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

[Numbers]

Thanks for providing the information. As you know, the ECHR will only cover costs (reasonable costs) that are specific to that court case in question. The fact that Knox' parents chose to hire an expensive PR agency cannot be attributed to Italy.


.

It will be eventually up to an Italian court to decide what costs her family sustained - including the expenses they incurred as one or more lived in Italy the whole time she was in detention, which required travel costs from and back to the US - during the approximately 4 years of her detention. The right to compensation for a miscarriage of justice, at least for a revision trial outcome favorable to the accused, is covered under Italian law CPP Article 643. Paragraph 1 entitles compensation commensurate for the duration of the detention and the personal and family consequences resulting from the conviction. Paragraph 2 states that compensation is achieved through the payment of a sum of money (no limit is specified) or, if appropriate, a life annuity. Paragraph 1 provides an out for the state, in disallowing compensation if the miscarriage of justice was the result of malice or gross negligence by the accused.

In my view, any costs that Knox and her family sustained in countering the malicious media campaign against her, clearly instigated and propelled by the prosecution, must be considered among the reasonable defense costs that must be compensated under Italian law.

It should also be pointed out that the compensation award trial judgment may be the basis of an application to the ECHR if it is considered to be unfair by the awardee. There is ECHR case law that awards for miscarriages of justice must be fair in accordance with Convention Article 6.1.

Source: https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2013/12/23/revisione

 

[Numbers]

BTW, it is highly likely, based on the history of the Italian courts' treatment of the Knox - Sollecito case, that any request for compensation by Knox (assuming that the re-conviction for calunnia is quashed and no further impediment exists) will be to deny any compensation on the grounds that her conviction for calunnia was the result of her gross negligence or malice in making oral or written statements during and immediately after the interrogation of 6 November 2007. The Italian courts will maintain that position even if one or more ECHR judgments previous to the compensation trial contradict that position. And that refusal of compensation could lead to another ECHR application.

How many miscarriages of justice trials occur in Italy? According to one source, the Ministry of Justice does not publish any information on this topic, but based on privately gathered information, between 1991 and 2019, there were at least 191 cases.*

Another source (written in or after 2022) presents a very detailed view of the Italian laws and practices dealing with compensation for unjust detention and wrongful conviction.**

* https://repub.eur.nl/pub/135560/ELR-D-20-00031.pdf
** https://iris.unibocconi.it/retrieve/22eee504-a5de-4553-8aeb-1b2bea08a3f9/Lonati-4_chapterpdf.pdf

 

[Welshman]

These are quite factual and/or reasonable belief. It is a legal fact that Conti & Vecchiotti were called dishonest by the Chieffi Supreme Court. It is a fact that Italian mafioso like to holiday in the D.R. and that Sollecito was photographed by mafia-sympathetic OGGI as lying in the sunshine with one of them after the Great Hellmann Escape.

Given that Gill used the dishonest report of Conti & Vecchiotti for his own report and he must have known they were excoriated and expunged with a more reputable scientist taking over at the Nencini appeal court, plus his claims were never tested in a court of law at trial, I would say, yes he is dishonest as his own literature says that secondary transfer of DNA is unlikely to happen more than 24 hours later, yet pretends it's possible there was tertiary transfer of a full DNA profile of Sollecito six weeks later, and without explaining exactly what path such an amazing feat could happen.

It is a legal opinion that Marasca-Bruno in reinstating Conti & Vecchiotti to accommodate Gill and Bongiorno for Sollecito did breach legal protocol as their rank is no higher than Chieffi's and they had no legal right to overturn Chieffi's final verdict in this matter. Nencini's experts were sovereign here.


I didn't say Altieri and Popovic lied, I simply suggested they came to the assistance of a friend/peer in trouble for well-intentioned but misguided reasons. It back fired on Sollecito when he tried to claim millions in compensation because the court used Popovic's own words against him and his own father's who had claimed - to help his son - that Sollecito's dinner and flood happened before 8:30pm.

I don't think you know what a conspiracy theory is.




.

The notion C&V would need to resort to lying is one of the most absurd claims made by guilters even by their standards. Lying is something you resort when the facts are against you and it is bizarre to claim people would need to lie when the facts support their arguments. As an example someone has been accused of running someone over in their car. An Expert testified that the suspect could not have run over the victim. He examines CCTV of when the car ran over the victim. The make, number place and model of the car are completely different from the suspect’s car. The footage of the driver is on CCTV and bears no resemblance to the suspect. The incident occurs hundreds of miles from where the suspect lives. There is CCTV footage of the suspect’s vehicle in another location at the time the victim was run over. People accuse the expert of lying to reach his conclusion. Would it not be strange to accuse the expert of having to lie to support the notion the suspect didn’t run over the victim when the fact overwhelmingly support this conclusion.

When guilters accuse C&V of lying this suggests the knife was a solid piece of evidence with a full DNA profile of Meredith and C&V had to resort to lying to reach the conclusion there was no DNA of Meredith. If this was the case, why exactly would C&V need to lie when there are massive problems with the knife as evidence and the facts overwhelmingly show there was no DNA of Meredith on the knife as per the below from the appeal document written by defence for the Hellman court. What exactly were the lies told by C&V?

