Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[AmyStrange]

Predictions

-

The Seahawks are going to the Super Bowl again and will win it again. Hopefully they play my hometown team, the New England Patriots.

The Mariners are going to be in the Playoffs this year and possibly make it to the World Series, and there's a possibility they will end up playing my other hometown team, the Boston Red Sox, to get there.

I predicted the Seahawks would win the Super Bowl here in this forum three or four weeks before it happened.

Almost OT, but here's the connection. I don't know why, but sometimes I get a feeling that something is going to happen and it's not just a feeling, I just know it's going to happen.

I got that same feeling when I predicted that Hellman would acquit Raffaele and Amanda here in this forum, the night before.

I predict the ISC in March (or whenever the decision is due) will go one more round and order a new trial, with a long list of things they want looked at.

Am I crazy?

Probably,

d

-

 

[Numbers]

Great minds think in narrow channels?

-

The Seahawks are going to the Super Bowl again and will win it again. Hopefully they play my hometown team, the New England Patriots.

The Mariners are going to be in the Playoffs this year and possibly make it to the World Series, and there's a possibility they will end up playing my other hometown team, the Boston Red Sox, to get there.

I predicted the Seahawks would win the Super Bowl here in this forum three or four weeks before it happened.

Almost OT, but here's the connection. I don't know why, but sometimes I get a feeling that something is going to happen and it's not just a feeling, I just know it's going to happen.

I got that same feeling when I predicted that Hellman would acquit Raffaele and Amanda here in this forum, the night before.

I predict the ISC in March (or whenever the decision is due) will go one more round and order a new trial, with a long list of things they want looked at.

Am I crazy?

Probably,

d

-

Here's my post from Dec. 10, 2014:


Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
I agree with both you and LJ! Judges are at one and the same time conservative and capable of extraordinary feats of hypocrisy too. They will never say 'we is idiots' even when it is painfully obvious. I am, however, in LJ's corner on what will actually come to pass. I shall very happily eat my hat if wrong, and I am keeping the salt and pepper handy, but, sadly, I fear Italy has gone too far to back down now.

Numbers responds:
I think that there is a marginally greater probability that the CSC March 25 hearing will eventually lead to a new trial, and not to an immediate finalization of any verdict. And I think that is because the judges will not want to commit to a final decision that might endanger their status or reputation. They might, if there are enough rationalists on the Section 5 panel, order a United Sections panel to examine the case first, and then that panel will order a new trial after fixing some issues about evaluation of evidence and presumption of innocence. But postponing a final decision ("kicking the can down the road") may be more comfortable for the judges.

Again, this is all speculation on my part, but it is firmly based on near-total ignorance, wild guesses, and years of watching the US Congress operate. And my view is strictly about probabilities, because even the US Congress sometimes does something like pass a bill.

ETA: The parallel to the Congress may be more than jocular. It too has parties, formally two, that are nearly equal in voting power, and since opposed in many ways, wind up delaying decisions except in cases of urgency or common interest.
Last edited by Numbers; 10th December 2014 at 09:11 AM. Reason: Clarity, ETA
_____
Obviously, I only thought this because I picked up vibrations from your thought waves by ESP.

 

[Numbers]

-

The Seahawks are going to the Super Bowl again and will win it again. Hopefully they play my hometown team, the New England Patriots.

The Mariners are going to be in the Playoffs this year and possibly make it to the World Series, and there's a possibility they will end up playing my other hometown team, the Boston Red Sox, to get there.

I predicted the Seahawks would win the Super Bowl here in this forum three or four weeks before it happened.

Almost OT, but here's the connection. I don't know why, but sometimes I get a feeling that something is going to happen and it's not just a feeling, I just know it's going to happen.

I got that same feeling when I predicted that Hellman would acquit Raffaele and Amanda here in this forum, the night before.

I predict the ISC in March (or whenever the decision is due) will go one more round and order a new trial, with a long list of things they want looked at.

Am I crazy?

Probably,

d

-

Here's my post from Dec. 10, 2014:


Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
I agree with both you and LJ! Judges are at one and the same time conservative and capable of extraordinary feats of hypocrisy too. They will never say 'we is idiots' even when it is painfully obvious. I am, however, in LJ's corner on what will actually come to pass. I shall very happily eat my hat if wrong, and I am keeping the salt and pepper handy, but, sadly, I fear Italy has gone too far to back down now.

