Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[NotEvenWrong]

Do you think your DNA is going to be found at a murder scene by flying through the air and through walls? Or perhaps it floated under a locked door and wriggled underneath the body, rather like Raff's.

It could be found there due to secondary or tertiary transfer. Meaning the DNA could be found at the scene of a murder, for example, and the person could have never been close to the scene of the crime.

At least, this is what ALL of the literature in forensic science indicates when they have done empirical, peer-reviewed, scientific testing on the subject. So you, of course, will ignore it in favor of explanations of pagan sex sorcery and witchcraft. Because Amanda had sex one time on a train and you bought into the tabloid hysteria 8 years ago and can't admit you were wrong this whole time.

 

[Vixen]

This is (yet another) goalpost shift. The matter in hand was the way in which Knox and Sollecito were acquitted under Italian law. You argue - incorrectly - that their acquittals were the equivalent of the Scottish "not proven". In fact, their acquittals were under the section of the code which covers everything from zero evidence of guilt right up to just insufficient evidence to prove guilt BARD. In other words, everything except instances where a defendant can positively prove his/her innocence, or where a court determines that no criminal act was committed by anyone. So, actually and factually, the Knox/Sollecito acquittals were not equivalent to a Scottish "not proven". They were closely equivalent to an England&Wales/US "not guilty", except for the fact that the Italian system has a separate form of acquittal for proof of innocence and no crime having been committed. And all of this has nothing to do with your strange diversion into what the meaning of "vacated" means in US law.





Not likewise at all. Next.





Another bizarre diversion, addressing another poster to boot! You do realise, don't you, that each case has to be taken on its own merits? And the merits show clearly that in the Knox/Sollecito case, both should safely have been acquitted and exonerated, and it's highly likely that neither was involved in the murder. FWIW, my (less detailed) knowledge of the Avery and Bamber cases leads me to (provisionally) believe that Avery was probably framed for the first murder but probably committed the second, and that Bamber very probably was the person who committed the family murders. But neither is directly relevant in any way to the Knox/Sollecito case, which is what we are discussing here.

(In addition, there's a rich circular logic fail in your (deliberately emotive) statement about Bamber: "You do know he shot two twin boys. Think about his victims." You're basically "arguing" that Bamber is guilty because he's guilty. If Bamber were in fact innocent and wrongly convicted (which is not what I personally believe, remember), then he DIDN'T "shoot two boys" and he had no "victims". One might employ the same poor logic to say something like "I believe Stefan Kiszko to be guilty. You do know he raped and killed a young girl. Think about his victim".............





No, no and no. If "Raff ripped of Mez' KERCHER'S bra", then how come there is epithelial DNA on the tiny metal hook yet none on the fabric of the bra (which is, necessarily, where "Raff" would have had to be holding the bra, tightly, in order to "rip it off"?

Second, the bra clasp was ORIGINALLY under the body (i.e. at 1pm on 2nd November 2007). But then it was (unbelievably and hideously incompetently) not only not collected by the inept crime scene analysts, it was also literally kicked and swept around the floor of Kercher's bedroom. It was in fact finally found and recovered from within a pile of dust and detritus debris under a rug near Kercher's dresser, well over a metre from where it was at the time of the initial discovery. And since the incompetent police and PM did not even keep a proper log of what happened in the cottage and who went in and out, and since the incompetent police and PM effectively disregarded the cottage as a crime scene as soon as they left on around 7-8 November, nobody can possibly know what happened to that bra clasp between then and when it was finally collected in mid-December. We know, for example, that cleaners were in the cottage during that period, and that major objects were moved around in Kercher's room. And it's clear that the bra clasp was swept up at some time, into the pile in which it was found in mid-December.

On top of those massive problems, there's also the additional massive problem of the incompetent and pro-contamination way in which the bra clasp was treated when it was finally identified and collected in mid-December. Again, we can be thankful that a video exists of the whole charade. It would be laughable - if it wasn't so very serious - to see the forensics goons pass the parcel with the bra clasp (with visibly dirty gloves) and place it back down onto a different part of the bedroom floor to label and photograph it.

