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

[Stacyhs]

No, Marasca-Bruno did not say 'probably'.

The certainly imply it here:

Observed during the first inspection of the scientific police, the item had been ignored and left there, on the floor, for some time (46 days), until, during a new search, it was finally picked up and collected. It is sure that, during the period of time between the inspection in which it was observed and when it was collected, there had been other accesses by the investigators, who turned the room upside down in a search for elements of evidence useful to the investigation. The hook was maybe stepped on or moved (enough to be retrieved on the floor in a different place from where it was firstly noticed). And also, the photographic documentation produced by Sollecito’s defense demonstrates that, during the sampling, the hook was passed hand in hand between the operators who, furthermore, wore dirty latex gloves.

It waffled on about some imaginary astonishing investigation deficiencies, because they allowed Bongiorno to corrupt their judgment with her cod 360-page Gill report. Gill a paid-for defence advocate for some crank US scientists with ridiculous nationalistic beliefs, who was never cross-examined and his views never tested at trial.

And there we have it yet again: Prof. Peter Gill, one of the most distinguished DNA forensic experts in the world, is nothing more than a paid shill and the multiple US scientists who agree with him are "cranks" only influenced by their national bias.
Not only that, but FIVE Cassation judges were all "corrupted" by Bongiorno! Pssst...you missed an opportunity to claim a mafia connection!

I don't argue for innocence or guilt, I follow the rule of law and what takes place in the court room.

Bull. You argue for guilt all the time and only bother with the rule of law or court room events when it suits your own narrative. You ignore anything else.

.

 

[Stacyhs]

The self pity. The self pity!

O, woe is me! O, WOE IS Meeeeeee!!!

Get convicted of a serious crime, do the time. That is how it goes.

.
.

Such a response only indicates that you cannot defend your comment against my point that your two examples are not comparable to the Kercher case.

I'll ask you yet again:
Do you have evidence that Paxton SOLD the story to Rolling Stone or do you mean she "sold" it in the sense that she convinced them?

This ignoring of difficult questions you're asked is becoming quite the habit.

 

[Stacyhs]

Rationalisation simply doesn't work in a court of law. If you want to argue the would coulds and shoulds you have to be explicit as to how your would coulds and shoulds happened, with supporting evidence. As your hero, Hellmann, was told, in no uncertain terms, as Chieffi handed his arse back to him and ripped up his MR.



.

You're at the stage of throwing anything you can think of against the wall and hoping something will stick.

I made no rationalizations nor mentioned any 'coulds or shoulds'. Do try and at least make your responses somewhat relevant to what is actually said.

Chieffi got his ass handed back to him by Marasca. And Marasca had the last word on the murder verdict which agreed with Hellmann.

 

[Stacyhs]

Depends on whether there is something behind it. The PIP are desperate to prove it was a real burglary because if it was a staged one the question would be, 'Now who would do that?'

.

The PGP are desperate to prove it was a staged burglary because without it being staged, they'd have to admit that Guede broke in and killed Kercher all by his big boy self.

 

[SpitfireIX]

It's very strange that the exact same scientists who identified evidence against Guede are suddenly corrupt and incompetent when they found forensic evidence against Knox and Sollecito under exactly the same conditions and testing.

You are the one who has chosen his own facts. 'It's all contaminated' when it comes to the latter but obvious when it's Guede's, even though his DNA on Mez' sweatshirt cuffs were in the same place as the lonely bra hook found under the pillow under the body with Sollecito's clear and full DNA signature on it. Imagine cutting or tearing the bra off and the hook. Anyone would think the 'burglar' was staging a work of art as in creating a theatrical murder scene for laughs instead of just grabbing Filomena's valuables and beating it..

@Stacyhs, who knows far more about the case than I do, has addressed the "substance" (and I use the word loosely) of your response quite well. However, I will point out that you utterly failed to answer any of the points that I made, choosing only to attack one tangential aside that you thought gave you a small rhetorical opening.

• You failed to admit that you were wrong about Mignini's having been convicted of abuse of office, and you have twice failed to acknowledge that the Committee to Protect Journalists sent two letters to the President of Italy protesting his intimidation and harassment of reporters.
• You failed to retract your accusation that I said that anyone who thinks Knox and Sollecito are guilty is a conspiracy theorist, even when I provided incontrovertible evidence that I had said no such thing.
• You failed to admit that you were wrong about the ECHR's having "dismissed almost all" of Knox's claims.