Numbers responds:
I think that there is a marginally greater probability that the CSC March 25 hearing will eventually lead to a new trial, and not to an immediate finalization of any verdict. And I think that is because the judges will not want to commit to a final decision that might endanger their status or reputation. They might, if there are enough rationalists on the Section 5 panel, order a United Sections panel to examine the case first, and then that panel will order a new trial after fixing some issues about evaluation of evidence and presumption of innocence. But postponing a final decision ("kicking the can down the road") may be more comfortable for the judges.

Again, this is all speculation on my part, but it is firmly based on near-total ignorance, wild guesses, and years of watching the US Congress operate. And my view is strictly about probabilities, because even the US Congress sometimes does something like pass a bill.

ETA: The parallel to the Congress may be more than jocular. It too has parties, formally two, that are nearly equal in voting power, and since opposed in many ways, wind up delaying decisions except in cases of urgency or common interest.
Last edited by Numbers; 10th December 2014 at 09:11 AM. Reason: Clarity, ETA
_____
Obviously, I only thought this because I picked up vibrations from your thought waves by ESP.

And my post below, #3776 from Dec. 9, 2014 proves the ESP connection to your prediction.

Huh?
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I'd suggest that perhaps the Achilles Heel of this great analysis you've done, is that right now this is not a "by the numbers" case.

By "by the numbers", one would think that "Beyond a reasonable doubt" would apply, or ""presumption of innocence to the defendant" would apply. No less than Cassazione in Italy has signaled that all those things are now reversed - for instance, the defence now has to prove contamination: rather than international DNA-gathering protocols be shown tohave been followed.

All the CHR analysis stuff is great - I fear that you, Numbers, have done probably 10x by yourself than any bureacrat within the ECHR process will do....

..... unless there is political motivation for them to do it.

In fact, there may be political pressure on them NOT to do the kind of in depth stuff as you have done - much like the political pressure on Cassazione in March 2013 and on the Nencini court in Jan 2104 was too great to provide justice to these wrongfully condemned people.

No matter WHAT happens at Cassazione in March 2015 or at the ECHR - by now positions are hardened. Sure enough there will be someone arguing that there had been political interference, no matter what Cassazione does.

Judge Hellmann says that the party of the PMs is strong - and implies they have a lot to lose politically if this case goes against them.

Machiavelli implies that there is a Masonic conspiracy to corrupt Italian jurisprudence.

Someone is going to be a sad puppy come March. What makes ECHR any different?

Numbers responds:
If I understand correctly - and I am learning about Italian law as we go along in this case - CSC will make one of three choices in its hearing March 25, 2015 (and I don't know how long it will take them to decide):

1. Finalize the Nencini conviction;
2. Quash the Nencini conviction and finalize (reinstate) the Hellmann acquittal;
3. Order a new second-level trial.

I really have no idea which of these choices CSC will make. You seem to believe CSC will finalize Nencini, but remember that it was a different panel of CSC judges who quashed the Hellmann acquittal and ordered the Nencini trial.

I think it is likely that the CSC will order a new (third) second-level trial. My reasons are based on near-total ignorance and guess work:
1. A new trial will be a compromise between the competing judicial parties.
2. A new trial is likely to keep the main part of the case away from the ECHR for several years. This may allow time for some of the judges to safely retire before their egregiously abusive judicial actions become clear to the citizens of Italy.
3. Some of the more rational judges may be aware of some of the defects in the Nencini motivation.
4. Some of the less rational judges do not want to accept an acquittal, especially from the rationalist Hellmann court.
5. Continuing cases for as long as possible and avoiding finalizing decisions for as long as possible are traditional Italian judicial techniques.
6. Continuing cases and overloading the judicial docket may be viewed as beneficial to the careers and finances of those in the judiciary and legal professions. (There must be some reason that Italy has one of the worst problems with unreasonably long trials among the Council of Europe States.)