At all of these points there was AMPLE (and extremely reasonable) possibility of tertiary contamination at a low template level (and contrary to the propaganda on the likes of PMF and TJMK, Sollecito's alleged DNA on the bra clasp was in low-template quantities). It's very likely that Sollecito's DNA was on the outer surface and door handle of Kercher's bedroom door, as well as in other areas of the girls' cottage (and remember, the fact that the police only found Sollecito's DNA on one cigarette butt categorically does not mean that this was the only deposit of Sollecito's DNA in the cottage. The police have already admitted, for example, that they didn't even bother to test the outer surface of Kercher's bedroom door, since they deemed it "irrelevant".........

And then we come to the elephant in the room. The presence of multiple other male partial profiles on the bra clasp. This cannot be anything other than environmental contamination. It's risible to suggest (as some of the incompetent lower courts did!) that this could have come from random men somehow touching Kercher's bra. This was contamination, pure and simple. And if DNA from random men (perhaps they were males from the CSI team, or Mignini) ended up on that bra clasp, then it's self-evidently true that it's a reasonable inference that Sollecito's alleged DNA ended up on that clasp via contamination too.

Do look up DNA testing. It is a very exact science. And look up crime scene analysis at the same time.

No, the mention of the two little boys shot in the Bamber case is not to put forward a circular argument. The point rather is people look at Bamber and see a charming-looking chap with a David Essex twinkle in his eye, or in the case of Damien Echols you have people like Johnny Depp saying, hey, I like heavy metal too, therefore Echols must be innocent and the pigs picked on him because of his long hair. I was simply suggesting that instead of looking at persons charged with a crime and thinking, 'Oh they look like eye candy', then spare a few minutes thinking about the victims of the crime, if you're going to get sentimental.


Whilst DNA degrades under certain conditions (heat, bacteria), on the other hand it is incredibly tough, thus can be washed in all sorts of strong solutions (Nota Bene: but not bleach!) thus your specious claim that a forensic police officer picking up an exhibit is going to render the integrity of the sample into a hundred fragile little pieces, shows an amusing ignorance of DNA analysis.

 

[Vixen]

It could be found there due to secondary or tertiary transfer. Meaning the DNA could be found at the scene of a murder, for example, and the person could have never been close to the scene of the crime.

At least, this is what ALL of the literature in forensic science indicates when they have done empirical, peer-reviewed, scientific testing on the subject. So you, of course, will ignore it in favor of explanations of pagan sex sorcery and witchcraft. Because Amanda had sex one time on a train and you bought into the tabloid hysteria 8 years ago and can't admit you were wrong this whole time.

ROFL. Do set out the method of tertiary transfer in this case. <fx adopts listening pose>

 

[Vixen]

Well that is just a flat out lie. Get a hobby. Jesus.



There is no such thing as "legal forensic protocol". You literally just make things up as you go. "Forensic protocol" is not to kick the damn piece of evidence around the room under a pile of laundry then find it 46 days later and poke at it with dirty contaminated gloves. The legal procedure to handle such evidence is to disregard it because it is highly likely to be contaminated. You know, common sense.



NO. Jesus H. Christ. They don't spray magical genotyping fairy dust all over the house, inside, and outside, and spray paint every square inch of the house. They can only FIND DNA where they TEST for it. If they didn't test an area, the DNA could be there, yet they wouldn't have found it, obviously. The DNA was likely transferred from Raf to the door of Meredith's room when he tried to break down the door, or otherwise nearby when he was in the house. Then got transferred to the clasp when the investigators contaminated everything.



NO. Again, just because they only found it on the cigarette but does not mean it was not elsewhere. And it is quite easy for a piece of latex on the finger of a glove to touch the bent part of the hook (wtf you have to be kidding me). Also, seriously doubt they took specific, separate samples for each piece of the bra clasp anyway, so no way you could possibly know where the DNA "came from" on the bra clasp. Can you please stop just making stuff up in your head and writing whatever nonsense you come up with? Like, have some type of filter. Please.