Direct question, Vixen. How is it that you're so wrong about so many things so much of the time, stubbornly refuse to admit it, but then accuse us of being desperate?

 

[Stacyhs]

I am afraid the late Ron Hendry is wrong here:




This is because Filomena said it was the two bottom drawers that had been pulled out and their contents overturned. In addition, she denied that her room was untidy.

The photos taken on Nov. 2 don't show two drawers pulled out. I can find nothing in her testimony or photos showing "the two bottom drawers that had been pulled out and their contents overturned." The clothing strewn about came from the wardrobe.

Do you see two drawers pulled out and their contents dumped out?


No drawers here.

 

[Numbers]

The photos taken on Nov. 2 don't show two drawers pulled out. I can find nothing in her testimony or photos showing "the two bottom drawers that had been pulled out and their contents overturned." The clothing strewn about came from the wardrobe.
View attachment 60363
Do you see two drawers pulled out and their contents dumped out?

View attachment 60364
No drawers here.

IIRC, Hendry found evidence that the rock thrown through the window had impacted the wardrobe and that impact resulted in some of the wardrobe contents spilling out.

 

[Numbers]

Looking at the Status of Execution of the case Knox v. Italy, one might conclude that nothing ever happens after an ECHR judgment is final and is then supervised by the DEJ/CoM. However, some cases, even with Italy as the respondent state, show more activity.

For instance, the Tapis group of cases has seen significant activity, although it may be far from resolved. The Talpis group includes several cases relating to sexual violence (rape) or domestic violence against women and the dysfunctions of the Italian judicial and police systems in holding accused males responsible - generally by delaying court proceedings until the crimes become time-barred, preventing domestic violence through protection orders or other measures, and issuing trial MRs that hold the female victim responsible for the crime committed against her (e.g., slut-shaming). Five cases are included in the group; Talpis v. Italy 41237/14 final 18/09/2017 and J. L. v. Italy 5671/16 final 27/08/2021 are considered the leading cases, and M. S. v. Italy 32715/19 final 07/10/2022 is considered the leading repetitive case, of the group.

Some of the dysfunctions and biases shown in this group of cases are similar to those exhibited against Knox by the police, prosecutors, and courts.

See:

HUDOC-EXEC

hudoc.exec.coe.int

HUDOC-EXEC

hudoc.exec.coe.int

HUDOC-EXEC

hudoc.exec.coe.int

 

[Stacyhs]

You do know that Knox was eager to talk? When she met with Mignini accompanied by Ghirga and Dalla Vedova, when asked by Mignini, in his role as prosecutor for the case, why she had said she was at the scene with 'Patrick', she said, 'Because it could be true."

Actually, she said "Because I thought it might be true." (pg. 92) What you quoted was what the interpreter's version. She's always maintained that she temporarily came to believe what she was being told was true.
The Mignini interview happened on Dec. 17 which was one month and ten days AFTER she had written " I didn’t lie when I said I thought the killer was Patrick. I was very stressed at the time and I really did think he was the murderer. But now I remember that I can’t know who the murderer was because I didn’t return back to the house."

At that point, being defence lawyers Ghirgha and Dalla Vedova sprung to shut her up.

Ah...the "interpretation a la Vixen" is supplied. Looks to me like the defense lawyers were objecting to Mignini not following proper procedure in his questioning.

They demanded a ten-minute break to speak to their client.

Knox continued for several minutes answering questions after you claim her lawyers "sprung to shut her up."
The defense asked for...not demanded...a ten-minute break after the questioning because Knox was crying at that point.

Knox was crying her eyes out at every mention of being at the scene (to Mignini's mind as though she was reliving being there). Mignini wanted to continue as he knew Knox just wanted to tell all.

They were talking about the interrogation and why she accused Lumumba. That is why she got emotional. Mignini, thinking she's guilty, would assume it's because she was "reliving being there," when it's more likely she was reliving the interrogation itself. An interrogation she describes as the worst experience of her life.

Her two lawyers strongly urged Knox to ask to terminate the interview

There is no evidence in the transcript that they "strongly urged" her to end the interview. The did ask her if she wanted to continue or not. She chose not to.

(being defence lawyers, that is what they do, they shut their clients up from incriminating themselves), so Knox took the strong message and terminated it.

Oh, just stop it. Your imagined scenarios don't work on us.

