Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

Remedial Course in ECHR: Part 2
This brief remedial lesson in ECHR is based on information kindly supplied by the Council of Europe expressly for the benefit of school children.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Pub_coe_Teaching_resources_ENG.pdf

Submitting an application: The conditions to be fulfilled


Who can bring a case to the Court?
Cases can be brought directly by individuals or states
who believe their rights have been violated. So, the Convention
differentiates between two types of application:
individual applications, lodged by an individual, group of
individuals or a non-governmental organisation against
one or more states;
inter-state applications, brought by one state against
another.
Since the Court was established, almost all applications
have been lodged by individuals.

The formal requirements
The Court first of all has to look at whether an application
is admissible. To be admissible, it must fulfil certain conditions
set out in the Convention. For example, applicants
must prove that they have “exhausted all domestic remedies”
(generally speaking this means that the highest
court in their country has dismissed their complaint) and
they must submit their application within six months of
the final decision taken in their country.

If the application is deemed to be admissible, the Court
encourages the parties (the applicant and the state
concerned) to reach a friendly settlement. For example,
a country might agree to pay compensation, and the application
is withdrawn. If there is no friendly settlement,
the Court then examines the “merits” of the case, ie, it
looks at whether or not there has been a violation of the
Convention.

{Glossary; emphasis added}
Application/applicant
The Convention makes a distinction between two types of application: individual applications (lodged by any person, group of individuals, company or NGO) and inter-State applications (brought by one State against another).

Admissibility
An application must comply with certain requirements (e.g. all domestic remedies must have been exhausted, it must be submitted within six months, it must relate to a violation of a right protected by the ECHR), otherwise it will be declared inadmissible
by the Court, without the complaint actually being examined.

Friendly settlement
An agreement between the parties which consequently puts an end to the application, if the Court considers that the human rights interest is not sufficient to the case being maintained. When the applicant and the state in question agree to settle their dispute in this way, the outcome is usually that the State pays the applicant a sum of money.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well you and Bill are obviously of one mind on this.
Let’s see if Numbers can make sense of it.

Your snark is getting in the way. I can only repeat:

For the record, p., where's the obvious lie? That is getting lost in all this.

 

[Desert Fox]

Here's a long story in the Guardian about another Italian case, the murder of Yara Gambirasio:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/08/-sp-the-murder-that-has-obsessed-italy

I feel that long-standing readers of this thread will find several things in here that will ring bells.

Err, I think if they had run the Meredeth Kercher investigation like that one was run, willing to exclude people, I think Raff and Amanda would have never been arrested.

In general, the US justice system does not like using paternity as an investigation tool but seems a solid case especially if he had photos of prepubescent girls and such in his computer.

 

[platonov]

Apparently not.

Remedial Course in ECHR: Part 2
This brief remedial lesson in ECHR is based on information kindly supplied by the Council of Europe expressly for the benefit of school children.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Pub_coe_Teaching_resources_ENG.pdf

Submitting an application: The conditions to be fulfilled


Who can bring a case to the Court?
Cases can be brought directly by individuals or states
who believe their rights have been violated. So, the Convention
differentiates between two types of application:
individual applications, lodged by an individual, group of
individuals or a non-governmental organisation against
one or more states;
inter-state applications, brought by one state against
another.
Since the Court was established, almost all applications
have been lodged by individuals.

The formal requirements
The Court first of all has to look at whether an application
is admissible. To be admissible, it must fulfil certain conditions
set out in the Convention. For example, applicants
must prove that they have “exhausted all domestic remedies”
(generally speaking this means that the highest
court in their country has dismissed their complaint) and
they must submit their application within six months of
the final decision taken in their country.

If the application is deemed to be admissible, the Court
encourages the parties (the applicant and the state
concerned) to reach a friendly settlement. For example,
a country might agree to pay compensation, and the application
is withdrawn. If there is no friendly settlement,
the Court then examines the “merits” of the case, ie, it
looks at whether or not there has been a violation of the
Convention.

{Glossary; emphasis added}
Application/applicant
The Convention makes a distinction between two types of application: individual applications (lodged by any person, group of individuals, company or NGO) and inter-State applications (brought by one State against another).

Admissibility
An application must comply with certain requirements (e.g. all domestic remedies must have been exhausted, it must be submitted within six months, it must relate to a violation of a right protected by the ECHR), otherwise it will be declared inadmissible
by the Court, without the complaint actually being examined.

