In other words, people are trying really really hard to hang on. It matters to no one if Amanda remains convicted for slander. Nothing will ever come of it no matter what happens any time in the future. There are no other pieces of ongoing litigation to bother following. The idiotic lawsuits will all expire just like the slander suit against Curt and Edda already has.
There is no logical reason to continue debating this case on a daily basis and many some the few that remain look pathetic while doing it. It's their lives, not mine. I would just love to see that energy being used for something good.
If ECHR does step in and take action then it will be newsworthy at that time. I doubt anything beyond Amanda's case would come of it. It would be nice to see a ruling come that can work to improve the overall system but I am not overly optimistic. If it comes up, then I have no doubt that people will discuss it at that time. People should be learning from this case so they can better prepare to help others. That is where discussion can be productive.
But hey, no one is stopping anyone from continuing on the merry go round. I am much more interested in the Lincoln assassination. Would a bullet proof hat have saved him? Did the Pope really order the hit? If Lincoln was shorter, would he still be alive today? Not likely, but nothing would surprise me at this point! The possibilities are endless.
I agree that some of the discussions are fruitless and repeated. However, there is a motivations report to come, an ECHR case to decide and possible further ECHR applications to follow. Aside from that, the possibility remains of an inquiry into the handling of the case by the Italian government. And on top of that, there are numerous other pieces of on going litigation.
It may well be that the fall out from all this will be an extraordinary realignment of Italian justice - a welcome result. Indeed, the current ECHR case could prove to be a landmark judgement with regard to the development of procedural rights across all member states.
I imagine it matters to her. Presumably, you too would not wish to have a criminal conviction to disclose every time you fill out a form, which potentially would have an effect on your ability to secure employment, obtain credit, insurance and even the right to travel to certain countries. Indeed, if I had such a conviction on my record, it would prevent me, ordinarily, from visiting the United States!
"are not ineligible to receive a visa under U.S. visa law.
Travelers who have been arrested, even if the arrest did not result in a criminal conviction, those with criminal records, (the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply to U.S. visa law), certain serious communicable illnesses, those who have been refused admission into, or have been deported from, the United States, or have previously overstayed on the VWP are not eligible to travel visa free under the Visa Waiver Program."
http://london.usembassy.gov/mobile/niv/vwp3.html
Now, wouldn't it be just fab if callunia and auto callunia were expunged from the Italian criminal code?
I agree with Bruce and Kauffer that the endless loop "debate" about the guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele is absurd and pointless. They have been found definitively innocent (not guilty) by the 5th Section of the CSC (Marasca panel). This definitive acquittal is irreversible under Italian law and ECHR case-law (Article 4 of Protocol 7 of the Convention applies).
Open issues remain in the Knox - Sollecito case, but persons interested in justice - including remedying apparent wrongful convictions - should be aware of the many other urgent cases that deserve support. In addition, the relatively large number of wrongful convictions that have been recorded, especially in the US, suggest that changes to policing and legal systems are required to help prevent wrongful convictions.
(For statistical information on known wrongful convictions in the US since 1989, see:
http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/browse.aspx)
Kauffer has identified some of the open issues that remain in the Knox - Sollecito case, especially regarding the ECHR case lodged by Knox for her wrongful conviction for calunnia by Italy.
Another issue, and one that RW has mentioned or implied in his recent posts about the downstairs crime scene, is the culpability of certain Italian authorities in their violations of the Convention rights of Knox and Sollecito through continued official misconduct. Rightfully, and in accordance with ECHR case-law, these violations should be acknowledged in detail in the Marasca panel motivation report. A failure of the Italian judicial system to acknowledge the violations of Convention rights would suggest the possibility of an additional claim against Italy by Knox and/or Sollecito, if either or both choose to pursue such claims. Part of such a claim could conceivably include identifying the earliest verifiable occurrence of the official misconduct, since that would shed additional light on the lawfulness, under the Convention, of the arrests of Knox and Sollecito (and Lumumba).
Finally, the anticipated ECHR judgment of the claim lodged by Knox against Italy for violation of her rights in wrongfully convicting her of calunnia will not simply affect Knox. There are some unique features to Knox's case that the ECHR will need to weigh in accordance with precedent, and the judgment in the Knox case will become precedent, as does each ECHR judgment, for all 47 Council of Europe States. It will certainly affect how the Italians will be able to use, or (not) misuse, their laws on calunnia and autocalunnia.
However, I would not anticipate any judgment from ECHR in the calunnia case for an least one or even two or three years after the official communication of the case to Italy, and AFAIK the communication has not yet occurred.