As I have argued, Knox could have been straight with them all along as that is what she wanted to do but once Mom and dad Curt had arrived and her US Embassy lawyer appointed, she was firmly shut up and told to go the normal 'no comment' route. But at that stage she had already changed her story three or four times.

Another load of imagined rubbish.

She could have had a lesser charge and sentence due to cooperation with the police and courts, out in five or six years,

Really? Out in 5 or 6 years when Guede got 16 years and he wasn't even accused of being the mastermind or wielding the knife? In what world would she have received 1/3rd his sentence? Sheesh.

fairly anonymous and ready to rebuild her life without the horrible mental health trauma of having to live a lie for her family and friends for the rest of her life with the bonkers claim that she was set up by Mignini.

Blah, blah, blah, blah.....

People like Gill and Vecchiotti think they are being kind when really, sometimes honesty is the best policy for a happy life.

Wait....I thought Gill was paid off and Vecchiotti bent. Now they're just trying to be kind along the line of Popovic and Altieri? Do you ever listen to yourself?

 

[Vixen]

Actually, she said "Because I thought it might be true." (pg. 92) What you quoted was what the interpreter's version. She's always maintained that she temporarily came to believe what she was being told was true.
The Mignini interview happened on Dec. 17 which was one month and ten days AFTER she had written " I didn’t lie when I said I thought the killer was Patrick. I was very stressed at the time and I really did think he was the murderer. But now I remember that I can’t know who the murderer was because I didn’t return back to the house."

Ah...the "interpretation a la Vixen" is supplied. Looks to me like the defense lawyers were objecting to Mignini not following proper procedure in his questioning.

Knox continued for several minutes answering questions after you claim her lawyers "sprung to shut her up."
The defense asked for...not demanded...a ten-minute break after the questioning because Knox was crying at that point.


They were talking about the interrogation and why she accused Lumumba. That is why she got emotional. Mignini, thinking she's guilty, would assume it's because she was "reliving being there," when it's more likely she was reliving the interrogation itself. An interrogation she describes as the worst experience of her life.


There is no evidence in the transcript that they "strongly urged" her to end the interview. The did ask her if she wanted to continue or not. She chose not to.


Oh, just stop it. Your imagined scenarios don't work on us.

Another load of imagined rubbish.


Really? Out in 5 or 6 years when Guede got 16 years and he wasn't even accused of being the mastermind or wielding the knife? In what world would she have received 1/3rd his sentence? Sheesh.


Blah, blah, blah, blah.....

Wait....I thought Gill was paid off and Vecchiotti bent. Now they're just trying to be kind along the line of Popovic and Altieri? Do you ever listen to yourself?

Yes, innocenters campaigning for the likes of for example, Lord Longford for Myra Hindley or Michael Mansfield for Barry George often have a soft view of the world and a wet idea that it is not possible for their client sitting in front of them to do what they are accused of doing. They never get to see the victim. In their eyes, the defendant is the victim of a nasty cold establishment with hostile police and malicious prosecutors. Their client is the victim, in their eyes, not the poor sod laid out on a mortuary slab with their body sliced open with a circular saw and scalpel and their innards preserved in a jar in formaldehyde. Poor Mez had her body picked over at least twice before her parents could bring her home. Yet according to the PIP it is Knox who is the victim. How dare the police or Mignini even suspect her, is the mind set.

As for Knox crying every time Mignini brought up her claim she was with 'Patrick' at the murder scene, it was not just the sobing, it was her placing her hands over her ears as though reliving the scream. At the questura she was seen banging her hand against her forehead. You might claim she was 'reliving the interrogation' but her interview with the police where she was simply waiting for Sollecito to finish and offered to help identify people frequenting the cottage. Yes, the police are aggressive suspicious buggers but such an interview is not going to cause you severe PTSD, maybe just a feeling of ire and irritation for a few days.

People do reenact body language when relating an emotional experience in their life. They'll screw their eyes up, frown, perhaps shed a few tears as they recount what happened. Or maybe they'll express anger or sadness depending on what the incident was. In relating happy occasions, people will smile or laugh accordingly. Yes, your body language talks.