Another lie regurgitated for the thousandth time. The DNA experts weren't present when Stefanoni did the testing.

Oh gosh, I just have to defer to your expert advanced biochemistry credentials, then. <fx backs out of door slowly>

 

[NotEvenWrong]

ROFL. Do set out the method of tertiary transfer in this case. <fx adopts listening pose>

<fx commences talking to a brick wall>

Raf touches door when trying to break down the door because he is worried about Meredith's safety. (totally behavior of someone who is guilty, btw)

Investigators touch door, transferring DNA to their hand.

Investigators touch bra clasp. DNA transferred.

There, consistent with the fact there were two other unknown contributors proving DNA was innocently transferred to the clasp in the first place (unless you think it was a FIVE WAY pagan sex orgy. OMG!) and also conveniently consistent with ALL of the published forensic science literature on the matter.

<fx brick wall breaks out in hysterics>

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Oh gosh, I just have to defer to your expert advanced biochemistry credentials, then. <fx backs out of door slowly>

Yeah, I kinda work in a closely related field and have done, you know, actual biochemistry work in the past.

And by "done it" I mean I have actually done it. Not in the sense like "oh I've totally beat chess national champions in the past when I was a toddler" made up "done it". But I am actually being paid to do the work.

You should probably learn a little humility and defer to experts once in awhile. Especially guys like Peter Gill who founded the entirety of the field of modern forensic genetics and have published papers explaining precisely why the nonsense you write is completely incontrovertibly wrong.

 

[Vixen]

<fx commences talking to a brick wall>

Raf touches door when trying to break down the door because he is worried about Meredith's safety. (totally behavior of someone who is guilty, btw)

Investigators touch door, transferring DNA to their hand.

Investigators touch bra clasp. DNA transferred.

There, consistent with the fact there were two other unknown contributors proving DNA was innocently transferred to the clasp in the first place (unless you think it was a FIVE WAY pagan sex orgy. OMG!) and also conveniently consistent with ALL of the published forensic science literature on the matter.

<fx brick wall breaks out in hysterics>

You are real cute.

 

[Vixen]

Yeah, I kinda work in a closely related field and have done, you know, actual biochemistry work in the past.

And by "done it" I mean I have actually done it. Not in the sense like "oh I've totally beat chess national champions in the past when I was a toddler" made up "done it". But I am actually being paid to do the work.

You should probably learn a little humility and defer to experts once in awhile. Especially guys like Peter Gill who founded the entirety of the field of modern forensic genetics and have published papers explaining precisely why the nonsense you write is completely incontrovertibly wrong.

<fx touches forelock, clicks heels> Sir!

 

[NotEvenWrong]

You are real cute.

Hey being cute while proving you wrong was stipulated in my multi-billion dollar PR contract with the Amanda Knox division of the Illuminati. I think that's the same branch of the Illuminati that paid off the Italian Supreme Court, in fact.

Luckily we have the entirety of the field of forensic science backing us to prove you have no idea what you're talking about. Easiest billion I've ever made.

 

[Vixen]

Hey being cute while proving you wrong was stipulated in my multi-billion dollar PR contract with the Amanda Knox division of the Illuminati. I think that's the same branch of the Illuminati that paid off the Italian Supreme Court, in fact.

Luckily we have the entirety of the field of forensic science backing us to prove you have no idea what you're talking about. Easiest billion I've ever made.

Let's quote your hero, Peter Gill.

From: Misleading DNA Evidence - Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice, Peter Gill, Academic Press.

Recommendation 1: The expert should provide the court with an unbiased list of all possible modes of transfer of DNA evidence (pg 20)

 

[Planigale]

ROFL. Do set out the method of tertiary transfer in this case. <fx adopts listening pose>

Nov 1 AM Knox, Sollecito and Kercher in flat. Kercher shakes hands with Sollecito, goes into bedroom puts on bra secondary transfer from Kercher's hands to her bra. Knox with Sollecito's DNA on hands sorts out washing, transferring Sollecito's DNA onto bra. Sollecito sneezed in the bathroom where the bra was hanging up to dry - primary transfer. So these are a couple of routes for secondary transfer, and one for primary.

