Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Stacyhs]

The CSC statement that they are intentionally misinterpreting or ignoring a point in the ECHR judgment will make the new ECHR judgment really straightforward. Regarding a claim about a violation of Convention Article 46, Knox and her lawyers, IIUC, must first present it to the CoM. The CoM will then, by a vote, determine whether Italy violated Convention Article 46; if so, this may help speed up the new ECHR judgment. The procedure for a claim under Article 46 is given under Article 46, paragraphs 3 and 4. In a direct application to the ECHR, Knox would be entitled to claim a violation of Convention Article 6 for the re-conviction being an unfair trial.

Kavala v. Turkiye is a relevant case relating to Article 46. See:

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights

The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...

hudoc.echr.coe.int

Ignoring the ECHR ruling on the memoriale being a retraction and stating otherwise is hardly "in a manner compatible with the “conclusions and spirit” of the judgment."

Sadly, this will likely take several years more.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Glass was not found outside . . .

As I have explained, and you have ignored, there is no reason to expect that glass would have been found outside. The authors of your "excellent" PowerPoint make the same error. In addition to apparently not understanding the physics of a rock's breaking a window, they also claim that Guede would have had to have knocked glass outside when he climbed through. There is zero reason to believe that would have necessarily happened, as he would have tended to have pushed any glass on the sill toward the interior of the building.

and the rock - weighing 4kg - was found under a chair in Filomena's room. I have dumb bells at 4kg each. Whilst my daily workout with them is easy enough, I would have trouble throwing one of them very far.

As I and others have also explained, and you have again ignored, a women's shotput weighs 4kg, and the world's record is in excess of 20m. Guede could certainly have thrown a 4kg rock at least a third of that distance, 7m, which is more than the distance from the car park railing to the far wall of Romanelli's room.

This excellent power point here, by Kermit and James Raper, explains why the window burglary was rejected by the courts, including pictures of very tall defence guy Delfo whom the defence brought in and even he had to abandon it.

How tall he was wouldn't have mattered if he wasn't athletic. Further, just because the attorney's foot got stuck doesn't mean Guede's would have gotten stuck, especially because the attorney appeared to be wearing dress shoes. Finally, even if Guede's foot had gotten stuck, he might have been able to free it and try again.

But this leads to another point: Just because one attempt fails, that does not prove that the climb is impossible, or even that it would have been particularly difficult for Guede. And even if it had been difficult for Guede, that doesn't prove that he didn't do it. People pursue sub-optimal strategies and succeed at them all the time.

So no, your "excellent" PowerPoint does not in the least prove that the burglary was staged, much as you and other guilters fervently wish for it to be so. To again quote @JayUtah "Armchair investigators are worse than useless."

 

[TomG]

The CSC statement that they are intentionally misinterpreting or ignoring a point in the ECHR judgment will make the new ECHR judgment really straightforward. Regarding a claim about a violation of Convention Article 46, Knox and her lawyers, IIUC, must first present it to the CoM. The CoM will then, by a vote, determine whether Italy violated Convention Article 46; if so, this may help speed up the new ECHR judgment. The procedure for a claim under Article 46 is given under Article 46, paragraphs 3 and 4. In a direct application to the ECHR, Knox would be entitled to claim a violation of Convention Article 6 for the re-conviction being an unfair trial.

Kavala v. Turkiye is a relevant case relating to Article 46. See:

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights

The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...

hudoc.echr.coe.int

Will there be a new judgment as such? The ECHR haven't received an action plan as an evolving document, or report from Italy yet as I understand it, so Amanda wouldn't have to make a new application. The current status of the database says:

"Bilateral contacts are ongoing to obtain the submission of an action plan or report."

It looks to me that the Supreme Court M/R will form part of the action plan to resolve the case. It also looks like the ECHR will throw it back to Italy as not abiding by the “conclusions and spirit” of the judgment. The ball would then be back in Italy's court since they were non-compliant. The only thing left in that case would be annulment, as I see it. I don't think that it should necessarily take further years to resolve.

Hoots

 

[Vixen]

The evidence of Mignini's misconduct and incompetence (again, as confirmed by the ECHR), in this and other cases, is overwhelming and incontrovertible. The fact that you are unwilling or unable to see this can only be due to willful blindness.