Now for the ECHR. It is composed of one judge - carefully chosen in terms of seniority, ability, and relative objectivity - from each of the 47 Council of Europe States. They serve nine-year terms and cannot be reselected. From what I have learned so far, they seem to produce objective judgments. My concern about the ECHR is the tremendous backlog of cases that limits the ability of the Court to move quickly. There is a priority system - victims of frank torture (medically significant injuries), "disappeared," and fatalities of State action are near the top of the list, while those who have been more mildly abused and unfairly tried are more in the middle. So I am awaiting developments.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Here's my post from Dec. 10, 2014:

Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
I agree with both you and LJ! Judges are at one and the same time conservative and capable of extraordinary feats of hypocrisy too. They will never say 'we is idiots' even when it is painfully obvious. I am, however, in LJ's corner on what will actually come to pass. I shall very happily eat my hat if wrong, and I am keeping the salt and pepper handy, but, sadly, I fear Italy has gone too far to back down now.

Numbers responds:
I think that there is a marginally greater probability that the CSC March 25 hearing will eventually lead to a new trial, and not to an immediate finalization of any verdict. And I think that is because the judges will not want to commit to a final decision that might endanger their status or reputation. They might, if there are enough rationalists on the Section 5 panel, order a United Sections panel to examine the case first, and then that panel will order a new trial after fixing some issues about evaluation of evidence and presumption of innocence. But postponing a final decision ("kicking the can down the road") may be more comfortable for the judges.

Again, this is all speculation on my part, but it is firmly based on near-total ignorance, wild guesses, and years of watching the US Congress operate. And my view is strictly about probabilities, because even the US Congress sometimes does something like pass a bill.

ETA: The parallel to the Congress may be more than jocular. It too has parties, formally two, that are nearly equal in voting power, and since opposed in many ways, wind up delaying decisions except in cases of urgency or common interest.
Last edited by Numbers; 10th December 2014 at 09:11 AM. Reason: Clarity, ETA
_____
Obviously, I only thought this because I picked up vibrations from your thought waves by ESP.

-

You know how sometimes time seems to fly by and other times it seems to tick tock, tick tock take forever to get from one minute to the next, like when you're in heavy traffic and in a hurry to get home. What if some people are ahead of us in time, but are still on the same wavelength, and therefore are getting the ISC decision now and we can read their thoughts or receive their vibes... yeah I know, the whole idea sounds crazy but who's to know for sure if it really is or not. Not me, that's for sure.

Anyway, this time I'd like to see them open the knife, but have someone independant of Steffy do the testing, and have everything available for public review.

And if they find an abundant amount of Meredith's blood and DNA under there, I'd have to reassess my probabilites that they were innocent, but that's only my opinion,

d

-

 

[Numbers]

Can temporary insanity be permanent?

-


-

You know how sometimes time seems to fly by and other times it seems to tick tock, tick tock take forever to get from one minute to the next, like when you're in heavy traffic and in a hurry to get home. What if some people are ahead of us in time, but are still on the same wavelength, and therefore are getting the ISC decision now and we can read their thoughts or receive their vibes... yeah I know, the whole idea sounds crazy but who's to know for sure if it really is or not. Not me, that's for sure.

Anyway, this time I'd like to see them open the knife, but have someone independant of Steffy do the testing, and have everything available for public review.

And if they find an abundant amount of Meredith's blood and DNA under there, I'd have to reassess my probabilites that they were innocent, but that's only my opinion,

d

-

Opening the knife could be okay, but they don't need to, because the original DNA evidence is BS. They should force lab tech Stef to give up the electronic data files (EDFs) - all of them - and all of her suppressed tests, including the negative and positive controls, and get access to her real lab log books (I assume she did keep real lab books, may be not). This would include the entire group of tests on the knife and bra clasp; there are indications she did more tests than she reported. (She only reported the ones she was able to "fix". The tests on the downstairs blood should be reported. Also the putative semen stain should be tested assuming it is still available and not too moldy. And all the results from the rape kit should be disclosed.

My guess is that the only perp in the blood DNA will be Guede and that there is high contamination from Meredith's DNA in the samples. That contamination would show up in the EDFs and explain (in part) how she "fixed" the knife blade sample. The pseudo-LCN technique she used on the "sample" from the knife blade very likely was merely lab contamination with Meredith's DNA. These are all my speculations, of course, but peculiarities in the DNA records have indicated to others that something like what I am speculating has occurred.

