilt lobby is fixating on this factoid because, well, they, too, fear losing the Kitchen knife as evidence.

The whole reason for TWO knives to begin with was because Mignini/Comodi back in 2009 were also too embarrassed to equate the kitchen knife with that bedsheet stain. Basically they said, "The stain shows one knife, the kitchen knife is obviously a differing knife from that stain, therefore two knives.

And yes, Machiavelli, I know you will appeal to the autopsy. You will appeal to it, but will offer no substance, nothing from that report other than your assertion that it says what you claim it says.

The lie about the equation of the kitchen knife with that stain-outline on the sheet is different from the rest of the lies in that it is a desperate lie, a lie which was birthed by the RIS Carabinieri report to the Nencini court in 2013.

 

[MDDVS]

What you say is pure nonsense instead. Meredith was not on hand and knees when she was stabbed on the right side. Between the first stabbing on the right and the secon stabbing on the left, her body position was changed. And also her location in the room.
He also received 43 bruises over the course of the action, before the final stabbing.
She was not struck repeatedly from the right side, she was struck only once, and it was only a half-force blow; and there was certainly one knife which was not short, as the imprint on the bed sheet shows.
It makes no sense to assume she protected her wound with her nads: victims use their hands to catch the knife and stop the aggressor, they use their hands on the aggressor not on their wounds, they start doing this before they are wounded as well as they go on doing the same after.

How do you know this?

 

[Numbers]

Here's another Albanian case of interest.
In fact, Italian courts and police in the Knox-Sollecito trials are, IMO, very similar to the Albanian ones I am reading about. The robes and uniforms in Italy are better looking, though.

Berhani v. Albania 847/05 04/10/2010 Violation of Article 6.1

Short summary:
No convincing evidence brought forth in the trial.
51. The Court further reiterates that under certain circumstances it may be necessary for the courts to have recourse to statements made during the criminal investigation stage. If the accused had sufficient and adequate opportunity to challenge such statements, at the time they were taken or at a later stage of the proceedings, their use does not run counter to the guarantees of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d). The rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the requirements of Article 6 if the conviction is based solely, or in a decisive manner, on the depositions of a witness whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined either during the investigation or at trial (see Vozhigov v. Russia, no. 5953/02, § 51, 26 April 2007; Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 40, ECHR 2001-II; and Solakov v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, no. 47023/99, § 57, ECHR 2001-X

52. In the present case, the applicant's conviction was based, inter alia, on the statements of witnesses J., K. and L. made during the criminal investigation. The Court notes that none of those witnesses appeared before the District Court or the Court of Appeal or had been questioned by the applicant or his representative during the criminal investigation. Whilst the Court cannot speculate on the content of those statements, as they were not submitted by the parties, they were clearly of relevance to the case and appear to have been of decisive importance in the conviction of the applicant. The applicant's argument that they should be disregarded, on the ground that his right to examine witnesses had not been respected, was insufficiently addressed on appeal (see Caka, cited above, §§ 108 and 115).

53. Moreover, the Court finds no other convincing evidence in the domestic courts' judgments that could justify the applicant's conviction. In the first place, it notes that none of the three eye-witnesses, G., H. and I., who testified before the District Court on 23 June 1999 identified the applicant as the author of the crime. Secondly, the two police officers, E. and F., who gave testimony before the District Court on 26 April and 30 September 1999, respectively, stated that the applicant had been arrested at random and was taken to the police station on the strength of the vague description given by nearby villagers. The Court therefore finds it difficult to comprehend how the applicant's guilt could be founded on eye-witnesses evidence, as stated by the domestic courts.

ourt cannot find any explanation for such omission; nor did the Government provide any clarification in this respect.

55. Finally, the Court takes note of the various police reports filed during the criminal investigation. There is no indication in the reports that the applicant's fingerprints were found on the red Suzuki motorcycle which had allegedly been used by the assailants. Nor can it be adduced that the seven bullet cartridges were fired by a weapon which had been in the possession of the applicant. Moreover, it does not appear from the case file and information made available by the Government that the authorities found the weapon used by the assailants. There is no reference, let alone attempt, to resolve any of the above issues in the domestic judgments.

56. Having regard to the above considerations, the Court considers that the domestic courts' proceedings did not satisfy the requirements of fairness as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and that therefore there has been a violation of that provision in this connection.