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

[Numbers]

I'm calling attention to the following excerpt, with the inline citations included, from the final ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy for the following reasons:

1. There is considerable ECHR case law justifying the ECHR judgment. In fact, from that case law, it is relatively straight-forward to have anticipated the judgment would be against Italy - that is, that Italy had violated Knox's Convention rights under Articles 6.1 with 6.3c as well as 6.1 with 6.3e. That refutes the guilter proposition that the ECHR judgment was a fluke, mistake, or due to improper influence.

2. The wording of the judgment suggests clearly that Italy cannot re-convict Knox for calunnia by shifting the claimed evidence to her English language Memoriales, in part because the defects in the investigative proceedings (denial of defense lawyer, denial of fair interpreter) preceded those renunciations of her interrogation statements.

3. The wording of the judgment makes clear that the Memoriales, letter to Knox's lawyers, and phone call to her mother were all renunciations of the interrogation statements. Again, this is a point against the recent re-conviction for calunnia based upon the Memoriales.

(Google translation; emphasis by bolding and italics is mine)

153. The Court notes that, although the domestic courts concluded that the impugned statements could not be used against the applicant for the offences of murder and sexual assault, as the Government indicated, in accordance with domestic case-law (see paragraph 142 above), those same statements could have been used, in the absence of counsel, insofar as they themselves constituted a criminal offence.

154. It further reiterates that restrictions on access to a lawyer for compelling reasons are permitted during the pre-trial phase only in exceptional cases, and that they must be temporary in nature and based on an individual assessment of the specific circumstances of the individual case (see Beuze, cited above, § 142).

155. In the present case, however, the Government refers to a case-law interpretation permitting the use of spontaneous statements made by a person subject to investigation in the absence of legal counsel when they constitute an offense in themselves.

156. Even if this argument were to be interpreted as a "compelling reason" within the meaning of its case-law, the Court nevertheless notes that the case-law interpretation relied on has general application. Moreover, the Government have not established the existence of exceptional circumstances that could have justified the restrictions imposed on the applicant's rights. It is not for the Court to seek them on its own initiative (Simeonovi, cited above, § 130).

157. The Court therefore finds no compelling reason that could justify the aforementioned restrictions in the present case.

158. In such circumstances, the Court must assess the fairness of the proceedings by carrying out a very strict review. The burden of proof thus rests on the Government, which must convincingly demonstrate that the applicant nevertheless received a fair criminal trial overall. The Government's inability to establish compelling reasons weighs heavily in the balance and may incline the Court towards a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c) (Beuze, cited above, § 165).

159. In this exercise, the Court will examine, to the extent that they are relevant in the present case, the various factors arising from its case-law (Ibrahim and Others, cited above, § 274, and Simeonovi, cited above, § 120).

160. The Court first highlights the vulnerable state of the applicant, a young foreign woman aged twenty at the material time who had only recently arrived in Italy and did not speak Italian fluently (Kaçiu and Kotorri, cited above, §§ 119-121 and Salduz, cited above, § 54). 161. The Court cannot but note that, just a few hours before the impugned hearings, the applicant had promptly retracted her statements, in particular through a text written on her own initiative on 6 November 2007 at around 1 p.m. and submitted to the police (paragraph 20, point 3 in fine and point 4, letter e above), another text written on 9 November 2007 for her lawyers (paragraph 24, point 14 above), and the telephone call to her mother on 10 November 2007 while the line was tapped. The Court notes that, however, six months later, on 14 May 2008, the applicant was charged with [calunnia]. 162. It should also be noted that, as is apparent from the judgment of the Florence Court of 14 January 2016, the applicant's statements of 6 November 2007 were taken in a context of intense psychological pressure (see paragraph 103 [above]).

163. As to the use made of the evidence, the Court observes that the impugned statements themselves constituted the offence with which the applicant was charged and, therefore, the material evidence for her conviction for malicious denunciation [calunnia] (see, a contrario, Gäfgen, cited above, § 178, mutatis mutandis; Kaçiu and Kotorri, cited above, § 118; and, mutatis mutandis, Sergey Ivanov v. Russia, no. 14416/06, §§ 90-92, 15 May 2018).

164. The Court further notes that the circumstances in which the impugned statements were obtained could not be [had not been] clarified during [or by] an investigation (see paragraph 138).*

165. Finally, it notes that it is not apparent from the case file, in particular from the record of the applicant's interrogation at 5:45 a.m., that she was notified of her procedural rights (Ibrahim and Others, cited above, § 273).

*Here's paragraph 138.

138. It must therefore be concluded that the applicant did not benefit from an investigation capable of clarifying the facts and possible responsibilities in her case. Article 3 of the Convention, in its procedural aspect, was therefore infringed in this case.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Thank you for explaining yourself refuting the blatant lie I told about you.

FTFY

I think that highlights the difference between you and me . . .

It does, but not in the way you're trying to imply.

. . . (neither good nor bad).

That's debatable at best.

You have a smug certainty . . .

I said "likely." Kindly explain how that indicates "smug certainty." That's a direct question; please answer.

. . . that Guede, as an African, has 'longer arms' because you claim you once read it somewhere in a mainstream magazine article . . .

I said it was from a reputable journal, as reported in Slate (to preempt any claims by you that the journal is probably just some pseudoscientific racist rag) and I linked to the Slate article, which summarizes and in turn links to the journal article. I also repeated my original post in full in the post to which you responded. For what I'm sure is at least the hundredth time you've been asked, do you even read what other people write??

. . . whereas I have the breadth of knowledge to know that there are at least 62 distinct ethnic groups in Africa . . .

Irrelevant, as you have no idea what the average arm length of any of them is compared with white Europeans.

. . . hence why I thought your claim a remarkably stupid one.

Because, as usual, you didn't bother to give what I'd written more than a cursory reading, let alone check the source (or even notice there was a source), especially as doing so could have potentially weakened your "argument" that the tape a) is probably fake, and b) doesn't prove anything anyway.

You've confessed, or maybe that is the wrong word as it implies elements of apology, perhaps 'proclaimed' is a better one, that you have a blind faith in Knox' & Sollecito's innocence.

No. Your lame attempts to pretend that don't make it so. We have plenty of compelling evidence for our belief that they were wrongly convicted. People have attempted to explain why, for example, the bra clasp and the knife are useless (even without considering possible lab contamination), but you always just ignore or handwave away those explanations. You continually insist that the merits court must have reached the correct conclusion, and refuse to even entertain the possibility that they didn't, while insisting that every "judicial fact" must be accepted, no matter how questionable other evidence or court rulings make it seem. Exactly who's exhibiting the blind faith here, Vixen?