ETA: Probably anyone looking for lab tech Stef's EDFs will need scuba gear or a remote-controlled submersible.

 

[Samson]

Here's my post from Dec. 10, 2014:


Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
I agree with both you and LJ! Judges are at one and the same time conservative and capable of extraordinary feats of hypocrisy too. They will never say 'we is idiots' even when it is painfully obvious. I am, however, in LJ's corner on what will actually come to pass. I shall very happily eat my hat if wrong, and I am keeping the salt and pepper handy, but, sadly, I fear Italy has gone too far to back down now.

Numbers responds:
I think that there is a marginally greater probability that the CSC March 25 hearing will eventually lead to a new trial, and not to an immediate finalization of any verdict. And I think that is because the judges will not want to commit to a final decision that might endanger their status or reputation. They might, if there are enough rationalists on the Section 5 panel, order a United Sections panel to examine the case first, and then that panel will order a new trial after fixing some issues about evaluation of evidence and presumption of innocence. But postponing a final decision ("kicking the can down the road") may be more comfortable for the judges.

Again, this is all speculation on my part, but it is firmly based on near-total ignorance, wild guesses, and years of watching the US Congress operate. And my view is strictly about probabilities, because even the US Congress sometimes does something like pass a bill.

ETA: The parallel to the Congress may be more than jocular. It too has parties, formally two, that are nearly equal in voting power, and since opposed in many ways, wind up delaying decisions except in cases of urgency or common interest.
Last edited by Numbers; 10th December 2014 at 09:11 AM. Reason: Clarity, ETA
_____
Obviously, I only thought this because I picked up vibrations from your thought waves by ESP.

I remember months ago imagining a book like Ladbrokes, who are currently implicitly predicting that 28 of the last 36 years of American presidential reign will comprise members of just two families.
I thought they would have Raffaele returning to prison at about 5 to1 against.


I stand by that now, he aint going back to prison.

 

[Antony]

I predict the ISC in March (or whenever the decision is due) will go one more round and order a new trial, with a long list of things they want looked at.

Am I crazy?

No, you're not crazy, because there is nothing that the next ISC can do that could be a surprise.

Even so, another round of misery for the defendants and the victim's family will help no-one. It will just put them all at the mercy of the next ISC panel again, and serve to put off the day when the Italians have to face their own ineptitude, whether through a sudden fit of their own honesty or at the ECtHR.

An honest response from this ISC panel will cancel both the latest illegal trial, and the previous illegal ISC decision that ordered it, re-instate the Hellman verdict, declare Knox and Sollecito blameless and order an inquiry into the police and judicial corruption that has characterised the whole saga.

Of course that will be too much to hope for, and if they don't want to continue with the current judicial death-wish, then they will attempt some face-saving formula that will leave AK and RS free, but avoid giving them redress. It is interesting to speculate what they will come up with.

 

[JREF2010]

No, you're not crazy, because there is nothing that the next ISC can do that could be a surprise.

Even so, another round of misery for the defendants and the victim's family will help no-one. It will just put them all at the mercy of the next ISC panel again, and serve to put off the day when the Italians have to face their own ineptitude, whether through a sudden fit of their own honesty or at the ECtHR.

An honest response from this ISC panel will cancel both the latest illegal trial, and the previous illegal ISC decision that ordered it, re-instate the Hellman verdict, declare Knox and Sollecito blameless and order an inquiry into the police and judicial corruption that has characterised the whole saga.

Of course that will be too much to hope for, and if they don't want to continue with the current judicial death-wish, then they will attempt some face-saving formula that will leave AK and RS free, but avoid giving them redress. It is interesting to speculate what they will come up with.

After the Hellman verdict, I could almost understand the slow evolution to the truth. The Hellman court made it look more progressive, from the initial Matteini bizareness with little evidence studied, to the Micheli even acknowledging there is more that can be understood, to Massei attempt to filter through it all, then to Hellman focusing on the "main" evidence of the bra clasp, knife, and eye witness.....

but then something made it all fall back into a black hole of fiction, a retarded verdict from a Judge Nencini, who seemed to ignore all the previous work.