“The forensic findings regarding the knife

The knife retrieved from Raffaele's apartment is not compatible with the wounds found on Meredith Kercher. It is not logical to conclude that two different knives were used. The medical examiner described that one shorter knife or object was used. Raffaele’s kitchen knife could not have created two (those on the right side with short height and only 1.5cm depth) of the three wounds. The prosecution’s experts agreed that a shorter knife could have created all three of the wounds. The insertion of the knife was very forceful leaving an exit wound on the other side of Meredith’s neck. The knife went in only 8cm, not 17cm. There is clear indication by bruising that the handle struck on the entry side making the blade only 8cm, not 17cm, especially given the size of the knife.



The kitchen knife does not match the size of the knife that left the bloody imprint on Meredith's bed cover. The knife that made the imprint on the bed matches all three wounds. The greater width of the third insertion is from the knife being sawed back and forth as it went in and out. Experts said the kitchen knife was not incompatible with the one wound on the left, but that many other knives were more compatible. One expert, Professor Torre, said it was not compatible at all due to the length of the knife along with evidence that was left by the handle. Professor Torre felt all wounds were made by the same blade, one that was 8cm.



Genetic testing of the knife

The defense argues that the court should have excluded the DNA testing on Raffaele's kitchen knife. Dr. Stefanoni testified her job was to show objective proof by precise analysis, including use of scientific evidence as reflected by the IFIC. Her own notes reflect that the DNA on the knife blade was showing a finding of “too low, too low, too low ...” The testing done on the knife also showed it was not blood. Dr. Stefanoni initially stated that there was a finding of “a few hundred” picograms and she used real-time PCR for findings. When data was later provided to the defense it showed that it was actually under 10 picograms, and could even be ZERO. Dr. Stefanoni created her own form of LCN DNA to achieve the desired results. To make her finding she ran the test once, it destroyed the sample so no other testing can ever be done.



Dr. Stefanoni had to hand set the machine to get beyond the “too low” finding, which stopped her from testing dozens of other samples but pushing the machine to levels that are not permissible, but they provided her with the desired result that she needed on the knife. Dr. Stefanoni’s results show findings below peaks of 50 RFU which are not reliable. “

If there was such a solid DNA profile on the knife, C&V would have to lie to claim otherwise why would Stefanoni have to resort to the tactics below

• The prosecution hid the results of early and decisive DNA testing excluding Sollecito as the sexual assailant, securing on improper grounds the pretrial incarceration of Sollecito and Knox (and Lumumba) to the severe prejudice of the defense.
• The prosecution concealed the initial results for tests performed on the two key items of evidence , i.e., the kitchen knife (Rep. 36B) and the bra-clasp (Rep. 165B), and instead, produced only the results of suspicious “do over” tests (reruns), without disclosing the data from the initial tests or even the fact that the subsequent tests are “do overs”.
• The prosecution concealed that the kitchen knife profile was generated within a series of tests for which 90 percent of the results have been suppressed, strongly suggesting the occurrence of a severe contamination event that the prosecution continues to hide.
• The prosecution claims that contamination of the bra clasp was impossible, even though the bra clasp profile was processed during a series of tests for which there is documented proof of contamination.
• The prosecution falsely portrayed the DNA lab as pristine and perfectly maintained, even though the lab’s own documents demonstrate that it was plagued with repeated contamination events and machine malfunctions that were known to the lab.
• The prosecution has withheld the results from a massive number of DNA tests (well over 100), including probably exculpatory profiles relating to the sexual assault and the secondary crime scene downstairs.
• The prosecution has hidden all of the records of the DNA amplification process—the most likely place for laboratory contamination to have occurred—including all of the contamination control tests for this process.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Goodness me. Don't you recognise the meaning of 'I heard a rumour'? Hearing a rumour is not considered evidence in a court of law. Shee-eesh! So over a year later a guy claims he overheard that 'Mez' throat had been cut and that she had fought' and another claims it 'might' have been from Battistelli.

Sigh. "The arrogant ignorance is strong with this one." It would not be considered evidence that the rumor was true. You're confusing that with the rule against hearsay evidence (which is itself frequently misunderstood). It most certainly would be considered evidence that there was a rumor in circulation.

 

[Stacyhs]

Goodness me. Don't you recognise the meaning of 'I heard a rumour'? Hearing a rumour is not considered evidence in a court of law. Shee-eesh! So over a year later a guy claims he overheard that 'Mez' throat had been cut and that she had fought' and another claims it 'might' have been from Battistelli.

Unbelievable. Zaroli's SWORN TESTIMONY in court is "not considered evidence in a court of law"? According to whom? You? LOL! He was asked how he had heard MK's throat had been cut, and he testified that there was 'already talk of" of her throat being cut and. That is his testimony therefore it is evidence in court.