The idea that Knox was only arrested because of Mignini is a ridiculous conspiracy theory on your part because you are too feeble to face the truth of WHY she was arrested. For Mignini, he was just a prosecutor; that was his salaried job. As if one person has the power to fabricate an entire criminal case, whilst ignoring the pursuit of bringing the real perpetrators of a terrible crime to justice.

It is true MAGA to claim that only <sfx Elon Musk accent> 'the blick with long arms' could do such a thing. Indeed, that mindset is why Trump wanted people to boycott Italy and sent money to help get her off. As if you can tell someone is innocent just by looking at them.


.

 

[Vixen]

It is important to acknowledge that guilters have consistently acted as boot lickers and mouthpieces for the prosecution and because of this they can never acknowledge any wrongdoing on the part of the prosecution.

What wrongdoing? It is classic nonsense for criminals to blame the police or the prosecutor for their misfortune instead of taking responsibility for their own behaviour that put them in prison.


.

 

[Vixen]

So you're still claiming that CH 5 video was 'doctored' by the defense with zero evidence. That somehow, the defense got ahold of a British television production and changed it to make it look like the climber was successful and put THAT version on YT.



I haven't had that good a laugh since your claim that Kercher was laid on top a sheet and was moved on around on it.

Not my claim, the claim of a seasoned detective.


.

 

[Vixen]

Why do you insist on repeating lies that have been debunked years ago? Even Massei understood Knox was referring to Sollecito's apartment, NOT the cottage. From the Massei MR:

Try reading the conversation in context instead of cherry-picking the parts you can spin.

Of course that's what she meant.

 

[Numbers]

Will there be a new judgment as such? The ECHR haven't received an action plan as an evolving document, or report from Italy yet as I understand it, so Amanda wouldn't have to make a new application. The current status of the database says:

"Bilateral contacts are ongoing to obtain the submission of an action plan or report."

It looks to me that the Supreme Court M/R will form part of the action plan to resolve the case. It also looks like the ECHR will throw it back to Italy as not abiding by the “conclusions and spirit” of the judgment. The ball would then be back in Italy's court since they were non-compliant. The only thing left in that case would be annulment, as I see it. I don't think that it should necessarily take further years to resolve.

Hoots

Thanks for spotting this important and recent good news. This info on bilateral contacts must have been posted in the last few days since I had looked at the CoM site early last week and there had been no such notice.

However, there is no new case document shown under that tab; if there have been any new communications between Italy and the DEJ or Knox and her lawyers and the DEJ, it is not yet public.

A technical legalistic quibble - it is not the ECHR that receives the action plan or action report, but the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR, a department that is part of the Committee of Ministers organization. CM stands for Committee of Ministers (although I have used CoM). I suggest using DEJ for the relevant department to save typing the full name.

I don't understand how the re-conviction can be part of an action plan, except as something to be overcome. The problem is how Italy can "lawfully" overcome it. It could be abolished by either the revision procedure or the ECHR unfair trial procedure of the CPP. It's for the Italian government under the supervision of the DEJ/CoM to come up with the answers.

 

[Stacyhs]

Glass was not found outside and the rock - weighing 4kg - was found under a chair in Filomena's room. I have dumb bells at 4kg each. Whilst my daily workout with them is easy enough, I would have trouble throwing one of them very far.

I had no idea you were a 21-year-old, male, semi-professional basketball player!

This excellent power point here, by Kermit and James Raper, explains why the window burglary was rejected by the courts, including pictures of very tall defence guy Delfo whom the defence brought in and even he had to abandon it.

Why is everything/everyone that you agree with "excellent" or some other hyperbolic positive description while everything/everyone whom you don't agree with is "bent", "paid off", "incompetent", etc?

 

[Stacyhs]

Of course that's what she meant.





View attachment 60259

That's some excellent rebuttal there, Vixen. One for the textbooks.

Will you PLEASE learn to resize photos?

 

[Stacyhs]

Not my claim, the claim of a seasoned detective.


.

And who, exactly, is this "seasoned detective"? Quote and cite or don't waste our time with such nonsense.