How can we be surprised, when it started with a Forensic Team that couldnt count the circles on a bloody tennis shoe?

 

[Desert Fox]

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

I never argued that I do not believe you. . . .be pretty dumb to do so.
The argument baffles me because often times witnesses will always argue they cannot make mistakes. If you always take the word of a prosecution scientific witness, the defense has no hope of winning any case. Might as well just rubber stamp the case.

 

[Samson]

After the Hellman verdict, I could almost understand the slow evolution to the truth. The Hellman court made it look more progressive, from the initial Matteini bizareness with little evidence studied, to the Micheli even acknowledging there is more that can be understood, to Massei attempt to filter through it all, then to Hellman focusing on the "main" evidence of the bra clasp, knife, and eye witness.....

but then something made it all fall back into a black hole of fiction, a retarded verdict from a Judge Nencini, who seemed to ignore all the previous work.

How can we be surprised, when it started with a Forensic Team that couldnt count the circles on a bloody tennis shoe?

Amazingly the NZ crown did the same thing with Ewen Macdonald vs Scott Guy.
McDonald was the intended victim, but Guy got shot, and the crown dredged up similar but forensically excluded dive boot prints to make their case.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

-


-

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

-

I did not say she was lying, just asked a question.

I posed the question to determine how long the caluunia application had with ECHR, so just over 13 months. According to ECHR the admissibility phase can take up to a year. I cannot see why this application will be given any special treatment, so I am pretty sure we’ll be talking about this for a while. Equally, if as some here believe Raffaele and Amanda’s convictions are confirmed in March there will be new ECHR applications by the end of this year.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

-

The Seahawks are going to the Super Bowl again and will win it again. Hopefully they play my hometown team, the New England Patriots.

The Mariners are going to be in the Playoffs this year and possibly make it to the World Series, and there's a possibility they will end up playing my other hometown team, the Boston Red Sox, to get there.

I predicted the Seahawks would win the Super Bowl here in this forum three or four weeks before it happened.

Almost OT, but here's the connection. I don't know why, but sometimes I get a feeling that something is going to happen and it's not just a feeling, I just know it's going to happen.

I got that same feeling when I predicted that Hellman would acquit Raffaele and Amanda here in this forum, the night before.

I predict the ISC in March (or whenever the decision is due) will go one more round and order a new trial, with a long list of things they want looked at.

Am I crazy?

Probably,

d

-

Interesting, I do not understand why so many here are convinced of the outcome; I have this nagging doubt that March 2015 will not be the end of the Italian judicial process.

 

[Diocletus]

Interesting, I do not understand why so many here are convinced of the outcome; I have this nagging doubt that March 2015 will not be the end of the Italian judicial process.

The main problem for the Italian judiciary is that if they affirm the convictions in March, they lose all control of the process: the process will then be played out in the ECHR or US courts. In a rational world, the Italian judiciary would realize that it cannot afford to let this happen, due some very serious problems with the process they have conducted to date: for example, some intelligent judge on the ISC panel now considering this matter is going to figure out that it was a huge mistake to use the Guede judgment against Knox and Sollecito, or to refuse cross-examination of Guede, or to limit the defendants' access to investigatory materials and exculpatory evidence, or to effect an appellate-level overruling of Hellman's findings of fact without further evidentiary hearings.

Hellman gave everyone a way out, but Chieffi then doubled down on stupid (this is one of the most unbelievable aspects of this whole case), thus turning this whole thing into a case about the Italian judiciary as much as the murder of Kercher. Again, in a rational world, the ISC is not going to want the Italian judicial system to be "on trial" before the ECHR and US courts in such a high-profile case.

One possible way for them to handle this thing would be to punt it down the road, referring it to a united session or even the constitutional court. This would keep the process "in house" for the time being, maybe allowing the ECHR to impugn the confession (i.e., rule against the police). One problem with this route, though, is that the "trial" has already lasted for almost 8 years, and they are running out of time; indeed, Knox is already raising this argument in her appeal papers.

I expect them to confirm, but on the other hand, would not be surprised if they make a decision that has the effect of keeping the whole case "in house": remand or referral to yet another appellate tribunal.