He didn't come forward a year later; he TESTIFIED in court and answered a specific question asked of him. You know who DID come forward over a year later? Quintavalle. Was his testimony "not considered evidence", Vixen?

Complete and utter rot! Firstly, a doctor would know the difference between the throat and the neck. Batistelli as a trained police officer would also and no way would he say any such thing to the people hanging around the cottage at the time.

Dig deep there, Vixen. Are you really trying to quibble over "throat vs neck"? What the hell is the difference between "Her throat was cut" and "Her neck was cut"? Besides, Altieri said "throat" not "neck".
You don't know what Battistelli would or wouldn't say although you do have a penchant for inventing dialogue.

As for Marsi's claim: "ANSWER - I saw her when the staff of 118 arrived and noted the death by lifting the duvet. I was in front of the entrance to the room, I saw just this one, they uncovered poor Meredith and put her body on her back with their feet facing us and you could see this cut with some cold blood that was..."

Only authorised personnel were present when Lalli turned the body over, including Mignini and Napoleoni (sometime around midnight as I recall) so Knox, Paola and Luca were most definitely and certainly NOT present.

So now you want to claim that postal police officer Marsi is lying, too? Why? Was he also just trying to be nice and help AK and RS? Or is he bent or paid off?

You are lying by omission in implying this happened whilst they were still at the cottage.

I'm not leaving anything out. I very clearly quoted and cited the testimony of Marsi, Altieri, and Zaroli who all said this happened at the cottage. They are the ones you want us to believe are lying.

As for knowing she died of a 'cut throat' and that she had fought - there is no way anyone - including Dr. Lalli, pathologist - would know this until after a post-mortem

Bull. When you see a girl with a huge gash in her throat lying in a pool of blood by her head, it doesn't take a doctor to assume she died from having her throat cut.

Mez did NOT die of a 'cut throat' and she did not fight back as there were only a couple of defence wounds present; on her hand.

Jesus Christ on a cracker! The "'combined mechanism of asphyxiation and hemorrhaging'' caused by a ''cut wound to the carotid artery'', was the cause of death. You know...from having her throat cut.

Her arms had been forced back in restraint (rather like the Atkins woman in the Manson murders) whilst other/s present jabbed Mez with a knife point for fun. Mez had also been strangled, so again, there is no way of knowing that as of the time, other than by looking into her eyes and seeing the tell-tale pink eyelids and digit prints around her mouth and neck. No way could Luca and Paolo or any medic at the scene ascertain all of this without having turned Mez' head around, which was lying left cheek against the floor. Stop lying.

Why are you accusing ME of lying when I'm quoting Altieri, Zaroli, and Marsi? They're the ones you're accusing of lying. Just like you accuse everyone of being bent, paid off, incompetent or lying when they don't back up your guilt narrative.

The throat - thoracic region - is quite different from the neck region where Mez was actually STABBED not 'cut'. Only an ignorant 20-year-old who was at the scene would claim Mez 'had her ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ throat cut' not knowing the difference between aiming for the carotid or jugular and applying a gangster-style 'permanent grin'.

Holy mother of God. Do you ever read what you write before hitting the reply button? You might want to inform Dr. Lalli her throat wasn't cut, only 'stabbed'.

What is more, Mez had her hyoid bone broken (which is in the NECK not the throat) and that happens through strangulation or blunt force of a weapon (such as a knife), so any medic most certainly could not claim to know the cause of death to pass on to a few youths at the scene. Incidentally, if the main vein or artery had been severed, death would have been quick, yet Knox knew she had '◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ suffered' because having missed these points, Mez then died a long agonising death via inhaling her own blood. She actually died of drowning as her lungs filled with blood. That is the actual cause of death.


So I call BS at your bollocks claim that everybody knew immediately at the scene how she died.

Blah, blah, blah......
Your attempt to handwave away the testimony of Marsi, Zaroli, and Altieri is typical. It doesn't matter that the medics didn't know she been strangled, that her hyoid bone was broken. What they could SEE WITH THEIR OWN EYES...a large gash in her throat and lying in a pool of blood coming from that wound...was enough to correctly assume she'd had her damn throat cut!

 

[TruthCalls]

Can you give a specific example?



.

Hmm, let's see....

- It was reported that a receipt for bleach was found.. this was a lie.
- It was reported that Amanda lied about reading Harry Potter at Raffaele's, failing to report there were two Potter books, one at the cottage and one at Raffaele's.
- The infamous pink bathroom photo released to the media, allowing people to think that's what the bathroom looked like when she showered.
- Releasing the list of Amanda's partners and claiming she had seven partners since arriving in Italy.
- Characterizing the scene of her loud party while still at WU as a war zone, and casting Amanda as reckless and out of control.
- The warm, spinning washing machine lie.
- That Amanda and Raffaele went to a lingerie story, bought sexy g-string underwear, and were talking about having wild sex.
- The extensive use of Foxy Knoxy, with the deliberate attempt to exploit the lie that she was over-sexed.

There are, of course, many more, but this should be sufficient to make the point.