The problem is that we know the hook tore from the strap (it was not cut) whilst the hooks were still attached to the eyes (otherwise it would not tear). So the hooks were protected from being touched. The DNA had to transfer before the hook was fastened or after the hooks had become separated from the bra AFTER the attack! The presence of the DNA on the hook but not on the bra strap / cloth covering of the hook means it could NOT have been transferred at the time of the attack. This is why Guede's DNA is absent from the hook but present on the bra strap.

This is a good example of how the statistical certainty of identity from a trace DNA sample (and I accept that a component (from the bra hook extract) of the mixed DNA of at least four persons found on the bra hook very likely included DNA from Sollecito), then becomes confounded with the uncertainty about time and method of transfer. That the identity is certain with values of millions to one says nothing about the time or mode of transfer. This is just supposition, as above logically transfer during the attack is unlikely to explain the isolated location, therefore some other route is more likely.

 

[Planigale]

Let's quote your hero, Peter Gill.

From: Misleading DNA Evidence - Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice, Peter Gill, Academic Press.

Quote:
Recommendation 1: The expert should provide the court with an unbiased list of all possible modes of transfer of DNA evidence (pg 20)

So did Steffanoni do this?

 

[LondonJohn]

Nov 1 AM Knox, Sollecito and Kercher in flat. Kercher shakes hands with Sollecito, goes into bedroom puts on bra secondary transfer from Kercher's hands to her bra. Knox with Sollecito's DNA on hands sorts out washing, transferring Sollecito's DNA onto bra. Sollecito sneezed in the bathroom where the bra was hanging up to dry - primary transfer. So these are a couple of routes for secondary transfer, and one for primary.

The problem is that we know the hook tore from the strap (it was not cut) whilst the hooks were still attached to the eyes (otherwise it would not tear). So the hooks were protected from being touched. The DNA had to transfer before the hook was fastened or after the hooks had become separated from the bra AFTER the attack! The presence of the DNA on the hook but not on the bra strap / cloth covering of the hook means it could NOT have been transferred at the time of the attack. This is why Guede's DNA is absent from the hook but present on the bra strap.

This is a good example of how the statistical certainty of identity from a trace DNA sample (and I accept that a component (from the bra hook extract) of the mixed DNA of at least four persons found on the bra hook very likely included DNA from Sollecito), then becomes confounded with the uncertainty about time and method of transfer. That the identity is certain with values of millions to one says nothing about the time or mode of transfer. This is just supposition, as above logically transfer during the attack is unlikely to explain the isolated location, therefore some other route is more likely.

Exactly so.

Your middle paragraph above is spot-on in respect of the obvious evidence that the bra was removed from Kercher by being forcibly pulled until the fabric seam tore open (and you can add to that the fact that the infamous metal hook on the clasp is bent into an open shape, indicating that the hook itself had been bent by this forcible pulling until the fabric seam gave way).

The obvious inference, as you correctly point out, is that whoever was trying to pull the bra open would have had to have one or both hands on the fabric rear strap rather than the hook area (which, as you point out, was in fact covered by fabric when the bra was fastened normally on the bust, and could not therefore have been touched by anyone trying to pull the bra open by force); and, in turn, the evidence of Guede's DNA being found on this bra strap fabric and not the hook area (and Sollecito's vice versa), lead to the inexorable inferences that a) any DNA on the clasp hook was not - and cannot have been - transferred to the hook at the time the bra clasp was torn off; b) Sollecito's putative DNA on the hook therefore almost certainly arrived there in some other manner that was unrelated to the attack; and c) it's massively probable that Guede was the person who tore Kercher's bra off.