You should know by now that when you make such claims, you'll be asked to back it up with evidence. Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for the evidence that Kercher was lying on a sheet and it was used to move her body. Not that you'll ever be able to because it's just plain not true.

 

[Stacyhs]

Here is a picture of how easy it is for someone from the roadside to see Filomena's window.

View attachment 60221

Source: Kermit/Raper

So you post photos of people standing at the rail in daylight and not sitting lower in a car across the street at night? That is NOT supportive of your claim that cars' headlights would light up FR's window. Just whom do you think this fools?

Here's a car I recorded driving by in daylight. Now, picture this at night with no light on the parking parapet just across from the window. Oh, you don't have picture it because I already provided photos taken at night.




Just admit the window wasn't visible from cars driving by at night.

 

[Vixen]

I had no idea you were a 21-year-old, male, semi-professional basketball player!


Why is everything/everyone that you agree with "excellent" or some other hyperbolic positive description while everything/everyone whom you don't agree with is "bent", "paid off", "incompetent", etc?

I don't know why you persist with the false story of a '21-year-old [err, no, he was 20], male, semi-professional basketball player!' . Police (Officer Brocchi) at the scene the same day the body was found said that whilst doing the usual obligatory walk around the building, that her shoes were so muddy, she couldn't understand why there would be no muddy marks on the wall had a burglar entered by that process. In addition - Nota Bene!- nothing to do with Mignini - the first cop on the scene, Battistelli, and then later, Napoleoni, both said as soon as they saw the glass covering the clothes strewn on the floor they suspected it was staged, together with the fact there was just a six-inch gap in the shutters yet the rock was much larger, so could not have come from the outside.

Your continued insistence Guede came in through Filomena's window is pathetic. Perhaps revaluate your need to believe a proven lie.

.




.

 

[Vixen]

And who, exactly, is this "seasoned detective"? Quote and cite or don't waste our time with such nonsense.

You should know by now that when you make such claims, you'll be asked to back it up with evidence. Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for the evidence that Kercher was lying on a sheet and it was used to move her body. Not that you'll ever be able to because it's just plain not true.

It is official information entered into evidence:

1. Body position and clothing​

   1. Meredith was found with her body on the floor, covered with a duvet.
   2. From crime scene photos it is clear her body was positioned in an unnatural way.
   3. Sollecito had a manga that depicted a women's body in the same position that Meredith was found.
   4. Meredith's body lay on top of a pillow, a sock and a towel. An additional towel and fitted bed sheet were found next to Meredith's body and under the duvet.
   5. The pillow, fitted bed sheet and duvet had many blood stains. The two towels were fully soaked in blood.
   6. Meredith was found wearing a long sleeved sweat shirt and a T-shirt over that. The T-shirt had a custom print of a woman's head.
   7. On the floor around her body were a sweat jacket, bra, jeans, socks and panties.
   8. Blood stains on Meredith's bra and sweat jacket suggest she bled on the right side, likely from the knife wound on the right side of her neck, for some time before these were removed.
   9. The sleeves on her sweat jacket were pulled inside-out.
   10. Blood stains on her sweat jacket and T-shirts indicate these were pulled up around her neck after she had been wounded. See the UACV report.
   11. The inside of her jeans had blood spots.
   12. Meredith's panties had no blood stains.
   13. Meredith's bra was removed after she was dead, as can be seen from blood speckles on the bra that were not found on her chest. It also had a light chestnut hair on it, similar in color to Sollecito's hair.
   14. The bra clasp of the bra was cut off. It was found under the pillow under Meredith. The bra clasp had a mixture of Meredith's and Sollecito's DNA on metallic part of the clasp.
   15. Scientific Police retrieved the bra clasp on December 18, 2007, 46 days after their first crime scene survey on November 2 to 5, 2007. The bra clasp was found under a small carpet in Meredith's room, a few feet away from its original location under the pillow found under Meredith.
   16. An opened brown purse was found on the bed mattress. It had a long blonde hair on it. In a bloodstain adjacent to the zipper, a DNA mixture was found compatible with Guede's and Meredith's DNA profiles.
   17. A sock was found around the purse handles.
   18. A second sock was found on the bed mattress, along with a notebook, book and towel. The towel had some blood stains on it. All of these items, including the purse, were placed on the bed after the duvet, bedsheet and fitted sheet had been removed.
   19. A second white purse belonging to Meredith was found on the floor.
   20. Two receipts were found on the duvet covering Meredith's body.
   21. Amy Frost, Robin Butterworth, Sophie Purton and Meredith met at the apartment of Frost and Butterworth the evening of the murder to have a pizza and watch a film.
   22. These friends testified in depositions and courtroom testimony that Meredith was wearing the light blue sweat jacket, jeans, Adidas sneakers, T-shirt and sweat shirt that were found on the floor in Meredith's room or on Meredith. No mention was made of the wool sweater (see below under "hairs" section).
   23. Sophie Purton confirmed that when Meredith came to the evening dinner, she had the white purse found on the floor in Meredith's room.
   24. Purton also confirmed in testimony that the brown purse found on the bed was also Meredith's. Purton confirmed Meredith did not have the brown purse with her the evening of the murder.