ETA: I forgot that IIP had some headlines documented. Here are some from the Daily Mail;

"Foxy Knoxy: Behind the Hollywood smile, a liar, a narcissist, and a killer"
"Foxy Knoxy “wanted to go shopping” after Meredith’s murder"
"Foxy Knoxy claims female cell mate begs her for sex “because I’m so pretty”"
"The Foxy Knoxy show: Smiling murder suspect makes grand entrance as trial begins"
"Amanda Knox: I got a fair trial... I appreciate American reaction but it doesn't help me"​

And from the Times London come these lovely headlines;

"Amanda Knox: ''angel-faced killer with ice cold eyes''"
"Amanda Knox tells of Meredith Kercher’s ‘yucky’ death"
"Amanda Knox, ‘Foxy Knoxy’, reveals her lesbian trauma"
"Diary reveals Foxy Knoxy’s sex secrets"
"Amanda Knox: I'm only a target because I'm sexy"​

 

[SpitfireIX]

Do you think it ethical for Knox' friends and family to get newspapers to claim the prosecutor of Knox was 'mentally unbalanced' during a live case? A simple yes or no will suffice.

"Have you stopped beating your wife? A simple yes or no will suffice."

 

[Vixen]

Unbelievable. Zaroli's SWORN TESTIMONY in court is "not considered evidence in a court of law"? According to whom? You? LOL! He was asked how he had heard MK's throat had been cut, and he testified that there was 'already talk of" of her throat being cut and. That is his testimony therefore it is evidence in court.

He didn't come forward a year later; he TESTIFIED in court and answered a specific question asked of him. You know who DID come forward over a year later? Quintavalle. Was his testimony "not considered evidence", Vixen?

Dig deep there, Vixen. Are you really trying to quibble over "throat vs neck"? What the hell is the difference between "Her throat was cut" and "Her neck was cut"? Besides, Altieri said "throat" not "neck".
You don't know what Battistelli would or wouldn't say although you do have a penchant for inventing dialogue.


So now you want to claim that postal police officer Marsi is lying, too? Why? Was he also just trying to be nice and help AK and RS? Or is he bent or paid off?



I'm not leaving anything out. I very clearly quoted and cited the testimony of Marsi, Altieri, and Zaroli who all said this happened at the cottage. They are the ones you want us to believe are lying.

Bull. When you see a girl with a huge gash in her throat lying in a pool of blood by her head, it doesn't take a doctor to assume she died from having her throat cut.



Jesus Christ on a cracker! The "'combined mechanism of asphyxiation and hemorrhaging'' caused by a ''cut wound to the carotid artery'', was the cause of death. You know...from having her throat cut.

Why are you accusing ME of lying when I'm quoting Altieri, Zaroli, and Marsi? They're the ones you're accusing of lying. Just like you accuse everyone of being bent, paid off, incompetent or lying when they don't back up your guilt narrative.

Holy mother of God. Do you ever read what you write before hitting the reply button? You might want to inform Dr. Lalli her throat wasn't cut, only 'stabbed'.


Blah, blah, blah......
Your attempt to handwave away the testimony of Marsi, Zaroli, and Altieri is typical. It doesn't matter that the medics didn't know she been strangled, that her hyoid bone was broken. What they could SEE WITH THEIR OWN EYES...a large gash in her throat and lying in a pool of blood coming from that wound...was enough to correctly assume she'd had her damn throat cut!

It is not accurate to say Mez had her throat slashed. She was stabbed up to four times in the neck. One a relatively superficial wound and the other a deep stabbed thrust upwards in a sawing motion up to three times.

No, Battistelli did not let any of the above into the room so they cannot have witnessed the state of Mez' neck, especially as she was covered by a duvet. He ordered everybody out of the cottage.


.
.

 

[Vixen]

Hmm, let's see....

- It was reported that a receipt for bleach was found.. this was a lie.
- It was reported that Amanda lied about reading Harry Potter at Raffaele's, failing to report there were two Potter books, one at the cottage and one at Raffaele's.
- The infamous pink bathroom photo released to the media, allowing people to think that's what the bathroom looked like when she showered.
- Releasing the list of Amanda's partners and claiming she had seven partners since arriving in Italy.
- Characterizing the scene of her loud party while still at WU as a war zone, and casting Amanda as reckless and out of control.
- The warm, spinning washing machine lie.
- That Amanda and Raffaele went to a lingerie story, bought sexy g-string underwear, and were talking about having wild sex.
- The extensive use of Foxy Knoxy, with the deliberate attempt to exploit the lie that she was over-sexed.

There are, of course, many more, but this should be sufficient to make the point.