Police said Knox revealed a state of emotional shock when shown her message to Patrick, She had deleted his message. Mignini noticed her emotional breakdown - the first time for him - when he went with Napoleoni and I believe Cacchierri [_sp?] - and all three remaining roommates back to the cottage to the crime scene. On looking at the knives in the drawer to see if any were missing, Knox' hitherto vacant and blank (actually wanting to resume college ASAP, whilst all the other students in Perugia were fleeing the hell out of there) had a major nervous breakdown. I believe this is when she confessed but the cops aren't allowed to say what she said. Napoleoni then covered her head with blankets to escort her out to the police car to shield her from photographers. Yes, she was a suspect very early on because of her own behaviour and attempts to control the narrative, with all the long emails to friends. memos to the police, letters from her prison diary.



.

 

[Vixen]

Actually, she said "Because I thought it might be true." (pg. 92) What you quoted was what the interpreter's version. She's always maintained that she temporarily came to believe what she was being told was true.
The Mignini interview happened on Dec. 17 which was one month and ten days AFTER she had written " I didn’t lie when I said I thought the killer was Patrick. I was very stressed at the time and I really did think he was the murderer. But now I remember that I can’t know who the murderer was because I didn’t return back to the house."

Ah...the "interpretation a la Vixen" is supplied. Looks to me like the defense lawyers were objecting to Mignini not following proper procedure in his questioning.

Knox continued for several minutes answering questions after you claim her lawyers "sprung to shut her up."
The defense asked for...not demanded...a ten-minute break after the questioning because Knox was crying at that point.


They were talking about the interrogation and why she accused Lumumba. That is why she got emotional. Mignini, thinking she's guilty, would assume it's because she was "reliving being there," when it's more likely she was reliving the interrogation itself. An interrogation she describes as the worst experience of her life.


There is no evidence in the transcript that they "strongly urged" her to end the interview. The did ask her if she wanted to continue or not. She chose not to.


Oh, just stop it. Your imagined scenarios don't work on us.

Another load of imagined rubbish.


Really? Out in 5 or 6 years when Guede got 16 years and he wasn't even accused of being the mastermind or wielding the knife? In what world would she have received 1/3rd his sentence? Sheesh.


Blah, blah, blah, blah.....

Wait....I thought Gill was paid off and Vecchiotti bent. Now they're just trying to be kind along the line of Popovic and Altieri? Do you ever listen to yourself?

Actually, Knox told police she knew Mez' throat had been 'slit' because a policeman told her. The policeman, Altosto, denied even knowing anything about the body.

The claim she got it from Altieri in the car came later.

Let's not forget the lady-sized digit marks found around Mez' mouth in the attempt to shut her up or strangle her.




.

 

[Numbers]

One would expect that with the recent final re-conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba, the Italian government would be able to put together very quickly an action plan - or even an action report - for the ECHR case Knox v. Italy, that remains under the supervision of the DEJ/CoM, which is now being sought through "bilateral contacts" by the DEJ/CoM.*

The Florence Court of Appeal MR and the CSC MR seem to make the conviction based upon Knox's Memoriale a sure thing under Italian law, as those courts understand or interpret it.

Does any poster here have an estimate or guess when the Italian government would produce that document for the DEJ/CoM?

Does any poster here wish to guess what such an action plan or action report would state?
One hint on one possibility for the above: Review the responses of the Italian government to the ECHR in the text of the judgment Knox v. Italy.

* https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-52517

 

[Numbers]

BTW, one might see a direct and consistent line of thinking by the Italian judicial authorities in three writings: 1. The Marasca CSC panel MR discussing Knox's application to the ECHR and how it would not affect the Italian judicial outcome in the calunnia against Lumumba case, 2. The responses of the Italian government (which may reflect the opinions of the judiciary) to the questions of the ECHR as presented in the text of the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy, and 3. the Florence Court of Appeal provisional re-conviction MR of Knox for calunnia and its finalization by the Bondi CSC panel MR, which found the Florence Court's MR perfectly sound in logic, facts, and law.

One question observers of the case may ask is why there appears to be such relative uniformity among the Italian judiciary (recall Judge Hellman's Perugia Court of Appeal also chose to provisionally convict Knox of calunnia, although that court's MR contains information that would seem to contradict the verdict of guilt). Is it a "conspiracy" or a difference in the way cases are considered in Italy compared to the expectations of the European Convention on Human Rights? Recall that among the large-population European democracies, Italy has an exceptionally large number of cases pending before the ECHR and the CoM.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yes, innocenters campaigning for the likes of for example, Lord Longford for Myra Hindley or Michael Mansfield for Barry George often have a soft view of the world and a wet idea that it is not possible for their client sitting in front of them to do what they are accused of doing. They never get to see the victim. In their eyes, the defendant is the victim of a nasty cold establishment with hostile police and malicious prosecutors. Their client is the victim, in their eyes, not the poor sod laid out on a mortuary slab with their body sliced open with a circular saw and scalpel and their innards preserved in a jar in formaldehyde. Poor Mez had her body picked over at least twice before her parents could bring her home. Yet according to the PIP it is Knox who is the victim. How dare the police or Mignini even suspect her, is the mind set.