Meredith Kercher case- comprehensive evidence list

This page has a comprehensive list of the evidence obtained during the investigations. The points are organized by subject matter. Meredith Kercher case file library archive.

themurderofmeredithkercher.net

You still haven't explained - and it's interesting Knox never mentions it in any of her books or interviews - what the heck was Knox' table lamp doing under the bed in the murder room, leaving her room without?


Given Knox' past history of ransacking a room mate's room and having to apologise for the distress and trauma caused, perhaps we have a significant clue here as to who staged this burglary scene. A burglary without a burgle.


.

 

[Vixen]

Here's a complete recap of what was found at the murder scene:

Meredith's room​

1. Before or during the assault, someone removed the duvet from the bed. The duvet was used to cover Meredith's body. It had many blood stains, as well as four black hairs and two blonde hairs.
2. Before or during the assault, someone also removed the pillow from the bed. It was found on the floor with bloody footprints and handprints, underneath Meredith's body. A handprint and bloody shoeprints were attributed to Guede, but one smaller bloody shoeprint was attributed to a female-sized Nike sneaker.
3. Before or during the assault, someone also removed the bedsheet from the bed, which was not found.
4. Before or during the assault, someone also removed the fitted bedsheet from the bed. This was found bundled up with blood stains on the floor partially under Meredith's body. It had red chestnut hair, an animal hair, a long blonde hair, and a vert short black hair on it. The blood stains yield DNA compatible with Meredith's DNA profile.
5. It remains an open question why the pillow, duvet, bedsheet and fitted bedsheet were removed from Meredith's bed, leaving only the mattress.
6. It also remains an open question why Meredith's body was covered with the duvet, given that her bedroom door was locked.
7. At some point after Meredith was stabbed and bleeding, someone put bloody knife-shaped objects on the mattress.
8. A long blonde hair was found on the mattress cover.
9. 
   [*]At some point after Meredith was stabbed and bleeding, someone brought in two different towels into the room and possibly used them to staunch blood as they were both soaked in blood and found under or next to Meredith's body.
   [*]At some point after Meredith was stabbed and bleeding, someone brought in a third towel into the room. It only had a few blood stains and was found on the mattress.
   [*]At some point after Meredith's body had been moved and covered with the duvet, someone threw two receipts on the duvet.
   [*]At some point after the duvet, bedsheet and fitted bedsheet had been removed from the bed, someone placed one of Meredith's purses on the bed, with a sock around the purse handle.
   [*]Someone also took Meredith's wallet, keys and cellphones from her purse. The wallet and keys were never found, but the cellphones were found in the garden of a villa about a kilometer from the cottage.
   [*]There was a significant blood spot underneath the bed, close to the head of the bed and nightstand.
   [*]Meredith's nightstand lamp was found under the bed, at the head of the bed.
   [*]Knox's nightstand lamp, the only functioning light in her room, was found on the floor in Meredith's room, partially under the bed at the foot of the bed.
   [*]The preceding three points strongly suggest someone was looking for something under Meredith's bed after the assault occurred.
   [*]An empty container of Vaseline was found on Meredith's desk. Zaroli claimed that Sollecito spoke of Meredith's body being covered in vaseline on November 4th, well before the Scientific Police had completed their survey.
   [*]The wall shelf by Meredith's wardrobe had been knocked, since objects on the shelf were tipped over.
   [*]Someone closed Meredith's bedroom door and locked it using the key to Meredith's bedroom door that operated the deadbolt. They also took the key away.
   [*]The partial bloody shoeprints found on the floor in the corridor do not suggest that whoever made those bloody shoeprints, turned around to lock Meredith's door.
   [*]There was no blood on the bedroom door's outside door handle, but there was blood on the inside door handle. There was also blood on the strike plate and strike side.
   [*]Romanelli claimed that Meredith rarely closed and locked her own bedroom door, while Knox claimed Meredith regularly locked her door, "even to take a shower".
   [*]Altieri claimed that Meredith's bedroom door had a small crack in it before it was broken down.
   [*]