ETA: I forgot that IIP had some headlines documented. Here are some from the Daily Mail;

"Foxy Knoxy: Behind the Hollywood smile, a liar, a narcissist, and a killer"
"Foxy Knoxy “wanted to go shopping” after Meredith’s murder"
"Foxy Knoxy claims female cell mate begs her for sex “because I’m so pretty”"
"The Foxy Knoxy show: Smiling murder suspect makes grand entrance as trial begins"
"Amanda Knox: I got a fair trial... I appreciate American reaction but it doesn't help me"​

And from the Times London come these lovely headlines;

"Amanda Knox: ''angel-faced killer with ice cold eyes''"
"Amanda Knox tells of Meredith Kercher’s ‘yucky’ death"
"Amanda Knox, ‘Foxy Knoxy’, reveals her lesbian trauma"
"Diary reveals Foxy Knoxy’s sex secrets"
"Amanda Knox: I'm only a target because I'm sexy"​

I requested a specific example. So, are you able to produce the newspaper report, together with the date, so that we can assess the context?

Let's start with the first.



.

 

[Vixen]

Sigh. "The arrogant ignorance is strong with this one." It would not be considered evidence that the rumor was true. You're confusing that with the rule against hearsay evidence (which is itself frequently misunderstood). It most certainly would be considered evidence that there was a rumor in circulation.

The post mortem was not performed until 4 Nov 2007, a Sunday. So no, there is no way anyone would know the cause of death before then.



.

 

[Stacyhs]

These are quite factual and/or reasonable belief.

That you think they are is your problem. They aren't.

It is a legal fact that Conti & Vecchiotti were called dishonest by the Chieffi Supreme Court.

Quote and cite Chieffi stating Vecchiotti is 'dishonest'.

It is a fact that Italian mafioso like to holiday in the D.R. and that Sollecito was photographed by mafia-sympathetic OGGI as lying in the sunshine with one of them after the Great Hellmann Escape.

I've been to the D. R. I guess that makes me mafia-connected, too, by your logic. No, he was photographed sunbathing with a friend as OGGI captioned that picture and another:
"Raffaele Sollecito sulla spiaggia di Santo Domingo con un amico (da Oggi)"

OGGI never claimed he was mafia connected. That is all you. And TJMK.

Given that Gill used the dishonest report of Conti & Vecchiotti for his own report and he must have known they were excoriated and expunged with a more reputable scientist taking over at the Nencini appeal court, plus his claims were never tested in a court of law at trial, I would say, yes he is dishonest as his own literature says that secondary transfer of DNA is unlikely to happen more than 24 hours later, yet pretends it's possible there was tertiary transfer of a full DNA profile of Sollecito six weeks later, and without explaining exactly what path such an amazing feat could happen.

Conti and Vecchiotti were most certainly NOT "excoriated and expunged" as Marasca both quoted and agreed with their report basing his ruling on the knife and bra clasp not being reliable evidence. Why do you have to lie?

You love to quote Gill's "24" hour comment but ignore the fact that it's been scientifically proven that secondary transfer can occur even years later. For example, the body of Annie Le, a doctoral student, was hidden in a wall of a lab. She was discovered 5 days later. They found the full DNA profile of a man on her clothing. A man who had been dead for 2 years.

"This study shows that it is possible to transfer an initial user’s DNA from the computer equipment to the hands of a new user up to eight days after receiving the equipment."

Your attempts to undermine Gill's and any other defense forensic scientists' expertise is because you just don't like what they have to say about this case. It's all blatant "kill the messenger" mentality.

It is a legal opinion that Marasca-Bruno in reinstating Conti & Vecchiotti to accommodate Gill and Bongiorno for Sollecito did breach legal protocol as their rank is no higher than Chieffi's and they had no legal right to overturn Chieffi's final verdict in this matter. Nencini's experts were sovereign here.

LOL! The fact that M-B still stands after 10 years severely undermines your continued claims it was illegal. Suck it up.
Chieffi didn't give a 'final verdict' on the murder; he sent it back down to an appellate court.
Nencini's experts weren't 'sovereign'. Why do you insist on just making up your own facts?

I didn't say Altieri and Popovic lied, I simply suggested they came to the assistance of a friend/peer in trouble for well-intentioned but misguided reasons.

LOL! Like hell you didn't. You claimed they made it up which is lying. Your gaslighting attempt fails miserably.

It back fired on Sollecito when he tried to claim millions in compensation because the court used Popovic's own words against him and his own father's who had claimed - to help his son - that Sollecito's dinner and flood happened before 8:30pm.

Irrelevant. You claimed they were lying. Period.

I don't think you know what a conspiracy theory is.

I don't think you know a fact from an opinion.

 

[Vixen]

That you think they are is your problem. They aren't.


Quote and cite Chieffi stating Vecchiotti is 'dishonest'.

I've been to the D. R. I guess that makes me mafia-connected, too, by your logic. No, he was photographed sunbathing with a friend as OGGI captioned that picture and another:
"Raffaele Sollecito sulla spiaggia di Santo Domingo con un amico (da Oggi)"

OGGI never claimed he was mafia connected. That is all you. And TJMK.

Conti and Vecchiotti were most certainly NOT "excoriated and expunged" as Marasca both quoted and agreed with their report basing his ruling on the knife and bra clasp not being reliable evidence. Why do you have to lie?