Now pitting your 'inner certainty' and 'intuition' . . .

projection​

noun​

pro·jec·tion prə-ˈjek-shən

[. . .]

6
a
: the act of perceiving a mental object as spatially and sensibly objective
also : something so perceived
b
: the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects
especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety . . .
(source)

. . . against my logical, mathematical and objective mindset . . .

Assumes facts not in evidence.

. . . is going to be a similar situation in a Jehovah's-Witness-meets-scientist scenario - not that I am making a value judgement as to who is good or bad - wherein the best thing they can say to each other is, 'Not today, thanks!'

 

[Vixen]

I'm calling attention to the following excerpt, with the inline citations included, from the final ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy for the following reasons:

1. There is considerable ECHR case law justifying the ECHR judgment. In fact, from that case law, it is relatively straight-forward to have anticipated the judgment would be against Italy - that is, that Italy had violated Knox's Convention rights under Articles 6.1 with 6.3c as well as 6.1 with 6.3e. That refutes the guilter proposition that the ECHR judgment was a fluke, mistake, or due to improper influence.

2. The wording of the judgment suggests clearly that Italy cannot re-convict Knox for calunnia by shifting the claimed evidence to her English language Memoriales, in part because the defects in the investigative proceedings (denial of defense lawyer, denial of fair interpreter) preceded those renunciations of her interrogation statements.

3. The wording of the judgment makes clear that the Memoriales, letter to Knox's lawyers, and phone call to her mother were all renunciations of the interrogation statements. Again, this is a point against the recent re-conviction for calunnia based upon the Memoriales.

(Google translation; emphasis by bolding and italics is mine)



*Here's paragraph 138.

Whilst it is clear that the ECHR sets all of that out, one matter I would query is whether they do have the power to stop a court after such a verdict from finding a 'guilty verdict' at all. It states Knox' memo's can't be used but it didn't cover the one that the new trial did use. I am not sure the ECHR can stop a country from finding guilt in a criminal trial even if there was an ECHR breach during some stage.

For example, it cites, Kaçiu and Kotorri [see Facebook: Kaciu's beating was of such severity, he had to be carried into the courtroom by police officers]. But as I understand it, he is still serving life for some kind of shooting incident notwithstanding the ECHR ruling. Whilst in police custody, Kaçiu was beaten, and to relieve the ordeal he falsely named another person. - This would appear to be the defence Knox was relying on. (notandum: For the other case law cited, see below*.)

But what we have here is Italy making a legal decision to take it back to retrial using Knox' own notes. The thing here is, that Knox is not the only interested party, Italy also had to consider Lumumba's claim. If you recall, Lumumba opposed the dismissal of the conviction. The other issue is the ECHR incorrectly states Knox retracted her claim, when in fact the courts, including the current one, found her flowery language didn't disguise her motive in incriminating Lumumba.

The conviction has now been upheld.

I am not sure on what point of law this can be taken to the Supreme Court because Knox hasn't won one single case in this matter and I am not sure the ECHR can force Italy to quash it.

*c. Turkey ([GC], No. 36391/02, §§ 50-55, ECHR 2008) and Beuze c. Belgium ([GC], No. 71409/10, §§ 119-150, November 9, 2018).



n 2008, European Court of Human Rights issued a groundbreaking decision in case of Salduz v. Turkey. The court held that people detained at police stations have the right to access a lawyer. If people are interrogated by the police without getting the benefit of legal assistance, this could be a violation of their fundamental right to a fair trial.



*Since 2008, the court has reiterated the Salduz standard time and time again, in a consistent line of jurisprudence. Furthermore, the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has also been vocal on this issue, stressing that access to a lawyer in the period immediately following arrest is a “fundamental safeguard against ill-treatment.”

These “Salduz” reforms, as they are widely known, are finally taking hold. Faced with a binding law and criticism for failure to fall in line, numerous governments—including France, the Netherlands, Scotland and Belgium—are currently in the process of implementing far-reaching reforms to bring their justice systems in line with the European minimum standards.

 

[Vixen]

FTFY


It does, but not in the way you're trying to imply.


That's debatable at best.


I said "likely." Kindly explain how that indicates "smug certainty." That's a direct question; please answer.


I said it was from a reputable journal, as reported in Slate (to preempt any claims by you that the journal is probably just some pseudoscientific racist rag) and I linked to the Slate article, which summarizes and in turn links to the journal article. I also repeated my original post in full in the post to which you responded. For what I'm sure is at least the hundredth time you've been asked, do you even read what other people write??


Irrelevant, as you have no idea what the average arm length of any of them is compared with white Europeans.


Because, as usual, you didn't bother to give what I'd written more than a cursory reading, let alone check the source (or even notice there was a source), especially as doing so could have potentially weakened your "argument" that the tape a) is probably fake, and b) doesn't prove anything anyway.


No. Your lame attempts to pretend that don't make it so. We have plenty of compelling evidence for our belief that they were wrongly convicted. People have attempted to explain why, for example, the bra clasp and the knife are useless (even without considering possible lab contamination), but you always just ignore or handwave away those explanations. You continually insist that the merits court must have reached the correct conclusion, and refuse to even entertain the possibility that they didn't, while insisting that every "judicial fact" must be accepted, no matter how questionable other evidence or court rulings make it seem. Exactly who's exhibiting the blind faith here, Vixen?

projection​

noun​

pro·jec·tion prə-ˈjek-shən

[. . .]

6
a
: the act of perceiving a mental object as spatially and sensibly objective
also : something so perceived
b
: the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects
especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety . . .
(source)



Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Numbers]

1.. Whilst it is clear that the ECHR sets all of that out, one matter I would query is whether they do have the power to stop a court after such a verdict from finding a 'guilty verdict' at all. 2. It states Knox' memo's can't be used but it didn't cover the one that the new trial did use. 3. I am not sure the ECHR can stop a country from finding guilt in a criminal trial even if there was an ECHR breach during some stage.

4. For example, it cites, Kaçiu and Kotorri [see Facebook: Kaciu's beating was of such severity, he had to be carried into the courtroom by police officers]. But as I understand it, he is still serving life for some kind of shooting incident notwithstanding the ECHR ruling. Whilst in police custody, Kaçiu was beaten, and to relieve the ordeal he falsely named another person. - This would appear to be the defence Knox was relying on. (notandum: For the other case law cited, see below*.)