As for Knox crying every time Mignini brought up her claim she was with 'Patrick' at the murder scene, it was not just the sobing, it was her placing her hands over her ears as though reliving the scream. At the questura she was seen banging her hand against her forehead. You might claim she was 'reliving the interrogation' but her interview with the police where she was simply waiting for Sollecito to finish and offered to help identify people frequenting the cottage. Yes, the police are aggressive suspicious buggers but such an interview is not going to cause you severe PTSD, maybe just a feeling of ire and irritation for a few days.

People do reenact body language when relating an emotional experience in their life. They'll screw their eyes up, frown, perhaps shed a few tears as they recount what happened. Or maybe they'll express anger or sadness depending on what the incident was. In relating happy occasions, people will smile or laugh accordingly. Yes, your body language talks.

Police said Knox revealed a state of emotional shock when shown her message to Patrick, She had deleted his message. Mignini noticed her emotional breakdown - the first time for him - when he went with Napoleoni and I believe Cacchierri [_sp?] - and all three remaining roommates back to the cottage to the crime scene. On looking at the knives in the drawer to see if any were missing, Knox' hitherto vacant and blank (actually wanting to resume college ASAP, whilst all the other students in Perugia were fleeing the hell out of there) had a major nervous breakdown. I believe this is when she confessed but the cops aren't allowed to say what she said. Napoleoni then covered her head with blankets to escort her out to the police car to shield her from photographers. Yes, she was a suspect very early on because of her own behaviour and attempts to control the narrative, with all the long emails to friends. memos to the police, letters from her prison diary.

Utter rubbish.

 

[Stacyhs]

Actually, Knox told police she knew Mez' throat had been 'slit' because a policeman told her. The policeman, Altosto, denied even knowing anything about the body.

Amanda said it was probably the translator but she wasn't sure.

Mignini: "It is not so... not necessarily.... however who told you of the injury to the throat, say it."

Knox: It was most likely the interpreter .The first interpreter was the person with whom I spoke the most ... all the information I had came more or less from him."

In the interview with Mignini on Dec. 17, 2007, Knox said several times that she didn't remember how she learned how Kercher had died when pressed by Mignini. She was not remembering clearly. It was actually Mignini who first suggested it was a policeman:

Mignini: And how was she killed, when did she find out? Excuse me, I'll give you an example, she could have been shot, stabbed, poisoned... I mean...

Knox: "I didn’t know how she was murdered... I thought there was this foot in the room but I didn’t know anything else...."

Mignini:"Did the police tell you when? Who told you about the police?"

Knox: "I don’t remember."

Lawyer: "No, but she also said she doesn’t know how she was killed"

Mignini: "This is important, so you don’t know how she was killed?"

Knox:"No"

Mignini: "The police told you that her throat was cut. What did the police tell you?"

Knox: "I don’t remember."

Mignini: " A man, a woman?

Knox: "I don’t remember ...."

Mignini: "And when did he tell you?"

Knox: "When I was at the police station, but I don’t remember. When they first questioned me I remember that they said "we don’t even know if it’s Meredith" I don’t remember when they told me, I just remember that the police told me when I was at the police station because I didn’t know what happened..."

Mignini: "You didn’t know how she was killed, what did the police tell you?

Knox: "The police told me that her throat had been cut .... And from what they had told me I had made a horrible image...

The claim she got it from Altieri in the car came later.

You mean the claim that Altieri and Paola Grande later verified? Oh, but I forgot! They obviously perjured themselves and just made it up because the felt sorry for her! LOL!

Let's not forget the lady-sized digit marks found around Mez' mouth in the attempt to shut her up or strangle her.

Let's not forget that there was no such thing as "lady-sized digit marks". That description is pure speculation. Smaller bruises do not equate to a female making them. Unless you'd care to provide actual evidence of such?