You love to quote Gill's "24" hour comment but ignore the fact that it's been scientifically proven that secondary transfer can occur even years later. For example, the body of Annie Le, a doctoral student, was hidden in a wall of a lab. She was discovered 5 days later. They found the full DNA profile of a man on her clothing. A man who had been dead for 2 years.

"This study shows that it is possible to transfer an initial user’s DNA from the computer equipment to the hands of a new user up to eight days after receiving the equipment."

Your attempts to undermine Gill's and any other defense forensic scientists' expertise is because you just don't like what they have to say about this case. It's all blatant "kill the messenger" mentality.



LOL! The fact that M-B still stands after 10 years severely undermines your continued claims it was illegal. Suck it up.
Chieffi didn't give a 'final verdict' on the murder; he sent it back down to an appellate court.
Nencini's experts weren't 'sovereign'. Why do you insist on just making up your own facts?

LOL! Like hell you didn't. You claimed they made it up which is lying. Your gaslighting attempt fails miserably.

Irrelevant. You claimed they were lying. Period.

I don't think you know a fact from an opinion.

Do you understand the difference between 'secondary' and 'tertiary'? In addition, if an attorney is going to claim either secondary or tertiary transfer of DNA they are expected to explicitly explain the path and demonstrate that path. In the case of tertiary transfer there needs to be two paths explicitly explained and scientifically demonstrated as it would apply to the scene in question and under cross-examination. Chieffi did call C&V dishonest; look up the MR.

Marasca and Bruno did not have the legal remit to reinstate an MR that was overturned and sent back down (Nencini). That is an established legal protocol. Chieffi was a Supreme Court decision. There is no higher court to overrule Chieffi.


More importantly, Gill's 360-page report based on C&V was never placed into evidence, nor brought into trial, nor was Gill cross examined by anyone.


.

 

[Stacyhs]

It is not accurate to say Mez had her throat slashed. She was stabbed up to four times in the neck. One a relatively superficial wound and the other a deep stabbed thrust upwards in a sawing motion up to three times.

Who gives a damn if it was slashed or sawed to make the gaping wound? Your pedantry does not change the fact that she died due to her throat being gashed.

No, Battistelli did not let any of the above into the room so they cannot have witnessed the state of Mez' neck, especially as she was covered by a duvet. He ordered everybody out of the cottage.
.

Sigh. Neither Zaroli nor Altieri said they SAW the wound, that was postal officer Marsi.
No one said they entered the room. Marsi said he was standing at the door entrance. Do you want to now claim he's lying, too? And why would Battistelli order his fellow officer out?
Yet again, you just make up stuff to suit yourself.

 

[Stacyhs]

The post mortem was not performed until 4 Nov 2007, a Sunday. So no, there is no way anyone would know the cause of death before then.



.

Oh, just stop! She had a gaping cut on her neck and she was lying in a pool of blood by her head. What would you assume she died from? Appendicitis? Being hit by a car? Suicide?

 

[SpitfireIX]

None of this is conspiracy theory . . .

Here are some definitions. I'll give you several, partly because you like to denigrate American dictionaries (despite the fact that about 2/3 of all native English speakers are American), and partly because, in the past, you've attempted to obfuscate the issue by posting definitions of the word conspiracy, rather than conspiracy theory:

American Heritage 5th:​

1. A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.
2. A hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases the hypothesis contradicts the mainstream explanation for historical or current events.
3. Hypothetical speculation that is untrue or outlandish.

Cambridge:​

​

a belief that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people​

​

​

Merriam-Webster Online Edition:​

​

: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators​

the conspiracy theories surrounding Kennedy's assassination​

​

also : a theory asserting that a secret of great importance is being kept from the public​

… is best known for … his conspiracy theory that a secret cabal of reptilian humanoids is running the world.​

—Simon Little​

​

… has often been criticized for promoting conspiracy theories such as "birtherism," the theory that President Obama was not born in the U.S.​

—Grace Segers​

OED (via Wikipedia):​

​

the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event​

. . . this is a current news affair . . .

Irrelevant. Alex Jones was already on the air on September 11, 2001, claiming the attacks were a US government conspiracy.

. . . in which cited sources were making these claims.

Of your two main "cited sources" about the Estonia, one is a Holocaust denier, and the other believes nuclear weapons and space flight are both impossible and were faked by the US government, along with the September 11 attacks. Yet you accepted both of them as highly credible sources about the sinking and the aftermath.

This news item took place recently.

See above.

Not a theory but a factual event.

Non sequitur. Many conspiracy theories involve factual events (as opposed to, e.g., Pizzagate, or the Popish Plot^WP.)

With actual authorised qualified investigators investigating it.

Who determined that your conspiracy theories were all utterly without merit, yet you continue to promote them.

Please learn the difference.

You are not the teacher here.

 

[Stacyhs]

Do you understand the difference between 'secondary' and 'tertiary'?

Yes, I do. Do you understand that both are scientifically established facts?