Friendly settlement
An agreement between the parties which consequently puts an end to the application, if the Court considers that the human rights interest is not sufficient to the case being maintained. When the applicant and the state in question agree to settle their dispute in this way, the outcome is usually that the State pays the applicant a sum of money.

Very good.

And valuable and pertinent information plainly, although as its freely available online it’s hardly worth reposting [or c&p’ing]

Meanwhile, how are we doing on AK’s testimony?

 

[Numbers]

Here's a long story in the Guardian about another Italian case, the murder of Yara Gambirasio:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/08/-sp-the-murder-that-has-obsessed-italy

I feel that long-standing readers of this thread will find several things in here that will ring bells.

This one paragraph rang for me {emphasis added}; from the Guardian site:

Ruggeri’s team immediately cross-checked the DNA samples they had, and discovered that Arzuffi had already been tested in July 2012. They double-checked, and realised that a basic error had been made by a geneticist in Rome – Arzuffi’s DNA had been compared not to Ignoto 1’s, but to Yara’s. Now investigators hurriedly reran the test and discovered that Arzuffi was, indeed, the woman they had spent so long looking for. She was the mother of Ignoto 1.

I wonder who the geneticist who messed up the DNA was. Perhaps someone we may have heard of from the Meredith Kercher case, who did such "remarkable" DNA work?

 

[Matthew Best]

This one paragraph rang for me {emphasis added}; from the Guardian site:

Ruggeri’s team immediately cross-checked the DNA samples they had, and discovered that Arzuffi had already been tested in July 2012. They double-checked, and realised that a basic error had been made by a geneticist in Rome – Arzuffi’s DNA had been compared not to Ignoto 1’s, but to Yara’s. Now investigators hurriedly reran the test and discovered that Arzuffi was, indeed, the woman they had spent so long looking for. She was the mother of Ignoto 1.

I wonder who the geneticist who messed up the DNA was. Perhaps someone we may have heard of from the Meredith Kercher case, who did such "remarkable" DNA work?

Here are a couple of other quotes that made me pause:

“People liked him as the guilty party,” Ruggeri told me ruefully last year, “because he was foreign.”

And then this:

“Obviously,” Ruggeri says, “we intercepted [Damiano Guerinoni and Aurora Zanni’s] calls, had them followed, grilled them and tortured them, in the sense that we pressed them.”

Well, obviously.

 

[platonov]

T&C's old boy

Probably another one of those spontaneous false declarations that she is famous for.

Now tsig lets not confuse matters further (if that were possible)
It was while she was ‘on the stand’.



ps I had occasion to borrow your bus earlier. I regret to inform you I can’t be held responsible for the state in which it may be returned. Damages due to overloading are not my responsibility.

 

[Bill Williams]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

This is all I know about what might be in Amanda Knox's application; it's from her blog of Nov. 25, 2013:

European Court of Human Rights
by AMANDA posted on NOVEMBER 25, 2013
Today, my lawyers filed an appeal of my slander conviction with the European Court of Human Rights. My slander conviction was based on comments I made regarding Patrick Lumumba…comments that were coerced during a lengthy interrogation by Perugia police shortly before I was arrested in 2007. The interrogation took place in a language I barely spoke, without a lawyer present, and without the police informing me that I was a suspect in Meredith’s murder, which was a violation of my human rights. The police were the ones who first brought forth Patrick’s name saying they knew I was going to meet him the night of Meredith Kercher’s murder which was not true. I have stated many times that my original comments about Patrick were coerced by the police and not true.

(Note: The European Court of Human Rights is an international court set up in 1959. It rules on individual or State applications alleging violations of the civil and political rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1998 it has sat as a full-time court and individuals can apply to it directly. The Court is located in Strasbourg, France.)

(Further note: I was originally convicted of slander at my original trial in December 2009. My conviction for slander was upheld during my appeal that resulted in my acquittal of Meredith’s murder. The slander conviction was upheld by the Court of Cassation in March of 2013 and my appeal to the European Court of Human Rights was filed today.)

Well in that case, I’m afraid, you are starting from a position of less than zero knowledge.