 

[TomG]

One would expect that with the recent final re-conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba, the Italian government would be able to put together very quickly an action plan - or even an action report - for the ECHR case Knox v. Italy, that remains under the supervision of the DEJ/CoM, which is now being sought through "bilateral contacts" by the DEJ/CoM.*

The Florence Court of Appeal MR and the CSC MR seem to make the conviction based upon Knox's Memoriale a sure thing under Italian law, as those courts understand or interpret it.

Does any poster here have an estimate or guess when the Italian government would produce that document for the DEJ/CoM?

Does any poster here wish to guess what such an action plan or action report would state?
One hint on one possibility for the above: Review the responses of the Italian government to the ECHR in the text of the judgment Knox v. Italy.

* https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-52517

I'm not sure if I can be much help, but this argument has been presented on another forum to suggest that the ECHR cannot interfere with the calunnia reconviction.

"What is the European Court of Human Rights not able to do for me?

 The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise their decisions.

 The Court will not intercede directly on your behalf with the authority you are complaining about. In exceptional circumstances the Court may, however, grant interim measures. As a matter of practice it only does so where there is a serious risk of physical harm to the applicant.

 The Court will not help you find or pay a lawyer to draw up your application.

 The Court cannot give you any information on legal provisions in force in the State against which your complaints are directed."

*These points seem to be information for the appellant before application to the ECHR, not for ongoing proceedings.
__________________________

As far as I know, the ECHR can't say that Italy's reasoning in reconvicting Amanda is wrong. However, they can indicate to Italy that their measures have not gone far enough in redressing the violations Amanda suffered without interfering with Italian judicial procedures.

• The first thing I see is that the ECHR deemed the memoriale and prison intercept (phone call) as retractions, with further retractions later.
• The memoriale is tainted with human rights abuses that Amanda was suffering.
• Amanda didn't have access to a lawyer who could have advised her on the content of the memoriale or not to write it at all.
• The memoriale written on the 7th November may be considered an extension of the one written on the 6th November that the courts hadn't addressed.
• The memoriale was ignored by the investigators at the time of the writing. They didn't understand the text message, so it might have needed the intervention of Aida Colantone to make its intended meaning shareable with the investigators.

Maybe the Supreme Court thought that if they used the memoriale as the foundation to reconvict Amanda, then the first ECHR point listed above would come into play, effectively protecting the reconviction from interference from the ECHR.

Despite that, I'm still reasonably confident that this will eventually be resolved in Amanda's favour. I'm also aware that this forum won't go unnoticed by Amanda and her legal team. Vixen's comments are distraction tactics.

 

[Numbers]

I'm not sure if I can be much help, but this argument has been presented on another forum to suggest that the ECHR cannot interfere with the calunnia reconviction.

"What is the European Court of Human Rights not able to do for me?

 The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise their decisions.

 The Court will not intercede directly on your behalf with the authority you are complaining about. In exceptional circumstances the Court may, however, grant interim measures. As a matter of practice it only does so where there is a serious risk of physical harm to the applicant.

 The Court will not help you find or pay a lawyer to draw up your application.

 The Court cannot give you any information on legal provisions in force in the State against which your complaints are directed."

*These points seem to be information for the appellant before application to the ECHR, not for ongoing proceedings.
__________________________

As far as I know, the ECHR can't say that Italy's reasoning in reconvicting Amanda is wrong. However, they can indicate to Italy that their measures have not gone far enough in redressing the violations Amanda suffered without interfering with Italian judicial procedures.

• The first thing I see is that the ECHR deemed the memoriale and prison intercept (phone call) as retractions, with further retractions later.
• The memoriale is tainted with human rights abuses that Amanda was suffering.
• Amanda didn't have access to a lawyer who could have advised her on the content of the memoriale or not to write it at all.
• The memoriale written on the 7th November may be considered an extension of the one written on the 6th November that the courts hadn't addressed.
• The memoriale was ignored by the investigators at the time of the writing. They didn't understand the text message, so it might have needed the intervention of Aida Colantone to make its intended meaning shareable with the investigators.

Maybe the Supreme Court thought that if they used the memoriale as the foundation to reconvict Amanda, then the first ECHR point listed above would come into play, effectively protecting the reconviction from interference from the ECHR.

Despite that, I'm still reasonably confident that this will eventually be resolved in Amanda's favour. I'm also aware that this forum won't go unnoticed by Amanda and her legal team. Vixen's comments are distraction tactics.