 

[Diocletus]

ETA: Probably anyone looking for lab tech Stef's EDFs will need scuba gear or a remote-controlled submersible.

No worries. The cops have assigned a computer expert to preserve all of Stef's files.

 

[Kauffer]

I did not say she was lying, just asked a question.

I posed the question to determine how long the caluunia application had with ECHR, so just over 13 months. According to ECHR the admissibility phase can take up to a year. I cannot see why this application will be given any special treatment, so I am pretty sure we’ll be talking about this for a while. Equally, if as some here believe Raffaele and Amanda’s convictions are confirmed in March there will be new ECHR applications by the end of this year.

There seems to be something of a misunderstanding about the process - that it's a sort of a two stager as in a decision to admit followed by a consideration of the merits of the case if it's admitted. It's a bit more complex.

First, there will be communication with Italy by the court followed by a response. There could be an attempt at a friendly settlement; there could even be a point reached where Ms Knox is offered a settlement, decides not to accept it and Italy is forced to declare unilaterally that it is in violation of the convention and makes a commitment to redress, which the court is asked to accept. So there is actually an opportunity for Italy to concede without a fight - and it might just do that.

In the meantime, while all this activity is taking place, the court might not even have admitted the application and the first anyone hears anything might indeed be Italy's public declaration that Ms Knox's rights have been violated.

Some of us here are absolutely convinced that Ms Knox's application must succeed on the merits - the arguments for this are close to irrefutable given the case law; this will also apply to other ECHR applications. So, the interest now is in what Italy will do.

If I were Italy I'd try to get out of this thing with as little egg on my face as I could - and hope the court will allow me to.

We have to remember that the poisonous entity dealing with Ms Knox in Italy is not the same entity that deals with Ms Knox in Strasbourg, even though it shows the same flag.

So perhaps we may see this: Ms Knox's application is not admitted; there is no judgement in her favour - but, she gets everything she asked for.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA and blood forensics

Antony,

Good to see you commenting again. I have a few more entries at my blog, some of which cover other cases but are relevant to this one.

 

[Bill Williams]

The main problem for the Italian judiciary is that if they affirm the convictions in March, they lose all control of the process: the process will then be played out in the ECHR or US courts. In a rational world, the Italian judiciary would realize that it cannot afford to let this happen, due some very serious problems with the process they have conducted to date: for example, some intelligent judge on the ISC panel now considering this matter is going to figure out that it was a huge mistake to use the Guede judgment against Knox and Sollecito, or to refuse cross-examination of Guede, or to limit the defendants' access to investigatory materials and exculpatory evidence, or to effect an appellate-level overruling of Hellman's findings of fact without further evidentiary hearings.

Hellman gave everyone a way out, but Chieffi then doubled down on stupid (this is one of the most unbelievable aspects of this whole case), thus turning this whole thing into a case about the Italian judiciary as much as the murder of Kercher. Again, in a rational world, the ISC is not going to want the Italian judicial system to be "on trial" before the ECHR and US courts in such a high-profile case.

One possible way for them to handle this thing would be to punt it down the road, referring it to a united session or even the constitutional court. This would keep the process "in house" for the time being, maybe allowing the ECHR to impugn the confession (i.e., rule against the police). One problem with this route, though, is that the "trial" has already lasted for almost 8 years, and they are running out of time; indeed, Knox is already raising this argument in her appeal papers.

I expect them to confirm, but on the other hand, would not be surprised if they make a decision that has the effect of keeping the whole case "in house": remand or referral to yet another appellate tribunal.

"In a rational world, the Italian judiciary would realize that it cannot afford to let this happen, due some very serious problems with the process they have conducted to date..."

I too expect them to confirm, if only because of judicial inertia. There's probably a high degree of pressure for internal consensus-making within the large, and (apparently) party-ridden Cassazione; which still wishes to appear as-if speaking with one voice to outsiders.

Indeed, that has been the problem, to "harmonize" the rulings on Rudy's process with the rulings on the AK and RS process.

Someone in Italy needs to take a step-back and realize it takes a long time for an oil-tanker to reverse course, while at full speed; but they need to apply the brakes before this gets into the wild.