Meredith Kercher case- comprehensive evidence list

This page has a comprehensive list of the evidence obtained during the investigations. The points are organized by subject matter. Meredith Kercher case file library archive.

themurderofmeredithkercher.net

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... there was just a six-inch gap in the shutters yet the rock was much larger, so could not have come from the outside.

Are you claiming the shutters were fixed so they could not move, or are you genuinely puzzled by this? The murderer Guede would also not fit through a 6" gap. Mysterious. Are you equally puzzled by how he could have passed through a doorway if it was later found not to be wide open?
Do you accept there was glass embedded on the outside of the interior shutter rather than vice versa (which makes your version, where the stone was thrown outward from the inside, sound ridiculous) or do you dispute that fact?

 

[SpitfireIX]

The idea that Knox was only arrested because of Mignini . . .

You have a tremendous penchant for attempting to put words in peoples' mouths, as repeatedly demonstrated here and in other threads.

. . . is a ridiculous conspiracy theory on your part . . .

Project much?

. . . because you are too feeble to face the truth of WHY she was arrested.

Everyone reading this thread can see that you've been reduced to lame insults because you've got nothing. Additionally, this is classic conspiracy-theorist drivel. ("You can't handle the truth!")

For Mignini, he was just a prosecutor; that was his salaried job.

You have to know by now that Italian prosecutors also lead investigations, so to say that he was "just a prosecutor" is, at a minimum, highly misleading.

As if one person has the power to fabricate an entire criminal case whilst ignoring the pursuit of bringing the real perpetrators of a terrible crime to justice.

Straw man. First, no one said everything was Mignini's fault. For example, he didn't personally bungle the DNA testing.

Second, no one said the entire case was "fabricated." As has been discussed ad nauseam, Mignini fancied himself a modern-day Sherlock Holmes, and once he came up with his bizarre theory of the crime, he refused to let go of it, even when the evidence should have led him to do so.

Finally, Mignini didn't "ignore" the real perpetrator. He simply shoehorned Knox and Sollecito into the case against Guede.

It is true MAGA to claim that only <sfx Elon Musk accent> 'the blick with long arms' could do such a thing. Indeed, that mindset is why Trump wanted people to boycott Italy and sent money to help get her off. As if you can tell someone is innocent just by looking at them.

Asinine, childish insults. We believe Knox and Sollecito are innocent because the evidence against them is simply not credible, despite your and other guilters' interminable attempts to pretend otherwise. I'll also point out that this is another worn-out conspiracy theorist's ploy: attempting to shame critics into silence.

As for your attempt to avoid addressing the actual issue, kindly explain why a) Mignini was convicted of abuse of office related to his actions in a different case, b) The Committee to Protect Journalists sent two letters to the President of Italy (five years apart) protesting Mignini's abusive treatment of journalists reporting on cases he was prosecuting, and c) the ECHR ruled that Mignini violated Knox's right's during her interrogation.

 

[Vixen]

You have a tremendous penchant for attempting to put words in peoples' mouths, as repeatedly demonstrated here and in other threads.


Project much?


Everyone reading this thread can see that you've been reduced to lame insults because you've got nothing. Additionally, this is classic conspiracy-theorist drivel. ("You can't handle the truth!")