TomG, there's a lot that can be said about the concerns and issues you've presented.

First, regarding the comments you reproduced from another forum, those need to be considered in a larger context. Those comments suffer from their lack of completeness regarding the organizational structure of the Council of Europe and other institutions. It's as though someone points out that the police department won't help you if you are confronted by an uncontrolled fire in a structure. That's largely true. If you have an uncontrolled fire in a structure, it's the fire department that must come to help, because they have the authority, training, and equipment to do the required tasks in putting out that uncontrolled fire in a structure.

1. The Council of Europe is a treaty organization linking its current 46 sovereign states in an agreement to follow certain principles of human rights defined as international law by its Convention (the European Convention on Human RIghts) and the case law of the ECHR (the European Court of Human Rights). The ECHR is established by the Convention treaty, as is the Committee of Ministers, which has the task of supervising the execution of the final judgments of the ECHR by the individual states. Neither the CoM nor the ECHR "enforces" the ECHR judgments. The enforcement is by the individual states, who have a good-faith responsibility (obligation) to abide by the binding force of ECHR final judgments.

The CoE states can withdraw from the CoE treaty or be kicked out of the CoE by processes specified in the CoE treaty. A recent example is Russia: it was kicked out following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and in response, it withdrew from the treaty. An earlier example is Greece, which was kicked out during the period it was ruled by a military junta (board) that had overthrown its democratically elected government.

2. The ECHR is not a court of appeal or 4th instance court. It acts as a civil court hearing human rights complaints that must be argued as alleged violations of the Convention (including the ECHR case law that interprets the Convention).

3. The ECHR generally provides declaratory judgments, meaning judgments that say "there was [or, was not] a violation of the Convention Article X" in this case. The ECHR is allowed to be more directive in certain cases, for example, where human life or prevention of an injury is a more immediate concern. For example, in cases where there is a risk of extradition of an applicant to a country where the person's life or well-being may be endangered by actions contrary to the Convention, the ECHR may order interim measures to delay or cancel the extradition. For example, extraditions from a CoE state to the US may be subject to an interim measure that remains in place until the relevant US state or federal government formally agrees that the person will not be subject to the death penalty; a specific example was the Ira Einhorn case.

4. There is financial help that the CoE can provide in paying for a lawyer to take one's case to the ECHR, for those who require such help according to CoE rules. Other national or international organizations may help one find a suitable lawyer. In ECHR judgments, the applicant or applicant's lawyer may receive some compensation for legal expenses paid in bringing the case before the ECHR; there are strict requirements that the expenses be documented and reasonable in the view of the ECHR.

5. One's lawyer or the CoE member state itself should be able to provide information on the state's laws.

 

[Numbers]

I'm not sure if I can be much help, but this argument has been presented on another forum to suggest that the ECHR cannot interfere with the calunnia reconviction.

"What is the European Court of Human Rights not able to do for me?

 The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise their decisions.

 The Court will not intercede directly on your behalf with the authority you are complaining about. In exceptional circumstances the Court may, however, grant interim measures. As a matter of practice it only does so where there is a serious risk of physical harm to the applicant.

 The Court will not help you find or pay a lawyer to draw up your application.

 The Court cannot give you any information on legal provisions in force in the State against which your complaints are directed."

*These points seem to be information for the appellant before application to the ECHR, not for ongoing proceedings.
__________________________

As far as I know, the ECHR can't say that Italy's reasoning in reconvicting Amanda is wrong. However, they can indicate to Italy that their measures have not gone far enough in redressing the violations Amanda suffered without interfering with Italian judicial procedures.

• The first thing I see is that the ECHR deemed the memoriale and prison intercept (phone call) as retractions, with further retractions later.
• The memoriale is tainted with human rights abuses that Amanda was suffering.
• Amanda didn't have access to a lawyer who could have advised her on the content of the memoriale or not to write it at all.
• The memoriale written on the 7th November may be considered an extension of the one written on the 6th November that the courts hadn't addressed.
• The memoriale was ignored by the investigators at the time of the writing. They didn't understand the text message, so it might have needed the intervention of Aida Colantone to make its intended meaning shareable with the investigators.

Maybe the Supreme Court thought that if they used the memoriale as the foundation to reconvict Amanda, then the first ECHR point listed above would come into play, effectively protecting the reconviction from interference from the ECHR.