Presuming that AK’s lawyers have more respect for the intelligence of ECHR than she has for that of her fans they will hardly submit an appeal with such an obvious lie at its heart.
As this contradicts what AK stated in the witness box in 2009 it’s unlikely to feature. That was the appearance where she was also caught out in a lie on this very issue – directly contradicting what she had said with her lawyers present in the Dec 2007 interrogation.
You know the one where she explained her false accusation by stating ‘because I thought it might be true’ before refusing to answer further Q’s.

& they have both of those on tape

Have a look at her testimony – happy hunting.

I'm still waiting for the "obvious lie" (presumably from Amanda Knox, as per above) that platonov bases his evaluation of Numbers, that Numbers is starting from a position "less than zero knowledge".

"Zero knowledge" is right, in that platonov has presented "Zero" evidence of an obvious lie - when he compares Amandas 2009 testimony with....

You know the one where she explained her false accusation by stating ‘because I thought it might be true’ before refusing to answer further Q’s.​

You see, guilters operate mainly on factoids - claims they just throw out there for people to read, and then they move on - forgetting the concept of evidence. This is all in the hopes that they can get away with saying later on.....

...... "but I explained that upthread and see no need to repeat myself."

The repetition here is an object lesson....

What "obvious lie" was Amanda caught in, esp. one that will somehow endanger an ECHR application? Because platonov claims there's an obvious lie at the heart of the application.

There will be ad hominem (Amanda's fans), there will be snark, (oh Bill, Bill, Bill) there will be crickets, there will be anything but an answer to the question.

 

[Desert Fox]

This one paragraph rang for me {emphasis added}; from the Guardian site:

Ruggeri’s team immediately cross-checked the DNA samples they had, and discovered that Arzuffi had already been tested in July 2012. They double-checked, and realised that a basic error had been made by a geneticist in Rome – Arzuffi’s DNA had been compared not to Ignoto 1’s, but to Yara’s. Now investigators hurriedly reran the test and discovered that Arzuffi was, indeed, the woman they had spent so long looking for. She was the mother of Ignoto 1.

I wonder who the geneticist who messed up the DNA was. Perhaps someone we may have heard of from the Meredith Kercher case, who did such "remarkable" DNA work?

Making mistakes with DNA are common, the issue however is to be willing to acknowledge those mistakes however and correct for them when necessary.

 

[Bill Williams]

Making mistakes with DNA are common, the issue however is to be willing to acknowledge those mistakes however and correct for them when necessary.

DF - not according to Judge Massei. Patrizia Stefanoni never once had any contamination or mistakes in her lab. How did Massei know that?

Stefanoni told him.

 

[Diocletus]

Here's a long story in the Guardian about another Italian case, the murder of Yara Gambirasio:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/08/-sp-the-murder-that-has-obsessed-italy

I feel that long-standing readers of this thread will find several things in here that will ring bells.

Interesting to compare the behavior of yara's family with the Kerchers. Yara's family were cautious about the police, and in fact hired their own expert to monitor the police investigation, forcing the police to double check their work in at least one instance. Also, yara's family acted with quiet dignity. Quite the contrast to the drama show that is the Kerchers.

 

[Numbers]

Remedial Course in ECHR: Part 3

Understanding what we have learned.

Previous we learned the following:

Remedial Course in ECHR: Part 2
....

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Pub_coe_Teaching_resources_ENG.pdf

Submitting an application: The conditions to be fulfilled


Who can bring a case to the Court?
Cases can be brought directly by individuals or states
who believe their rights have been violated.
....

{Emphasis added to the quote.}

The point of an application, despite the uninformed or deceptive comments of some, is not to appeal a conviction. In fact, many applications have nothing to do with allegedly unfair court cases, brought under Convention Article 6, Right to a Fair Trial, but are related to one of the other Convention rights.

But for this lesson, let's consider someone who claims to have had an unfair trial, and files an application with the ECHR under Convention Article 6.

Does the applicant need to establish that they are "innocent" or "not guilty" of the charge for which they have been convicted?

NO. The ECHR has no charter or mandate to try or retry individuals on charges, and can find no one "innocent", "not guilty", or "guilty". The ECHR is not an appeal court, and cannot itself reverse or quash the verdict of a domestic (State) court.

Indeed, someone who is actually guilty may apply to the ECHR and claim that his/her trial was unfair, and the ECHR may in its judgment agree.

So what is the ECHR doing? Who or what is on trial? And for what charge?