You have to know by now that Italian prosecutors also lead investigations, so to say that he was "just a prosecutor" is, at a minimum, highly misleading.


Straw man. First, no one said everything was Mignini's fault. For example, he didn't personally bungle the DNA testing.

Second, no one said the entire case was "fabricated." As has been discussed ad nauseam, Mignini fancied himself a modern-day Sherlock Holmes, and once he came up with his bizarre theory of the crime, he refused to let go of it, even when the evidence should have led him to do so.

Finally, Mignini didn't "ignore" the real perpetrator. He simply shoehorned Knox and Sollecito into the case against Guede.


Asinine, childish insults. We believe Knox and Sollecito are innocent because the evidence against them is simply not credible, despite your and other guilters' interminable attempts to pretend otherwise. I'll also point out that this is another worn-out conspiracy theorist's ploy: attempting to shame critics into silence.

As for your attempt to avoid addressing the actual issue, kindly explain why a) Mignini was convicted of abuse of office related to his actions in a different case, b) The Committee to Protect Journalists sent two letters to the President of Italy (five years apart) protesting Mignini's abusive treatment of journalists reporting on cases he was prosecuting, and c) the ECHR ruled that Mignini violated Knox's right's during her interrogation.

No, he wasn't convicted of abuse of office. Unfortunately, the press can bring a case into unfair prejudice, which is why the hack who reported Knox writing a song about the murder and how she exclaimed that she could murder a pizza was censured. Police in the UK often have to gag the press - which is seen as unfair by those who want to swing a case by public opinion, for or against, but is necessary to prevent the collapse of a case. Being in a professional situation (police, prosecutor, traffic warden, prison officer) where you are having to do an unpleasant task, such as lock someone up, investigate their alibi, cross-examine them in court, sentence them, etc., means you will attract complaints. They are highly regulated institutions. It is almost inevitable. That's why there are independent regulatory bodies to investigate the complaints. In the case of Mignini's office staff omitting to give Sollecito's counsel a standard written record of his rights, meant Sollecito saw a chance to 'get his own back' and lodge a complaint. The complaint was upheld in the same way most public authorities receive and deal with complaints. (Look up the disciplinary records of any accountancy body and you'll see all of the big names there reprimanded over something or other, as a massively rules-based body.) It proves that high regulation works, insofar, people can complain and the investigators can sometimes uphold that complaint, which proves the complaints system works. The fact Mignini's office had a complaint upheld on a regulatory technical issue - i.e., one of forgetting to issue a document (which probably no-one ever reads anyway) - honestly does not prove Mignini to be personally corrupt. It just shows that regulations are taken seriously and anyone is welcome to complain if they are dissatisfied.

As for your claim of insults; can I remind you that it was YOU who accused me, as anyone accepting of the trial and appeal courts' verdicts as guilty and proven, as being conspiracy theorists. I merely pointed out that on the contrary, your claim that the pair were only convicted because 'of Mignini' is the real conspiracy theory as if Italy isn't a highly civilised country, with an advanced legal system, even as compared to the USA that mostly doesn't even bother with trials these days, albeit one that is constantly having to fight mafia and freemason influence, as we saw.

ECHR actually dismissed almost all of Knox' claims. It upheld the right to a lawyer one because Della Vedova misled it into believing Knox was a legally designated 'accused person' or defendant, when as of that point she was not an official suspect nor had she been accused of anything.

The pair had their convictions annulled because of a loophole usually used by politiicans such as Andreotti or Berlusconi. Nobody considers either of these two as really being innocent. They just got away with it as powerful people. IMV getting away with it is nothing to be proud of.



.

 

[Vixen]

Are you claiming the shutters were fixed so they could not move, or are you genuinely puzzled by this? The murderer Guede would also not fit through a 6" gap. Mysterious. Are you equally puzzled by how he could have passed through a doorway if it was later found not to be wide open?
Do you accept there was glass embedded on the outside of the interior shutter rather than vice versa (which makes your version, where the stone was thrown outward from the inside, sound ridiculous) or do you dispute that fact?

I was simply quoting the views of the first police on the scene.


.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I was simply quoting the views of the first police on the scene.

Who were clearly mistaken. I wonder if they reconsidered in light of the evidence.