Despite that, I'm still reasonably confident that this will eventually be resolved in Amanda's favour. I'm also aware that this forum won't go unnoticed by Amanda and her legal team. Vixen's comments are distraction tactics.

TomG, here are some comments on the second section of your post. The comments can't be all-inclusive because we don't know what the Italian government's future actions in the case will be. But we can be fairly confident that Italy will respond to the DEJ/CoM in some document - an action plan laying out some future actions or an action report claiming that the case has now been finally settled and the CoM should issue a resolution declaring the case closed.

There are two nonexclusive paths forward: 1. Review of the Italian government's action to resolve the original ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy and 2. Initiation of a new application by Knox and her lawyers in response to the CSC final judgment re-convicting her of calunnia but supposedly on evidence not used in the original conviction.

For the first path, I believe that any claim by Italy using the re-conviction as justification for closing the case will be rejected by the DEJ/CoM as not meeting the conclusion and spirit of the original final ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy. Italy maintaining that position could lead to it being brought before the ECHR in an infringement of Convention Article 46 case.

The DEJ/CoM, presented with an AP or AR, will tell the Italian government to think of some new way forward, and perhaps offer help. One possibility is that the Italian government could initiate a case with the Constitutional Court of Italy to declare CPP Article 628 bis unconstitutional, because it does not contain a requirement that the ordinary Italian courts treat the final judgments of the ECHR to be treated by those courts as binding in both conclusion and spirit as required by the Convention and ECHR case law. The Constitutional Court would then, pending an act of the Italian parliament, provide the required change on a "temporary" basis. Something of that nature happened in 2011 when the Constitutional Court ruled that CPP Article 630, the law specifying the grounds for revision, was declared unconstitutional because it lacked a provision for revision in the case of an ECHR judgment of an unfair trial (Constitutional Court judgment 113/2011). Revision then became the mechanism for Italy's correction of unfair trials (that were "final") until the parliament passed the law that became CPP Article 628 bis.

The other path, which can proceed in parallel with the first path, is for Knox and her lawyers to file a new application with the ECHR alleging a violation of Convention Article 6.1, unfair trial (along with other relevant Convention articles, such as perhaps 6.2, presumption of innocence). Since the re-conviction is a "new" trial using "new" evidence in a "new" reasoning by the Italian courts, it would be eligible for consideration by the ECHR. The ECHR can very certainly in the new ECHR case declare that the "new" reasoning by the Italian courts is a distortion of its findings in the first Knox v. Italy, and therefore a violation of Convention Article 46. That's a close approximation to stating that it's wrong.

 

[Pacal]

I can't even count the number of times I seen PGP claim they can see guilt/evil in Knox's eyes. I've never seen anyone claim they can see innocence in someone's eyes. It's always guilt/evil/sociopathy, etc.

The number of people who claim that from analysis of how and what people speak, how they behave they can determine guilt or innocence is large.

Thus we get highly dubious stuff like Statement Analysis and other supposedly "scientific" techniques for finding out if someone is lying. Youtube has all sorts of channels with such "Experts" analyzing people and determining if some is lying, hiding something.

It's all based a pseudo highly dubious crap. My favorite is example is from Statement analysis in which if you say three people attacked etc., you that is a sign of deception. Aside from what if three people were in fact involved what is this based on? Apparently little more than than a pull out of the ass assumption by a creator of Statement Analysis.

Amanda as, of course, been a victim of this so-called "scientific" analysis it bluntly sheer garbage.

 

[Numbers]

I can't even count the number of times I seen PGP claim they can see guilt/evil in Knox's eyes. I've never seen anyone claim they can see innocence in someone's eyes. It's always guilt/evil/sociopathy, etc.

If it were at all scientifically valid that guilt or evil can be seen in someone's eyes, then there would be forensic optometrists and ophthalmologists testifying in criminal trials. What is scientifically valid is that when we look into someone's eye we see a (miniature) reflection of ourselves. That's why the black disk in the middle of our eyes is called the "pupil". And, I suggest, we may metaphorically see a reflection of our own personality.

In a surprising number of unrelated languages, the etymological meaning of the term for pupil is "little person". This is true, for example, of the word pupil itself: this comes into English from Latin pūpilla, which means "doll, girl", and is a diminutive form of pupa, "girl". (The double meaning in Latin is preserved in English, where pupil means both "schoolchild" and "dark central portion of the eye within the iris".) This may be because the reflection of one's image in the pupil is a minuscule version of one's self.

Pupil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org