5. But what we have here is Italy making a legal decision to take it back to retrial using Knox' own notes. The thing here is, that Knox is not the only interested party, 6. Italy also had to consider Lumumba's claim. If you recall, Lumumba opposed the dismissal of the conviction. 7. The other issue is the ECHR incorrectly states Knox retracted her claim, when in fact the courts, including the current one, found her flowery language didn't disguise her motive in incriminating Lumumba.

The conviction has now been upheld.

8. I am not sure on what point of law this can be taken to the Supreme Court because Knox hasn't won one single case in this matter and I am not sure the ECHR can force Italy to quash it.

Vixen, I've numbered each point of controversy in your quoted post above.

1. The ECHR does not have the "power" to stop a court from doing anything. The ECHR makes declarations, primarily relating to violations or non-violations of the Convention. The respondent states themselves, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, are responsible for carrying out the measures required to satisfy the declarations. This has been pointed out many times in this thread; please keep up with the discussion.

2. False. The ECHR text is to be understood as covering all her memos. Read it carefully.

3. Same as 1.

4. The total issue of the case cited in the online citation is not relevant, only the paragraphs cited. This should be obvious to a careful reader. The ECHR chooses the citations, not the applicant (Knox); the specific paragraphs contain the text of the ECHR case law.

5. Italy's decision to reinterpret, distort, or change the meaning of the wording of the ECHR judgment text is contrary to ECHR case law. The ECHR if Knox submits a new application and the CoM in its supervision of the current ECHR judgment will notice this.

6. Lumumba's interests are of concern to Italy, but the criminal case of calunnia is what has been judged as unfair and in violation of the Convention by the ECHR. Lumumba's case, under Italian law, lives or dies based on the criminal case.

7. Knox retracted her statements, as noted by the ECHR in its judgment.

8. What Supreme Court are you referring to? The CSC is the Supreme Court of Cassation and it has made a "final" judgment in the re-conviction for calunnia. This "final" re-conviction could be reversed, under law, by a revision trial, a new application and judgment of violation by the ECHR by following CPP Article 628 bis, or possibly by the Italian Constitutional Court - if a judge or possibly the Italian government asks for a decision from that court.

 

[Welshman]

Well given it is a proven empirical fact that Knox is convicted of falsely accusing Lumumba of the crime* in the knowledge he was not there, and further, was entirely innocent, perhaps you should start wondering why Knox was keen to spread Shaky's name about as a possible suspect on Sunday Nov 4, two days before she planted Lumumba's name.

*The facts are these, whilst Hellmann found that Knox had made the 6 Nov 2007 allegation as a means of trying to relieve the unbearable psychological tension** nonetheless, it still counted as a crime under Italy's codified criminal law. (As you know, ignorance of the law is not normally an acceptable defence.)

From Boni's recent 2025 decision MR: 'HELD IN FACT' - [it's own title], referring to Hellmann/Chieffi arising from Oct 2011 hearing



The Boni recent MR hearing the Appellant Knox, in respect of the re-trial verdict of guilty, reasons that not only was it held true that there was psychological pressure***, but that in the later police tap with her mother, this pressure was no longer there, and thus, it was Knox' cold choice to carry on with the accusation, despite expressing remorse for her allegation against Lumumba, leading him to be imprisoned for two weeks. It reasons as follows:



So, given that Knox DID know Lumumba was innocent, it puts into new light her manipulative and devious attempt to name Shaky also as a suspect whilst in a police waiting room giggling and joking with Sollecito. The term used by the courts was 'Mendacious'.

**What happened at the Questura was that police already knew Knox had received an SMS text from Lumumba telling her not to come into work that evening but she denied it. However, police knew this message had been deleted because on scrolling her phone it was no longer there. Knox however, had forgotten to delete her reply which the police showed her. This is what caused her to have a massive meltdown. The realisation that despite the pair knowing to switch off their phones to evade triage of phone mast signals and to conceal their movements for the night, that whilst the Lumumba message had been received and read at Sollecito's apartment, her response was made in Grimana Piazza. _DOH! Hence, her mortification that her location was known to the police as of that time.

The mortification that their plan for a perfect murder - for 'futile' extreme thrills - had come to a hitch was why Knox trotted out her story about her and Patrick popping along to the cottage so that he could have sex with Mez. She instantly realised she was located there by that phone message, so came up with the Lumumba get-out-of-jail card. All the stuff about being tortured and slapped and interrogated for 53 hours with police yelling, 'Remember! Remember!' is just the PR story put out by her defence team and supporters to try to explain her calumny away. The story Knox' best friend, Madison Paxton, fed to her boyfriend journalist on ROLLING STONE, the magazine to first start that particular ''RAILROADED!!!' hoax, had a massive circulation in the US and so began the great deception of our time.

*** Re the emotional response the police noted re discovering her response to Lumumba. This wasn't caused by Donnino, it was due to not only being found out at Piazza Grimana but also to Napoleoni popping her head round the door to say Sollecito no longer supported her alibi she was indoors with him all evening (and he has never changed this claim [except at a meaningless press conference and in his book]). One's Autonomous Nervous System and the subconscious picks up shocks to the body before our consciousness does, hence people can go red with rage or embarrassment without having any control over it or even being aware until after their bodily functions such as breathing, sweating, salivating, trembling have already started to change, as these are things we do automatically, without using conscious control. So Knox, having had this uncontrollable visible breakdown, had to pretend it was to do with police brutality and trickery for her fans.



.

.

Guilters have a consistent history of showing industrial scale hypocrisy and one clear example is when guilters attack Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba of committing a crime. A cause of this hypocrisy is the guilter belief is that something is unacceptable if it works in Amanda’s favour but acceptable if it works against Amanda but guilters are too dishonest to admit this and give the false impression they have an issue with something in general. Guilters will attack Amanda for doing something but condone the same thing if it is done against Amanda and Raffaele and works against them. There are several instances of people making false accusations against Amanda as per the list below. The instances below of false accusations are acceptable to guilters because they worked against Amanda and Raffaele. You will see no demands those who made false accusations against Amanda and Raffaele should be prosecuted or pay damages to Amanda and Raffaele. Guilters complain Lumumba could have been convicted on Amanda’s testimony but have no issue with Amanda and Raffaele being convicted on the basis of false testimony by witnesses.