The ECHR conducts a trial in which the RESPONDENT STATE and its BEHAVIOR toward the APPLICANT is evaluated by the ECHR in terms of the Convention, the ECHR case-law, and the ECHR's interpretation of the Convention and case-law. The RESPONDENT STATE is held accountable for the actions of each of its agents, such as police, prosecutors, judges, prison officials, and administrators.

The charge(s) against the RESPONDENT STATE are those claims of violations of Convention rights alleged by the APPLICANT. Sometimes, in reviewing the facts of the case as supplied by the APPLICANT, the ECHR will find some but not all of the alleged claims inadmissible and proceed to judge the remaining claims. The ECHR in its review of the facts sometimes revises or adds claims to those the APPLICANT has alleged. The ECHR states that it is the Master of the Facts (it decides what the facts are and which ones are relevant in the case) and Master of the Law (its interpretation of the Convention and ECHR case-law is the only one that counts for the Council of Europe).

But for a claim of an unfair trial, do the actions of the APPLICANT before or during the trial also influence the judgment of the ECHR?

Yes, but only to a degree. For example, the APPLICANT should have raised the complaint of unfairness at each relevant trial phase and exhausted ordinary and available domestic remedies - meaning having appealed to the highest court possible for redress. Extraordinary remedies, such as seeking a pardon, are not considered as realistically available by the ECHR, and need not be sought.

Suppose someone is interrogated and makes a false statement during the interrogation without a lawyer, and is then tried and convicted as a result of that statement. Is that a violation of Convention Article 6 by the RESPONDENT STATE?

Yes, on the basis of ECHR case-law, starting with Salduz v Turkey and through Ibrahim and others v the UK, that would be in almost all cases a violation of Convention Article 6 - specifically, Article 6.3c (right to legal representation) in conjunction with Article 6.1 (right to a fair trial).

The known exceptions, from Ibrahim, are:
1. The Applicant had used the statement in his defense;
2. The statement was incidental in establishing the conviction; there was considerable or overwhelming evidence of guilt without the statement.

What if the Applicant who had been interrogated, and made a false statement, believed the statement to be true at the time of the interrogation, but later denied that it was true and maintained that denial consistently during the trial(s)?

All the case-law to date (Salduz through Ibrahim) suggests that the belief of the Applicant during the interrogation is not an issue. The denial of the truth of the statement after the interrogation, especially after the Applicant has a lawyer for counsel, and the consistent denial by the Applicant during the trial(s) is the factor that the ECHR considers.

Hope all this series of lessons has been helpful to all!

If you should disagree with any part of the lessons, consult the ECHR website for their information, or the ECHR case-law, and decide for yourself!

You have a right to your opinion, even if totally wrong!

 

[Numbers]

Here are a couple of other quotes that made me pause:

Quote:
“People liked him as the guilty party,” Ruggeri told me ruefully last year, “because he was foreign.”

And then this:

Quote:
“Obviously,” Ruggeri says, “we intercepted [Damiano Guerinoni and Aurora Zanni’s] calls, had them followed, grilled them and tortured them, in the sense that we pressed them.”

Well, obviously.

I can't say those two items didn't sound a little familiar. But aren't those requirements of Italian law - probably written in the secret code of criminal procedure.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Er, so nothing has changed assuming the caluunia application passes the admissibility phase of the process, both sides are given the opportunity to argue their case in writing and a judgement is rendered based on the interpretation of ECHR convention (case-law), yea that sounds impartial.

By the way, do you accept as a fact that Amanda’s lawyers submitted the caluunia application on the 25th November 2013, because she said so in her blog?

-

Why would she lie about that? Here's one source other than her blog:

Amanda Knox appeals slander case to European court
1:14 p.m. EST November 26, 2013

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/11/26/amanda-knox-italy-trial/3747101/

"SEATTLE (AP) — Lawyers for Amanda Knox filed an appeal of her slander conviction in Italy with the European Court of Human Rights, as her third murder trial was underway in Florence... "

d

-

 

[Desert Fox]

DF - not according to Judge Massei. Patrizia Stefanoni never once had any contamination or mistakes in her lab. How did Massei know that?

Stefanoni told him.

See, what she said is not just a lie but a stupid lie because we know DNA labs always make mistakes and there is always contamination.

It reminds of talking to somebody in particle physics when CERN released that they had data indicating that Nutrinos were traveling faster than the speed of light. This researcher indicated that they detect particles traveling faster than light all the time but whenever they manage to tighten down controls, they go away.