<fx sound of the bleeding obvious>

<fx applause as book is produced explaining what the term "fx" in scripts/screenplays actually means and doesn't mean, so as to avoid it being embarrassingly incorrectly employed>


In terms of transfer routes for Sollecito's DNA to the hook, I'd postulate that there are two other very viable potential tertiary transfer mechanisms here:

1) Sollecito's hand to Kercher's outer door face/handle; door face/handle to inept forensic technician's glove; inept forensic technician's glove to bra clasp hook (while hook is being inexplicably and grossly-incompetently passed round from person to person and being held by the hook).

2) Sollecito's hand to Kercher's outer door face/handle; door face/handle to (unknown, since totally undocumented) hand of cleaning crew person*; hand of cleaning crew person to bra clasp hook as that person picks up larger items of (apparent) detritus on the floor to move over to the side of the room while cleaning.


* We do know at least that there were people in "cleaning" the cottage, including Kercher's room - the room in which the murder was committed and inside which there was still an extraordinary amount of potential evidence that the inept "CSI" operatives had somehow missed or ignored (chief among which was the bra clasp and the tracksuit top which Kercher had clearly been wearing when she was attacked and stabbed, plus plenty of other potential evidence on the floor, bed and walls).

 

[LondonJohn]

ETA: I see NotEvenWrong had already recently pointed out (in post #525) the same potential tertiary transfer route as I suggested in my possibility (1) above. Apologies for the repetition. Of the bleeding obvious.

 

[Stacyhs]

Exactly so.

Your middle paragraph above is spot-on in respect of the obvious evidence that the bra was removed from Kercher by being forcibly pulled until the fabric seam tore open (and you can add to that the fact that the infamous metal hook on the clasp is bent into an open shape, indicating that the hook itself had been bent by this forcible pulling until the fabric seam gave way).

The obvious inference, as you correctly point out, is that whoever was trying to pull the bra open would have had to have one or both hands on the fabric rear strap rather than the hook area (which, as you point out, was in fact covered by fabric when the bra was fastened normally on the bust, and could not therefore have been touched by anyone trying to pull the bra open by force); and, in turn, the evidence of Guede's DNA being found on this bra strap fabric and not the hook area (and Sollecito's vice versa), lead to the inexorable inferences that a) any DNA on the clasp hook was not - and cannot have been - transferred to the hook at the time the bra clasp was torn off; b) Sollecito's putative DNA on the hook therefore almost certainly arrived there in some other manner that was unrelated to the attack; and c) it's massively probable that Guede was the person who tore Kercher's bra off.

<fx sound of the bleeding obvious>

<fx applause as book is produced explaining what the term "fx" in scripts/screenplays actually means and doesn't mean, so as to avoid it being embarrassingly incorrectly employed>


In terms of transfer routes for Sollecito's DNA to the hook, I'd postulate that there are two other very viable potential tertiary transfer mechanisms here:

1) Sollecito's hand to Kercher's outer door face/handle; door face/handle to inept forensic technician's glove; inept forensic technician's glove to bra clasp hook (while hook is being inexplicably and grossly-incompetently passed round from person to person and being held by the hook).

2) Sollecito's hand to Kercher's outer door face/handle; door face/handle to (unknown, since totally undocumented) hand of cleaning crew person*; hand of cleaning crew person to bra clasp hook as that person picks up larger items of (apparent) detritus on the floor to move over to the side of the room while cleaning.


* We do know at least that there were people in "cleaning" the cottage, including Kercher's room - the room in which the murder was committed and inside which there was still an extraordinary amount of potential evidence that the inept "CSI" operatives had somehow missed or ignored (chief among which was the bra clasp and the tracksuit top which Kercher had clearly been wearing when she was attacked and stabbed, plus plenty of other potential evidence on the floor, bed and walls).

Which brings us to another bit of logic indicating that Meredith was not killed 2 hours+ after arriving home, but much closer to the actual time of arrival of 9:00. We know she was tired because she told the British girls so. She had been up until the break of dawn the day before. The logical thing to do would have been to change into her nightclothes to get comfortable. She would not have remained fully clothed, including her bra and tracksuit jacket 2 hours after returning home where she had the place to herself.