• *There are several instances of witnesses who gave false testimony against Amanda and Raffaele. Hekuran Kokomani claimed he saw Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy together on the night of the murder. Kokomani was proved to have lied because he said Amanda had gaps in her teeth and an Italian uncle. Fabio Gioffredi said he saw Amanda, Raffaele, Meredith and Rudy on the October 30th 2007 between 4.30 and 5.30 pm. Raffaele's computer shows itense activity from 5.30 pm to 6.30 pm which proved Fabio had lied. The haters have never criticsed these witnesses for lying. The shop owner Quintavelle initially said he did not see Amanda in his shop the morning after the murder and then changed his story a year later to say he had seen Amanda in his shop. The fact the shop owner changed his story proved he has lied at least once. The haters have defended the shop owner. Curalto initially said he did not see Amanda and Raffaele but changed his story later to say he had seen Amanda and Raffaele. Like Quintavelle, Curalto lied at least once. As the link below shows the English friends of Meredith were caught giving false testimony against Amanda in court http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/the-british-girls/
• 
  
• *The police/prosecution told numerous lies to falsely suggest Amanda and Raffaele were guilty.
• 
  
• https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com/list-of-prosecution-and-press-lies-told-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/
• http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
• 
  
• *Guede lied that Amanda and Raffaele were present at the cottage when Meredith was murdered.
• 
  
• Guilters will attack people for something but will do the same thing themselves if it works against Amanda and Raffaele. Guilters attack Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba but will falsely accuse people of crimes themselves if it works against Amanda and Raffaele. Below are two instances where Vixen has falsely accused people of crimes. One post accused Hellman of taking a bribe and the other that C&V lied. Guilters regard these false accusations as acceptable as they work against Amanda and Raffaele eg Hellman only found Amanda and Raffaele not guilty due to a bribe.
• 
  
• https://internationalskeptics.com/f...ffaele-sollecito-part-32.363048/post-14561536
• 
  
• https://internationalskeptics.com/f...ffaele-sollecito-part-32.363048/post-14558306
• 
  
• It is repulsive how guilters give the false impression they have a general issue with falsely accusing people of crimes when they attack Amanda for falsely accusing Lumumba when their issue is how falsely accusing people of crimes is used.
• 
  

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Well given it is a proven empirical fact that ... <masses of verbiage snipped for brevity>

That's a hell of a lot of words to admit your mind reading trick really was just confirmation bias.

 

[Stacyhs]

You are not getting that a lot of the stuff you claim, was put forward by the defence (and very expensive barristers, too) was rejected by the court in favour of the prosecution. A court works by making a decision as to the facts and the evidence presented. It went to appeal on some points and then to the Supreme Court for the final stamp.

What I'm getting is that you are, yet again, avoiding answering my specific questions by pleading "what the court found" followed by your typical editorializing. You refuse to address any question that you know you can't give a rational answer to.

As I have pointed out, the Supreme Court does not have the remit to find its own facts so when it rejected Massei (a very sharp judge) and Nencini, with C&V having been tossed, it did not have the legal power to bring C&V back in without another merits hearing on the issue.

Sure. You just keep telling yourself that along with the delusion that Marasca will be overturned any day now. Any day....any day...

Yes, the pair got out of jail early and had their convictions annulled on the basis of a loophole last used by slimy politicians, such as Andreotti and Berlusconi, but you are not getting that the facts found by the merits courts remain, as set out in the Marasca-Bruno MR.

And here we go yet again with the mafia crap. Give it a rest, will ya? Nobody but you and a handful of pitiful TJMK fanatics is pushing the mafia bit.
Exactly WHAT "loophole" is that, Vixen? The one that says defendants must be found not guilty unless proven guilty BARD?


Massei found Knox guilty of:
A) Murder with Knox dealing the fatal knife blow
B) Carrying an illegal knife
C) Sexual assault
D) Theft of the cellphones
E) Staging the burglary

Marasca found Knox did none of the above. So much for "the facts found by the merits courts remain."

I get that wrong verdicts happen, as in OJ Simpson but I cannot see anything wrong with the facts in this case, other than minor quibbles, which one would get with any complex case with multiple defendants.

And therein lies the problem. The "facts" you think exist don't: Kercher's DNA on the knife, her 'bloody' footprints, a bleach clean up, "mixed blood", blood in Filomena's room, etc.

Was knowing how Mez died a red flag? Not particularly, for me.

No? Then why have you resorted to arguing that Altieri, Zaroli, and Marsi did not overhear how Kercher had died? Why have you insisted Altieri didn't really tell RS and AK how MK died and that he was only trying to help them out by testifying he did?

The fake burglary,

Which is a judicial fact, not an actual fact. No one would fake a burglary then tell the police nothing was taken. That is contrary to all logic and common sense. Not even you can say that's plausible which is why you repeatedly refuse to address my question.

and the posing of the body, which was forensically proven to have been done later,

Then quote and cite the court that says so. No such thing was ever 'forensically proven'. She died where and in the position in which she was found. The blood loss pooled mostly around her head area proves she died where she was found. She wasn't moved later.

doesn't seem to have been likely by a burglar - Guede didn't try to hide his DNA or fingerprints.

So Knox, using her DNA analysis kit and fingerprint identification database, managed to remove all forensic evidence of herself from the bedroom, but managed to leave multiple traces of Guede? Wait a minute...how is that "covering for Guede" as you've previously claimed?

Given police only found five of Knox' fingerprints proves the old maxim that absence of evidence does not mean absence of person.

Were any of them in Kercher's bedroom? No. Were any of them in blood? No. Was any evidence produced of a bleach clean up in any room? No.
The police aren't the only ones suffering from "investigative amnesia" since you conveniently forget that Privitera testified he found hundreds of fingerprints but most were unable to be used for identification. He also testified he saw no evidence of any attempt to remove prints.

The red flags for me at the time which I still cannot get past are:

• the way the pair both switched off their phones ahead of Mez' arrival home

I've previously produced the timeline of when they turned off their phones which was immediately after Knox read the text she no longer had to work and Sollecito found out he didn't have to take Popovic to the station. But, as usual, you totally ignore that because, for the PGP, everything and anything that has a logical and plausible innocent explanation must be ignored.

• , and Knox not switching it back on until 12:07 next day to make quick calls to Mez' phone

No innocent explanation can be considered such as she forgot it was turned off until she went to call Meredith.
"Quick calls"; there's that subtle innuendo that she wasn't expecting an answer.

• and not even calling the police until 12:54 via Sollecito despite Filomena telling her to. This seemed really evasive to me.