 

[Numbers]

See, what she said is not just a lie but a stupid lie because we know DNA labs always make mistakes and there is always contamination.

It reminds of talking to somebody in particle physics when CERN released that they had data indicating that Nutrinos were traveling faster than the speed of light. This researcher indicated that they detect particles traveling faster than light all the time but whenever they manage to tighten down controls, they go away.

I recall that the embarrassment there was that the spokesperson for the group, who happened to be Italian, made so much of the "faster than the speed of light" (preliminary) result to the media. Then the researchers found that certain electrical connections had not been properly made (IIRC), and the faster than light behavior of the neutrinos went away.

 

[Desert Fox]

I recall that the embarrassment there was that the spokesperson for the group, who happened to be Italian, made so much of the "faster than the speed of light" (preliminary) result to the media. Then the researchers found that certain electrical connections had not been properly made (IIRC), and the faster than light behavior of the neutrinos went away.

At least they said that they thought they were wrong but could not figure out why they were wrong. Good science learns from their mistake and also actually addresses criticism.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Jane Durrua case and DNA contamination

Maura Dolan wrote, "The records show, for instance, that between 2003 and 2007, the district attorney's lab in Santa Clara County, Calif., caught 14 instances in which evidence samples were contaminated with staff members' DNA, three in which samples were contaminated by an unknown person and six in which DNA from one case contaminated samples from another.
The records also revealed three instances in which DNA samples were accidentally switched, one in which analysts reported incorrect results and three mistakes in computing the statistics used in court to describe the rarity of a profile.
The number reported was small considering overall caseload — 3,100 over five years — but Thompson said mistakes caught by labs "undoubtedly" made up a small fraction of errors. (In fact, he said, labs that report the most probably are better run than those that claim none.)" highlighting mine

 

[Desert Fox]

Has anybody looked at the witch hunt of the Baby Sabrina case. . . .Looks similar in respect to the prosecutor willing to do anything to convict the family. The mother and father might be guilty but they need to actually prove it. Luckily, judges looked at the evidence and basically dismissed it.

 

[Bill Williams]

See, what she said is not just a lie but a stupid lie because we know DNA labs always make mistakes and there is always contamination.

It reminds of talking to somebody in particle physics when CERN released that they had data indicating that Nutrinos were traveling faster than the speed of light. This researcher indicated that they detect particles traveling faster than light all the time but whenever they manage to tighten down controls, they go away.

From the horse's mouth. This is what Massei wrote and/or concluded about Stefanoni in his 2010 motivations report, convicting AK and RS.....

In response to a specific question on (the issue of Meredith's non-blood DNA found in the striation), Dr. Stefanoni declared that she had
been working as a biologist for seven years, had always used the same methodology,
and had never heard that any problem of contamination of exhibits had occurred.​

And despite Professor Tagliabracci telling the Massei court that the swabs collecting evidence around the bidet were useless forensicly, and that the picking up and replacing on to the floor of the bra-clasp: the collection methodology could not be considered appropriate, and also because it was not certain that there was a change of gloves during the collection phase, and while the personnel were dealing with other findings. (Massei p. 253).......

Massei concludes:

This court does not accept (these) objection(s). The same objection, in addition to making
no logical sense, appears to be contradicted by the acquired findings.
In the first place, it must be stressed that it is not possible to discern any reason for which Dr. Stefanoni would have had any bias in favour of or against those under investigation and, on the basis of such bias, would have offered false interpretations and readings.​

It must also be stressed that Dr. Stefanoni, testifying under oath, declared that she
did indeed have the biological profile of the various defendants, but as merely
historical data and not as data held front-and-centre in the moments during which
she was interpreting the various electrophoresis diagrams.
It must therefore be excluded that Dr. Stefanoni, during the moments she was
interpreting the various electrophoresis diagrams, was swayed by the suspicioncentred
method.​

It must also be emphasised that, as Dr. Stefanoni said, every technician in the
Forensic laboratories adheres to all precautionary measures to ensure that there is no
contamination from one sample to another. This was stated in reference both to the
handling method used for the various samples and their analysis. She also testified
and affirmed that the various tools and instruments were changed and underwent
customary maintenance, checks and replacements.​

And finally, the kicker.....

In the present case, none of any of this emerged, however, and Dr. Stefanoni’s testimony rules out that any laboratory contamination could have occurred.​

How did Massei know that Stefanoni's lab never had contamination? She told him so.