 

[bagels]

No, the mention of the two little boys shot in the Bamber case is not to put forward a circular argument. The point rather is people look at Bamber and see a charming-looking chap with a David Essex twinkle in his eye, or in the case of Damien Echols you have people like Johnny Depp saying, hey, I like heavy metal too, therefore Echols must be innocent and the pigs picked on him because of his long hair. I was simply suggesting that instead of looking at persons charged with a crime and thinking, 'Oh they look like eye candy', then spare a few minutes thinking about the victims of the crime, if you're going to get sentimental.


Whilst DNA degrades under certain conditions (heat, bacteria), on the other hand it is incredibly tough, thus can be washed in all sorts of strong solutions (Nota Bene: but not bleach!) thus your specious claim that a forensic police officer picking up an exhibit is going to render the integrity of the sample into a hundred fragile little pieces, shows an amusing ignorance of DNA analysis.

If Amanda Knox was ugly, or worse yet, a dude, she would still be innocent. Just instead of having a world wide fanfare (which includes you) it would be a semi-obscure case I stumbled onto on wikipedia, like David Camm (who is also innocent, despite being an un-photoghenic middle aged ****** husband).

The reason none of the crappy DNA evidence convinces anyone with sanity is because the kitchen knife is not the murder weapon, because the actual murder weapon used to butcher Meredith like a pig left at least two clear distinct wounds outlining its size, and a bloody imprint on the sheet, and the killer who used it to spew Meredith's blood all over the room failed to avoid stepping in it, and left his clear unmistakable footprints and handprints in it.

And then obsessive people that became engrossed in the case and the idiot Italian officials in charge of investigating it turned to tea leaf reading crap evidence because they couldn't get over that their initial arrests of three random people was a perfect storm of incompetence and assumption making.

Meanwhile it's 2016 and orange game show guy is prez and this case is collecting dust in the back shelf of history. Woot.

 

[Stacyhs]

Which brings us to another bit of logic indicating that Meredith was not killed 2 hours+ after arriving home, but much closer to the actual time of arrival of 9:00. We know she was tired because she told the British girls so. She had been up until the break of dawn the day before. The logical thing to do would have been to change into her nightclothes to get comfortable. She would not have remained fully clothed, including her bra and tracksuit jacket 2 hours after returning home where she had the place to herself.

Caught this too late to edit. Correction: she had been up until the break of dawn that morning, not the day before.

 

[Bill Williams]

That is an explanatory note, otherwise it begs the question if they did it...then...it cannot be 'not guilty'....it is a clarification. It is not a declaration of 'innocent'.

If it was, it would have been a para I acquittal.

Sigh.

They didn't need to be declared innocent. The process assumed that from start to finish.

And the difference between Para 1 and 2 has been explained, cited and quoted on these threads a dozen times. Para 2 is no less an acquittal, and as Judge Boninsegna wrote 10 months later, no less of an exoneration.

The only people who say otherwise are the nutcases on the nutcase websites. Stop reading them!!

 

[Numbers]

The exoneration - final and definitive acquittal - of Knox and Sollecito by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation has ended for all time all potential legal actions, criminal or civil, against them for the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher. Legal actions that remain open include requests by Knox and Sollecito to the Italian authorities for compensation for wrongful detention.

In addition, Knox has lodged a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights alleging that Italy violated her Convention rights by convicting her of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba. Among other things, she complained that statements that she made under interrogation without a lawyer were used to secure her conviction.

An ECHR judgment of interest, relating to denial of counsel during interrogation:

SITNEVSKIY AND CHAYKOVSKIY v. UKRAINE 48016/06 7817/07 10/11/2016

Briefly, relevant to the AK - RS case, the ECHR found a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention for the first applicant. The first applicant had been held as a suspect in relation to a certain crimes and signed a waiver of counsel. However, following interrogations, he was charged with a more serious crime, attempted murder or murder, which under Ukraine law required that he be given counsel, and he was assigned a lawyer. His statements from the period prior to his having a lawyer was used, in part, to convict him of attempted murder and murder. The ECHR judged that use of those statements constituted a violation of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c.