Why? If guilty, why would Knox tell Filomena about what she'd found in the cottage at 12:08 and then tell her about the broken window if the pair weren't ready for the police to come? That certainly isn't being 'evasive'. As Hellman rightly explained:

And, after all, what makes the issue irrelevant about whether the call [133] to the Carabinieri was made before or after the unexpected arrival of the Police is the fact that, anyway, Amanda Knox had already made a call to Filomena Romanelli, at 12:08 PM, certainly before the unexpected arrival of the Police. So, at that point, she had already had told an extraneous person (whether it was the Carabinieri or Filomena Romanelli does not matter when viewed from this perspective) that they (Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito) had entered in the house in via della Pergola, noticing a situation that was a cause for alarm.

• The fact Mez' door was locked. I can find no other explanation for that other than that the person who was home at the time, locked it, especially as the perp returned to stage the body and remove some of the clothing to make it look sexual.

Knox didn't know it was locked until after the burglary discovery. You can't find any other explanation because the only explanations you see are always inculpatory. Nothing, absolutely nothing, has a plausible and innocent explanation for you...even if it means ignoring forensic science facts.

Here's a plausible explanation for you: Guede killed Meredith and locked her door when he left. No one staged the body or removed her clothes to "make it look sexual". Or are you know claiming Guede did NOT sexually assault Kercher and, instead, his DNA was in her vagina because she had invited him over for some grope and grunt while Giacomo was out of town? And here you've always said she wasn't a tart like Amanda!

 

[SpitfireIX]

I love how innocence campaigners use false equivalents, such as 'What about the Birmingham Six or Malkinson or the Guildford Four...?' and now we have Cameron Todd Willingham.

Way to miss the point, Vixen. Par for the course.

You picked two examples of convicted murderers and presumed to tell me that if you told me you thought they were innocent, I'd respond, "Well, it doesn't matter what you think, because they were convicted." I said that, no, in the case of your two examples, I'd respond that they're guilty beyond any doubt.

And now I've picked an example where the accused is quite clearly not guilty beyond any doubt. So, I'm asking you again, Vixen, if I tell you that I think Willingham was innocent, how would you respond?

Oh, and, as a side note, as Knox and Sollecito have been exonerated on the rape and murder charges, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the equivalency is false.

Okaaay. So that proves Knox and Sollecito were the victims of an unsafe verdict, too. Shocking!!!

With the provisos that, again, a) you've missed the point, and b) the burden of proof is on you, no. It proves that unsafe convictions happen, and that one should always be willing to question evidence and so-called judicial facts, and reexamine convictions.

Let's stick to empirical facts, and in this case, these will be facts found at trial. Facts that have been tested and tried and found on balance by the six permanent lay judges and two lead judges to be the facts preferred over those of the defence.

No. This is exactly how unsafe convictions happen. Because people weren't willing to question evidence and "facts" that should have been questioned.

I know you said you don't do legal facts but I am not convinced there is any other fair method.

Even when the evidence shows that the decision was transparently defective, such as the collection of the bra clasp with a dirty glove?

 

[Stacyhs]

Well given it is a proven empirical fact that Knox is convicted of falsely accusing Lumumba of the crime* in the knowledge he was not there, and further, was entirely innocent,

Yet again, you resort to a judicial truth because you know that NO evidence places her at the cottage the night of the murder except her own retracted 'confession'. The claim she accused Lumumba to cover for Guede is disproved by the fact that she left evidence of him, even pointing it out to the police. That's some cover job there!

perhaps you should start wondering why Knox was keen to spread Shaky's name about as a possible suspect on Sunday Nov 4,

"Keen". Please stop using prejudicial hyperbole in an attempt to push your narrative. It would be funny if it weren't so blatantly obvious.
If she was so "keen" then why did she wait until Nov. 4 to mention him? You do realize that she was repeatedly being asked to give the names of any men Kercher knew or had come to the cottage?

two days before she planted Lumumba's name.

SHE planted Lumumba's name? OMG, that has to be one of the silliest claims I've read.
SHE sent his text to her herself? SHE showed the text to Ficarra? SHE knew Ficarra would misinterpret her text?
The chief of police admitted to the press she denied going to the cottage but she finally 'buckled" and told them the facts they "knew to be true" and that "all three of them participated". But Knox 'planted' his name.

*The facts are these, whilst Hellmann found that Knox had made the 6 Nov 2007 allegation as a means of trying to relieve the unbearable psychological tension** nonetheless, it still counted as a crime under Italy's codified criminal law. (As you know, ignorance of the law is not normally an acceptable defence.)

Who said anything about ignorance of the law?

From Boni's recent 2025 decision MR: 'HELD IN FACT' - [it's own title], referring to Hellmann/Chieffi arising from Oct 2011 hearing



The Boni recent MR hearing the Appellant Knox, in respect of the re-trial verdict of guilty, reasons that not only was it held true that there was psychological pressure***, but that in the later police tap with her mother, this pressure was no longer there, and thus, it was Knox' cold choice to carry on with the accusation, despite expressing remorse for her allegation against Lumumba, leading him to be imprisoned for two weeks. It reasons as follows:



So, given that Knox DID know Lumumba was innocent, it puts into new light her manipulative and devious attempt to name Shaky also as a suspect whilst in a police waiting room giggling and joking with Sollecito. The term used by the courts was 'Mendacious'.

But Knox DID NOT know that Lumumba was innocent during the interrogation.
"Manipulative and devious": Please stop. It's annoying.

If guilty, WHY would Knox want to implicate Shaky when she'd have known that no evidence of him would be found in the cottage? It wasn't HIS feces she pointed out to police. It wasn't Shaky's bloody shoeprints or his DNA or fingerprints in Kercher's room. Nor would she have known if he had an alibi that night. And, yet again, why would she have to specifically mention Shaky when she'd already done so the day before in her deposition? But you won't answer any of these because you never do when you can't give a rational answer.

**What happened at the Questura was that police already knew Knox had received an SMS text from Lumumba telling her not to come into work that evening but she denied it. However, police knew this message had been deleted because on scrolling her phone it was no longer there. Knox however, had forgotten to delete her reply which the police showed her. This is what caused her to have a massive meltdown. The realisation that despite the pair knowing to switch off their phones to evade triage of phone mast signals and to conceal their movements for the night, that whilst the Lumumba message had been received and read at Sollecito's apartment, her response was made in Grimana Piazza. _DOH! Hence, her mortification that her location was known to the police as of that time.

Vixen, this is supposed to be a discussion of an actual case, not the one you invented above including this tidbit of rubbish:
"her response was made in Grimana Piazza"
Nope. She replied to PL from RS's apartment. From the Massei MR:

− 20:18:12: Amanda receives the SMS sent to her by Patrick Lumumba, which let her off from having to go to work at the ‚Le Chic‛ pub on the evening of 1 November. At the time of reception the phone connected to the cell on Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, whose signal does not reach Raffaele Sollecito’s house.