In addition, if an attorney is going to claim either secondary or tertiary transfer of DNA they are expected to explicitly explain the path and demonstrate that path. In the case of tertiary transfer there needs to be two paths explicitly explained and scientifically demonstrated as it would apply to the scene in question and under cross-examination.

The experts did explain it when they showed the police video of the sloppy, unprofessional collection of the clasp with visibly dirty gloves directly touching the clasp, etc.
We don't know if the transfer was secondary or tertiary but it was accepted by the final SC that RS's DNA on the bra clasp was contamination by DNA transfer.

Chieffi did call C&V dishonest; look up the MR.

Ahem.....

Marasca and Bruno did not have the legal remit to reinstate an MR that was overturned and sent back down (Nencini). That is an established legal protocol. Chieffi was a Supreme Court decision. There is no higher court to overrule Chieffi.

And yet, M-B still stands 10 years later. You can make this claim over and over, but you cannot provide any evidence to support it. Like I said, Chieffi did not rule on the murder. M-B did not 'reinstate Hellmann'. If they had, it would now be a judicial fact that the burglary was not staged.

More importantly, Gill's 360-page report based on C&V was never placed into evidence, nor brought into trial, nor was Gill cross examined by anyone.

So what? That does not change the scientific facts of his report. This is just another one of your attempts to handwave his report away.

 

[Numbers]

Do you understand the difference between 'secondary' and 'tertiary'? In addition, if an attorney is going to claim either secondary or tertiary transfer of DNA they are expected to explicitly explain the path and demonstrate that path. In the case of tertiary transfer there needs to be two paths explicitly explained and scientifically demonstrated as it would apply to the scene in question and under cross-examination. Chieffi did call C&V dishonest; look up the MR.

Marasca and Bruno did not have the legal remit to reinstate an MR that was overturned and sent back down (Nencini). That is an established legal protocol. Chieffi was a Supreme Court decision. There is no higher court to overrule Chieffi.


More importantly, Gill's 360-page report based on C&V was never placed into evidence, nor brought into trial, nor was Gill cross examined by anyone.
.

Your post represents total ignorance of the relevant aspects of Italian law.

It's the obligation of the prosecution to demonstrate without reasonable doubt that any technical evidence - including the DNA evidence - is valid, credible, and relevant. The prosecution must show that the samples were gathered properly, testing was done properly, that there was no contamination including through the use and disclosure of all the negative and all the positive controls, and that the interpretation of the results was proper, all in accordance with the internationally recognized protocols. In general, the defense has no way to know how contamination entered into the prosecution's testing; it is the obligation of the prosecution to show that contamination did not occur. This whole concept is basic to the presumption of innocence, Article 27 of the Italian Constitution. The defense rights provided in Article 111 of the Italian Constitution are also relevant: for example, the defense is to be in equal position to the prosecution and the defense has the right to all evidence in its favor.

The Chieffi CSC panel MR included statements intruding into the facts of the case and these were thus outside the lawful authority of the CSC; these were items to be decided by the referral court, the Nencini Court of Appeal. The Marasca CSC panel quashed the Nencini Court of Appeal judgment and published their own MR in accordance with Italian law, where they dealt solely with the lawful issues of the evaluation of evidence; contrary to your implication, the evidence they considered remained valid. Judgments may be quashed, but valid evidence remains valid, while inadmissible evidence becomes invalid. I suggest you review CPP Article 606 and other relevant Italian law.

What report by Gill are you referring to? Please provide a citation reference. How is it relevant to the Marasca CSC MR? Do they refer to it? If they do, please point out where in the MR that reference occurs.

 

[TruthCalls]

I requested a specific example. So, are you able to produce the newspaper report, together with the date, so that we can assess the context?

Let's start with the first.



.

Sorry dear, but this case is now officially over seventeen years old and not every media outlet keeps their articles online that long. Why, are you going to claim the media didn't publish what I listed?

Well, despite my better judgement I did a quick search and found the following.

Daily Mail bogus reporting about the loud party and other false claims.

ABC Article discussing the pink bathroom and other BS published by the media.

Belfast Telegraph article incorrectly claiming they found a receipt for cleaning supplies from Quintavalle's store.

You know the media published a LOT of false information about the case, ALL very negative towards Amanda and sometimes Raffaele, and it was mostly due to the police feeding it to the media. We all have read the stories, so there's really very little sense in trying to pretend it didn't happen.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Really? "ECHR just satisfaction awards are generally small; the court frequently considering that the ruling itself is the "just satisfaction." So explain why Knox put in a claim for millions of Euros. I'll sit back and await your theory with amusement.

Because, as has been noted, that's roughly in line with her family's out-of-pocket expenses, plus the €500,000 requested for non-monetary damages. Two other observations about "just satisfaction" awards. First, there's been some criticism that the calculation of awards has been rather opaque, and may tend toward being arbitrary (see here), and second, the ECHR has also been criticized for being "state-centric." That is, the court is most concerned with getting individual states to clean up their acts to ensure that violations brought to its attention are less likely to recur. Actually providing redress to individuals applying to the ECHR seems to be a secondary consideration. Along those lines, it is possible that the ECHR expects Knox to go back to Italy after her conviction has been overturned and apply for compensation through the Italian legal system; partly as a means of testing whether the Italians have made a good-faith effort to redress the situation, and partly as a means of making them "eat their vegetables."