In its written judgment, the ECHR reiterated the following points of its case-law:

62. When examining the proceedings as a whole in order to assess the impact of procedural failings at the pre-trial stage on the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings, the following non-exhaustive list of factors, drawn from the Court’s case‑law, should, where appropriate, be taken into account:

(a) Whether the applicant was particularly vulnerable, for example, by reason of his age or mental capacity.

(b) The legal framework governing the pre-trial proceedings and the admissibility of evidence at trial, and whether it was complied with; where an exclusionary rule applied, it is particularly unlikely that the proceedings as a whole would be considered unfair.

(c) Whether the applicant had the opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the evidence and oppose its use.

(d) The quality of the evidence and whether the circumstances in which it was obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy, taking into account the degree and nature of any compulsion.

(e) Where evidence was obtained unlawfully, the unlawfulness in question and, where it stems from a violation of another Convention Article, the nature of the violation found.

(f) In the case of a statement, the nature of the statement and whether it was promptly retracted or modified.

(g) The use to which the evidence was put, and in particular whether the evidence formed an integral or significant part of the probative evidence upon which the conviction was based, and the strength of the other evidence in the case.

(h) Whether the assessment of guilt was performed by professional judges or lay jurors, and in the case of the latter the content of any jury directions.

(i) The weight of the public interest in the investigation and punishment of the particular offence in issue.

(j) Other relevant procedural safeguards afforded by domestic law and practice (ibid., 274).

63. Neither the letter nor the spirit of Article 6 of the Convention prevents a person from waiving of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, his entitlement to the guarantees of a fair trial. However, if it is to be effective for Convention purposes, a waiver of the right to take part in the trial must be established in an unequivocal manner and be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate with its importance. Furthermore, it must not run counter to any important public interest (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 86, ECHR 2006‑II). For a waiver to be effective it must be shown that the applicant could reasonably have foreseen the consequences of his conduct (see, mutatis mutandis, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 173, 22 May 2012). The right to counsel, being a fundamental right among those which constitute the notion of a fair trial and ensuring the effectiveness of the rest of the guarantees set forth in Article 6 of the Convention, is a prime example of those rights which require the special protection of the “knowing and intelligent waiver” standard established in the Court’s case-law (see Dvorski v. Croatia [GC], no. 25703/11, § 101, ECHR 2015).

______

Here is some analysis of what the case cited above and similar cases mean to Knox v. Italy, the case Amanda lodged with the ECHR alleging that Italy violated her Convention rights by convicting her of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba.

The ECHR will apply the same case-law in its evaluation of the conduct of the Italian authorities as it has to that of Ukraine or any other Council of Europe treaty member.

The use by Italy or any other CoE State of statements made by a person in an interrogation without a lawyer, even if the interrogation is called a witness interview by the State, to convict that person, is generally a violation of Convention Articles 6.1 with 6.3c. Legal counsel in an interrogation cannot be waived without full knowledge by the person interrogated of the legal consequences of the waiver. The ECHR has developed and uses in each case a non-exhaustive list of factors it considers in such cases, so that it maintains an objective and uniform basic procedure for judgment. The finding of a violation under Articles 6.1 with 6.3c means that the person convicted is entitled, under the Convention, to request a retrial with the exclusion of the use of the statements obtained in violation of the Convention. In Amanda's case, that would lead to there being no evidence of an accusation or statement against Lumumba.

 

[toto]

That is an explanatory note, otherwise it begs the question if they did it...then...it cannot be 'not guilty'....it is a clarification. It is not a declaration of 'innocent'.

If it was, it would have been a para I acquittal.

It explains that they didn't commit the act. Words have meanings.