But on page 323 this "very sharp judge" contradicts himself three times:

-12.08.44…Amanda calls Romanelli, Filomena….;th mobile phone connects to Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 (WHICH COVERS SOLLECITO’S HOUSE)

-12:11:54 …another call is made to Meredith’s English mobile phone number (the cell used is the one in Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, THUS COMPATIBLE WITH SOLLECITO’S HOUSE)

12:12:35…Romanelli, Filomena calls Amanda Knox; Amanda receives the call connecting to the cell on Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, (STILL AT RAFFAELE’S HOUSE)

I'm not going to waste any more of my time addressing the remaining "alternative truths" in your spiel.





.

.

 

[Stacyhs]

Once again, you seem completely devoid of self-awareness. The 'mansplain' comment had NOTHING to do with misogyny, it was to do with having something carefully explained to me (in this case, eye witness memory) in which I had some detailed academic knowledge having done my dissertation in memory. Nothing to do with being woke. The common assumption which this poster was using, that eye witness accounts are unreliable, is a common misconception and often used to ignore or disregard what eye witnesses to an incident relate. It was attacking the trite stereotyping and generalisation in a one-word nutshell.

As I know you are going to dig in your entrenched heels because you can't see that you are a stereotypist without realising it.

Consider the following:

As a simple illustration, let's say we have the following:

2 + 2 = 5

(My apologies for the VERY simplistic example of more complex issues but serves to explain the idea).
Now we can all see and easily calculate, this is not correct. But imagine it represents a more complex equation which the average person cannot immediately see or calculate as being wrong. Imagine next that the person putting forward this complex (but wrong) equation is being sponsored to mass publish it for clicks in mass circulation media, such as newspapers and broadcasters. This person is perhaps perceived as an establishment expert. So, of course, the average person in the street accepts it, either because they do not understand how the equation has been derived, or because they can't be bothered to critically check it for accuracy, or just because the guy promulgating it is 'a bod'.

Now, I come along. Because I can see or calculate that this equation is incorrect, I point it out.

Along comes you, with your ready 'CT' name-calling and listing all of the people you CLAIM back you up, scrunching your knuckles and glowering over one menacingly, challenging me to 'call the police if you don't like it', browbeating me over the head that:

2 + 2 = 5

Question: Are you able to understand that no amount of name-calling or intimidation will be able to force me to call something that I can see is an error or a lie, as being true?

It's called critical thinking. It should be nothing to do with appealing to the crowd.


.

 

[Stacyhs]

I suggest you read up on it. It is not exactly an unknown topic.

The interference by mafia is my conjecture based on my evaluation of events. I am not asking anyone to accept it.

Really? You're not pushing that theory by claiming on here and elsewhere that RS's family are "close relatives" of the Rocco Sollecito crime family and that Dr. Sollecito attended Rocco's memorial service? You're not pushing that theory by claiming RS was seen with mafia connections in the DR? Pull the other one, Vixen.

 

[Vixen]

What I'm getting is that you are, yet again, avoiding answering my specific questions by pleading "what the court found" followed by your typical editorializing. You refuse to address any question that you know you can't give a rational answer to.

Sure. You just keep telling yourself that along with the delusion that Marasca will be overturned any day now. Any day....any day...



And here we go yet again with the mafia crap. Give it a rest, will ya? Nobody but you and a handful of pitiful TJMK fanatics is pushing the mafia bit.
Exactly WHAT "loophole" is that, Vixen? The one that says defendants must be found not guilty unless proven guilty BARD?


Massei found Knox guilty of:
A) Murder with Knox dealing the fatal knife blow
B) Carrying an illegal knife
C) Sexual assault
D) Theft of the cellphones
E) Staging the burglary

Marasca found Knox did none of the above. So much for "the facts found by the merits courts remain."


And therein lies the problem. The "facts" you think exist don't: Kercher's DNA on the knife, her 'bloody' footprints, a bleach clean up, "mixed blood", blood in Filomena's room, etc.

No? Then why have you resorted to arguing that Altieri, Zaroli, and Marsi did not overhear how Kercher had died? Why have you insisted Altieri didn't really tell RS and AK how MK died and that he was only trying to help them out by testifying he did?

Which is a judicial fact, not an actual fact. No one would fake a burglary then tell the police nothing was taken. That is contrary to all logic and common sense. Not even you can say that's plausible which is why you repeatedly refuse to address my question.

Then quote and cite the court that says so. No such thing was ever 'forensically proven'. She died where and in the position in which she was found. The blood loss pooled mostly around her head area proves she died where she was found. She wasn't moved later.

So Knox, using her DNA analysis kit and fingerprint identification database, managed to remove all forensic evidence of herself from the bedroom, but managed to leave multiple traces of Guede? Wait a minute...how is that "covering for Guede" as you've previously claimed?

Were any of them in Kercher's bedroom? No. Were any of them in blood? No. Was any evidence produced of a bleach clean up in any room? No.
The police aren't the only ones suffering from "investigative amnesia" since you conveniently forget that Privitera testified he found hundreds of fingerprints but most were unable to be used for identification. He also testified he saw no evidence of any attempt to remove prints.

I've previously produced the timeline of when they turned off their phones which was immediately after Knox read the text she no longer had to work and Sollecito found out he didn't have to take Popovic to the station. But, as usual, you totally ignore that because, for the PGP, everything and anything that has a logical and plausible innocent explanation must be ignored.

No innocent explanation can be considered such as she forgot it was turned off until she went to call Meredith.
"Quick calls"; there's that subtle innuendo that she wasn't expecting an answer.


Why? If guilty, why would Knox tell Filomena about what she'd found in the cottage at 12:08 and then tell her about the broken window if the pair weren't ready for the police to come? That certainly isn't being 'evasive'. As Hellman rightly explained:



Knox didn't know it was locked until after the burglary discovery. You can't find any other explanation because the only explanations you see are always inculpatory. Nothing, absolutely nothing, has a plausible and innocent explanation for you...even if it means ignoring forensic science facts.

Here's a plausible explanation for you: Guede killed Meredith and locked her door when he left. No one staged the body or removed her clothes to "make it look sexual". Or are you know claiming Guede did NOT sexually assault Kercher and, instead, his DNA was in her vagina because she had invited him over for some grope and grunt while Giacomo was out of town? And here you've always said she wasn't a tart like Amanda!

Guede's bloody shoeprints as highlighted luminol go straight out of Mez' room and out of the front door. He doesn't turn to lock the door. So, no, he didn't lock the door or the shoeprint would face that way (but we know Knox' bare blood-soaked - as highlighted by luminol (used by police forces the world over) - footprints do).