As for your other ridiculous efforts in discrediting proper debate . . .

Correctly calling attention to the fact that you are spouting conspiracy theories is not "discrediting proper debate."

. . . we are yet to know what Sunak's interests are so your frivolous claim there are none . . .

I claimed no such thing. There you go putting words in people's mouths again.

. . . does not make it a conspiracy theory as there are plenty of facts which support what is known.

No, there aren't. Further, you claimed to know that Sunak was conspiring to commit abuse of office (though you refused to call it that) to conceal the fact that Vehicle 0 was an EV simply because you have a good understanding of business and how the British press operates, and you insinuated that early reports that the vehicle was a diesel were false.

In addition, it is well-known that the Italian judiciary is plagued by a mafia influence. They actually have an active anti-mafia department, of which Mignini was part of one of them, two of the judges assassinated by the mafia, known to him as friends or colleagues. So again, there is nothing imaginary about this. The fact you have never heard of this or are unaware reflects on you, not myself.

The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey"). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced. Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer may claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte) or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte). [notes omitted] (source)​

You didn't know about the recent news about Estonia being reinvestigated?

Back to the non sequitur where an event's currency somehow means it can't be the subject of a conspiracy theory, I see.

Well, well. Shame on you, not me.

Perhaps it is because Americans don't get to see news outside of the USA that they are so ignorant as to what goes on in current affairs in Europe.

You have no idea what news I do or don't see, or what I do or don't know about what's going on in Europe.

Not your fault but perhaps read and view more broadly before claiming stuff never happens.

What have I claimed never happens?

(Note: I won't be responding any further about the Estonia or the Luton fire in this thread. If you want to continue on either of those, take your replies to the CT section. I've made my point.)

Finally, I observe that, as usual, you fail to acknowledge the fact that you were completely wrong about several things.

 

[Numbers]

Because, as has been noted, that's roughly in line with her family's out-of-pocket expenses, plus the €500,000 requested for non-monetary damages. Two other observations about "just satisfaction" awards. First, there's been some criticism that the calculation of awards has been rather opaque, and may tend toward being arbitrary (see here), and second, the ECHR has also been criticized for being "state-centric." That is, the court is most concerned with getting individual states to clean up their acts to ensure that violations brought to its attention are less likely to recur. Actually providing redress to individuals applying to the ECHR seems to be a secondary consideration. Along those lines, it is possible that the ECHR expects Knox to go back to Italy after her conviction has been overturned and apply for compensation through the Italian legal system; partly as a means of testing whether the Italians have made a good-faith effort to redress the situation, and partly as a means of making them "eat their vegetables."
.....

SpitfireIX, thanks for your well-developed comments and the citation for the article criticizing ECHR just satisfaction practices.
I've emphasized with bold the statements that I believe are most relevant to Knox's case, and indeed in general for ECHR cases, based only on my reading too many ECHR cases (but not as many as others may have read).

I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the ECHR non-pecuniary damage award is a token amount, possibly calculated based on some obscure scale of the severity of the Convention violation (ranked in descending numerical order), the effect the violation has had on the applicant, the moral status of the applicant (persons seeming to be actual criminals ranked lower and may receive no damage award), some estimate of the standard of living in the respondent country, and the roll of a die.

The ECHR awards for costs and expenses are likewise constrained to minimum amounts which seem often restricted to the amounts expended to bring the case before the ECHR, as long as those are documented and "reasonable as to quantum".

I strongly believe that the ECHR approach is that the respondent state is obligated and entitled to evaluate and pay the possibly large amounts needed to cover the damages and expenses incurred in reality by an applicant before bringing the case before the ECHR., and that this process of redress must, according to Convention Article 46, be supervised by the Committee of Ministers. Likewise, the respondent state is obligated and entitled to the selection of the method of non-financial redress, except in certain circumstances such as potential extradition to a non-CoE state, a release from detention of unfairly detained persons (in urgent cases), and in providing urgently needed medical care to a person under state control.

The ECHR - Council of Europe principle governing the substantive and financial redress is the "subsidiary principle", which was formally adopted into the Convention by the entry into force of Protocol 15 on 1 August 2021*. The subsidiary principle was placed into the Preamble of the Convention. Note that the ECHR is given "supervisory jurisdiction" in the Preamble; the supervision of the execution of ECHR judgments by the Committee of Ministers is made explicit in Article 46. Here's the relevant part of the Preamble:

Affirming that the High Contracting Parties, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, have the primary responsibility to secure the rights and freedoms defined in this Convention and the Protocols thereto, and that in doing so they enjoy a margin of appreciation, subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights established by this Convention.

* https://www.coe.int/en/web/podgoric...-convention-on-human-rights-enters-into-force