Then again, I've been wrong about predicting judicial decisions in this case. All of my predictions have been wrong. So go figure.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

There seems to be something of a misunderstanding about the process - that it's a sort of a two stager as in a decision to admit followed by a consideration of the merits of the case if it's admitted. It's a bit more complex.

First, there will be communication with Italy by the court followed by a response. There could be an attempt at a friendly settlement; there could even be a point reached where Ms Knox is offered a settlement, decides not to accept it and Italy is forced to declare unilaterally that it is in violation of the convention and makes a commitment to redress, which the court is asked to accept. So there is actually an opportunity for Italy to concede without a fight - and it might just do that.

In the meantime, while all this activity is taking place, the court might not even have admitted the application and the first anyone hears anything might indeed be Italy's public declaration that Ms Knox's rights have been violated.

Some of us here are absolutely convinced that Ms Knox's application must succeed on the merits - the arguments for this are close to irrefutable given the case law; this will also apply to other ECHR applications. So, the interest now is in what Italy will do.

If I were Italy I'd try to get out of this thing with as little egg on my face as I could - and hope the court will allow me to.

We have to remember that the poisonous entity dealing with Ms Knox in Italy is not the same entity that deals with Ms Knox in Strasbourg, even though it shows the same flag.

So perhaps we may see this: Ms Knox's application is not admitted; there is no judgement in her favour - but, she gets everything she asked for.

All ECHR applications start with the admissibility phase, I have not seen a citation from anyone here who can categorically confirm that the caluunia application has even started this phase of the process yet, given its submission date and the logistical backlog of ECHR applications it doesn't seem unreasonable conclude it has not. If the application has passed the admissibility phase then I would agree with your description of the process. However, I doubt there will be the Italian schism you suggest; maybe the Raffaele’s latest trial might be an indicator of the Italian judicial intentions, maybe not.

 

[Bill Williams]

All ECHR applications start with the admissibility phase, I have not seen a citation from anyone here who can categorically confirm that the caluunia application has even started this phase of the process yet, given its submission date and the logistical backlog of ECHR applications it doesn't seem unreasonable conclude it has not. If the application has passed the admissibility phase then I would agree with your description of the process. However, I doubt there will be the Italian schism you suggest; maybe the Raffaele’s latest trial might be an indicator of the Italian judicial intentions, maybe not.

The Italian judicial "schism" is perhaps the only thing everyone agrees upon! Also I believe it's spelled "calunnia" or "calumny".

Careful, though.... you were close to expressing an opinion.

 

[Numbers]

There seems to be something of a misunderstanding about the process - that it's a sort of a two stager as in a decision to admit followed by a consideration of the merits of the case if it's admitted. It's a bit more complex.

First, there will be communication with Italy by the court followed by a response. There could be an attempt at a friendly settlement; there could even be a point reached where Ms Knox is offered a settlement, decides not to accept it and Italy is forced to declare unilaterally that it is in violation of the convention and makes a commitment to redress, which the court is asked to accept. So there is actually an opportunity for Italy to concede without a fight - and it might just do that.

In the meantime, while all this activity is taking place, the court might not even have admitted the application and the first anyone hears anything might indeed be Italy's public declaration that Ms Knox's rights have been violated.

Some of us here are absolutely convinced that Ms Knox's application must succeed on the merits - the arguments for this are close to irrefutable given the case law; this will also apply to other ECHR applications. So, the interest now is in what Italy will do.

If I were Italy I'd try to get out of this thing with as little egg on my face as I could - and hope the court will allow me to.

We have to remember that the poisonous entity dealing with Ms Knox in Italy is not the same entity that deals with Ms Knox in Strasbourg, even though it shows the same flag.

So perhaps we may see this: Ms Knox's application is not admitted; there is no judgement in her favour - but, she gets everything she asked for.

These are good points that you have made.

The ECHR may hesitate to let Italy do a friendly settlement. In some of the ECHR documents I have seen that the Court may insist on continuing a case if there are human rights issues it feels the need to address by judgment.

One thing not clear to me is the timing between communication to the respondent State and publication that there has been such communication in HUDOC. Would notice of communication be delayed in certain cases?