Then we have the Sollecito's blood-soaked footprint on the bathroom mat.







Guede's foot looks nothing like this.

And whilst we are here, here is the ladies size 37 trainer print in blood found on the pillow BENEATH Mez' body.

And here you've always said she wasn't a tart like Amanda!

I hate to be woke (so report me) but I find your language rather unacceptable.





.

 

[Vixen]

Way to miss the point, Vixen. Par for the course.

You picked two examples of convicted murderers and presumed to tell me that if you told me you thought they were innocent, I'd respond, "Well, it doesn't matter what you think, because they were convicted." I said that, no, in the case of your two examples, I'd respond that they're guilty beyond any doubt.

And now I've picked an example where the accused is quite clearly not guilty beyond any doubt. So, I'm asking you again, Vixen, if I tell you that I think Willingham was innocent, how would you respond?

Oh, and, as a side note, as Knox and Sollecito have been exonerated on the rape and murder charges, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the equivalency is false.


With the provisos that, again, a) you've missed the point, and b) the burden of proof is on you, no. It proves that unsafe convictions happen, and that one should always be willing to question evidence and so-called judicial facts, and reexamine convictions.


No. This is exactly how unsafe convictions happen. Because people weren't willing to question evidence and "facts" that should have been questioned.


Even when the evidence shows that the decision was transparently defective, such as the collection of the bra clasp with a dirty glove?

I would expect you to explain why you thought he was innocent. If your belief is based on some romantic sentimental tosh as with this case I wouldn't want to waste time discussing it because as I said, I am not interested in blind faith stuff.




.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, I've numbered each point of controversy in your quoted post above.

1. The ECHR does not have the "power" to stop a court from doing anything. The ECHR makes declarations, primarily relating to violations or non-violations of the Convention. The respondent states themselves, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, are responsible for carrying out the measures required to satisfy the declarations. This has been pointed out many times in this thread; please keep up with the discussion.

2. False. The ECHR text is to be understood as covering all her memos. Read it carefully.

3. Same as 1.

4. The total issue of the case cited in the online citation is not relevant, only the paragraphs cited. This should be obvious to a careful reader. The ECHR chooses the citations, not the applicant (Knox); the specific paragraphs contain the text of the ECHR case law.

5. Italy's decision to reinterpret, distort, or change the meaning of the wording of the ECHR judgment text is contrary to ECHR case law. The ECHR if Knox submits a new application and the CoM in its supervision of the current ECHR judgment will notice this.

6. Lumumba's interests are of concern to Italy, but the criminal case of calunnia is what has been judged as unfair and in violation of the Convention by the ECHR. Lumumba's case, under Italian law, lives or dies based on the criminal case.

7. Knox retracted her statements, as noted by the ECHR in its judgment.

8. What Supreme Court are you referring to? The CSC is the Supreme Court of Cassation and it has made a "final" judgment in the re-conviction for calunnia. This "final" re-conviction could be reversed, under law, by a revision trial, a new application and judgment of violation by the ECHR by following CPP Article 628 bis, or possibly by the Italian Constitutional Court - if a judge or possibly the Italian government asks for a decision from that court.

Whoops! The case has gone on for so long I kind of thought there was another hearing on the way.




.

 

[Stacyhs]

Thank you for explaining yourself. I think that highlights the difference between you and me (neither good nor bad). You have a smug certainty that Guede, as an African, has 'longer arms' because you claim you once read it somewhere in a mainstream magazine article, whereas I have the breadth of knowledge to know that there are at least 62 distinct ethnic groups in Africa, hence why I thought your claim a remarkably stupid one.

Do people come up to you and say "Mam, how do you know so much about African vs White European arm lengths? Are they big, strong men with tears in their eyes the likes of which the world has never seen?

You've confessed, or maybe that is the wrong word as it implies elements of apology, perhaps 'proclaimed' is a better one, that you have a blind faith in Knox' & Sollecito's innocence. Now pitting your 'inner certainty' and 'intuition' against my logical, mathematical and objective mindset is going to be a similar situation in a Jehovah's-Witness-meets-scientist scenario - not that I am making a value judgement as to who is good or bad - wherein the best thing they can say to each other is, 'Not today, thanks!'

Do you have an uncle that taught at MIT? It must be in the genes! Great genius genes! People are saying!

 

[Numbers]

Whoops! The case has gone on for so long I kind of thought there was another hearing on the way.

Of course, the strategy of the Italian courts - and probably of the Italian government - is to delay the resolution of the Knox and Sollecito cases as long as possible, with the aim of 0delaying the payments from the Italian state of compensation for miscarriage of justice and unjust detention to Knox and Sollecito, respectively.

 

[Stacyhs]

Guede's bloody shoeprints as highlighted luminol go straight out of Mez' room and out of the front door. He doesn't turn to lock the door. So, no, he didn't lock the door or the shoeprint would face that way

You are assuming that he had to face the bedroom door with both feet in order to pull it shut and lock it. You're assuming that it couldn't be be done with his left shoe facing down the corridor and his right shoe...for which NO prints were found... facing slightly toward the door allowing him to turn at the waist and lock the door.

(but we know Knox' bare blood-soaked - as highlighted by luminol (used by police forces the world over) - footprints do).)

(but we know Knox's "bare blood-soaked" footprint was not in blood- as confirmed by the negative TMB test (as used and accepted by police forces the world over).

One of the most egregious denials of scientific fact is the PGP claim that all NINE luminol revealed "blood-soaked" footprints just didn't have enough blood to react to.
Frankly, I think you and the other deniers actually do know just how ridiculous that claim is but just can't admit it.

View attachment 60599

Then we have the Sollecito's blood-soaked footprint on the bathroom mat.

Ah, yes...the blood-soaked footprint that Knox pointed out to the police. Was this her first attempt to cover for Guede?
But....I thought she was trying to set up Shaky being so "keen" and all to make sure the police heard her in the waiting room she suspected was bugged even after discussing him in detail the day before in her deposition.

View attachment 60600

View attachment 60601

View attachment 60602

Guede's foot looks nothing like this.

Really? Is that why Prof. Vinci ruled out Sollecito? Is that why Hellmann ruled it wasn't Sollecito's? Is that why Marasca failed to assign an identity to it?

And whilst we are here, here is the ladies size 37 trainer print in blood found on the pillow BENEATH Mez' body.

OMG. Not a single judge, including Massei and Nencini, ruled it was a woman's shoe but instead found it belonged to Guede.

View attachment 60604




I hate to be woke (so report me) but I find your language rather unacceptable.

Tough. I find your blatant spewing of misinformation more than rather unacceptable.

And please, LEARN TO RESIZE YOUR PHOTOS.

 

[Stacyhs]

I would expect you to explain why you thought he was innocent. If your belief is based on some romantic sentimental tosh as with this case I wouldn't want to waste time discussing it because as I said, I am not interested in blind faith stuff.

You project more than a 12 screens movie theater.

 

[Numbers]

Vixen, I've numbered each point of controversy in your quoted post above.

1. The ECHR does not have the "power" to stop a court from doing anything. The ECHR makes declarations, primarily relating to violations or non-violations of the Convention. The respondent states themselves, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, are responsible for carrying out the measures required to satisfy the declarations. This has been pointed out many times in this thread; please keep up with the discussion.

2. False. The ECHR text is to be understood as covering all her memos. Read it carefully.

3. Same as 1.

4. The total issue of the case cited in the online citation is not relevant, only the paragraphs cited. This should be obvious to a careful reader. The ECHR chooses the citations, not the applicant (Knox); the specific paragraphs contain the text of the ECHR case law.

5. Italy's decision to reinterpret, distort, or change the meaning of the wording of the ECHR judgment text is contrary to ECHR case law. The ECHR if Knox submits a new application and the CoM in its supervision of the current ECHR judgment will notice this.

6. Lumumba's interests are of concern to Italy, but the criminal case of calunnia is what has been judged as unfair and in violation of the Convention by the ECHR. Lumumba's case, under Italian law, lives or dies based on the criminal case.

7. Knox retracted her statements, as noted by the ECHR in its judgment.

8. What Supreme Court are you referring to? The CSC is the Supreme Court of Cassation and it has made a "final" judgment in the re-conviction for calunnia. This "final" re-conviction could be reversed, under law, by a revision trial, a new application and judgment of violation by the ECHR by following CPP Article 628 bis, or possibly by the Italian Constitutional Court - if a judge or possibly the Italian government asks for a decision from that court.

I believe some further comments are required on the citation by the ECHR of paragraphs 119 - 121 and of paragraph 118 of the final judgment Kaciu and Kotorri v. Albania 33192/07 33194/07 in Knox v. Italy 76577/13 paragraphs 160 and 163, respectively. The importance of the cited paragraphs, including any qualifying term preceding the citation, relates to the general concepts expressed by the wording of the cited paragraphs independent of the exact details of the cited case itself. Note that all four paragraphs are from a section of the judgment titled "Application of those principles to the first applicant's [Kaciu's] case". That section follows a section titled "General principles". The concept that general and more specific legal principles may be identified within a broader case may be lost on some readers who are unfamiliar with legal precedent citations, careless or low-comprehension readers, or biased thinkers.

The meaning of paragraphs 119 - 121 is clear from the wording of those paragraphs; here's the text from the ECHR final judgment:

119. Moreover, the applicant’s incriminating statements recorded that he had chosen to confess in the absence of a lawyer. The Court observes that the Government did not respond to the applicant’s allegation that he was refused access to his own lawyer and they did not contend that he had been reminded of his right to remain silent in the absence of a lawyer and of the consequences of his making a statement without having consulted a lawyer. The Court further considers that, having regard to the torture to which the first applicant was subjected, as a result of which he may have wished to put an end to his suffering, it cannot be said that he waived his right of access to a lawyer in an unequivocal manner, free of pressure.

120. If, as the Government allege, the applicant had a low level of education (see paragraph 86 above), this should have required further caution on the part of the authorities (see Płonka v. Poland, no. 20310/02, § 38, 31 March 2009). The Court notes that the Government have not pleaded, let alone demonstrated, that there was a compelling reason to restrict the first applicant’s access to a lawyer before making his statements (see paragraph 112 above). The impugned statements were used at the trial and in fact served as the sole basis for the applicant’s conviction (see paragraphs 37 and 46 above). Neither the assistance later provided by lawyers nor the adversarial nature of the ensuing proceedings could cure this defect (see Salduz, cited above, § 58).

121. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) in respect of the first applicant.

Note that the facts and applied general legal principles of Kaciu's case are relevant to that of Knox, although certain details are different. For example, Kaciu was severely beaten during an interrogation without a lawyer, while Knox claims to have been hit twice on the head and subjected to other coercive measures including but not limited to threats, psychological manipulation, and sleep and food deprivation. Knox was well-educated, in contrast to Kaciu, but she was not fluent in Italian, the language of the interrogation, and was a naive 20-year-old college student.

The inline citation in paragraph 163 of Knox v. Italy includes a reference to paragraph 118 of Kaciu and Kotorri v. Albania that is preceded by a legal term derived from Latin: mutatis mutandis. The term means: 1. with the necessary changes having been made or 2. with the respective differences having been considered.* The second meaning is more relevant, since the text of the original itself is not to be changed. Here's the text of paragraph 118 of Kaciu and Kotorri v. Albania:

118. The Court has found in the present case that the first applicant’s statements which incriminated both himself and the second applicant were extracted as a result of torture. It notes that the domestic courts admitted those statements in evidence. In the light of the principle established in Gäfgen, cited above, the Court finds that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on that ground.

The difference is that the ECHR did not find proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Knox had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment because the Italian state had failed to conduct the legally required (under Italian and international law) investigation of her credible claims of mistreatment by the police. Thus, the ECHR found a violation of Convention Article 3 in its procedural limb. The ECHR here seems to be suggesting that if proof beyond reasonable doubt had existed, this violation of Article 3 in its substantive limb would have generated another ground to find that Italy should have excluded Knox's statements and therefore there would be an additional reason for the ECHR finding a third violation of Article 6.1.

A few last points: Kaciu's criminal conviction, as reported in the ECHR judgment, was for failure to notify the authorities of a crime (of murder). Kotorri had been the person identified by Kaciu in his impugned interrogation statement, and Kotorri was convicted of murder. Kaciu was finally sentenced to two years imprisonment according to the judgment. From my quick review of the available HUDOC EXEC records, I cannot say what individual measures beyond payment of the Just Satisfaction were enacted by Albania to redress the violations for Kaciu. Kotorri was not awarded any Just Satisfaction. At the time the ECHR judgment was published (2013), Kotorri was serving a life sentence in a high security prison. Albania enacted numerous changes to its laws and practices, according to the HUDOC EXEC records, in response to the Kaciu and Kotorri ECHR judgment and related cases.

* https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mutatis mutandis