There is no cognitive dissonance on my part and certainly not in that comment. It's clear to anyone who is honest that you falsely claimed I said two things I did not. You made up an entire exchange between us that never happened.
But in your case I wonder if your belief in the pair's innocence is sincere, given how much you know about the case but even so, logic should tell you that just because the pair were acquitted it really doesn't mean that Guede is now the killer.
There you go again with just making things up.
I believed they were innocent well before Hellmann and years before Marasca. Logic tells me that when the prosecution had no reliable evidence placing them in the cottage that night, much less in Kercher's bedroom, and could not prove a motive, then they aren't guilty. Logic also tells me that Guede had a strong motive and that overwhelming evidence places Guede there that night.
They were acquitted owing to 'insufficient evidence' to secure a conviction, based on a specious claim that Sollecito's DNA might have been transferred to the bra clasp by a sterile latex glove.
STERILE? LOL! The glove that directly touched the hook was visibly dirty and Stefanon admitted she didn't change gloves between touching things unless they were bloody or would obviously dirty the gloves!
No, I keep emphasizing Guede's long history of lying, inability to keep a job, lack of money (motive), reputation for stealing from girls' purses, history of being in possession of stolen items, and identification by two people of burglarizing their home. YOU keep inventing reasons I never said.
ike Nina Burleigh you have a belief that only a low life person could commit such a sadistic and cruel crime and Guede fits your stereotype of a lowlife.
Such a typical response from you.
By the way, Guede is a low-life. He not only killed Kercher, but he's also going on trial for repeated domestic violence with injury and rape of his former girlfriend. Or does that make him a 'good guy' in your reality?
A later SC cannot overrule the definitive judgment of previous SC related to the same case.
Since Giordano (2010) confirmed Guede's conviction and confirmed there were multiple attackers, Marasca could not legally find otherwise. All they could do was so those other attackers were not Knox and Sollecito.
Since Chieffi confirmed the slander charge in which Knox states she was at the cottage that night, M-B could not say she wasn't there, either
No, but you've certainly implied he's friendly with them. As in "urologist to the Dons" and falsely claiming he attended Rocco's memorial. Then there's your posting of RS in the DR and claiming the DR is a mafia haven.
However, it would be no surprise if he has contacts (and he was put in touch with Bongiorno, who is hardly a good barrister but seems to get results for her wealthy clients). In addition, he might well be a close relative of Rocco.
There's that innuendo again. After all these years, neither you nor your buds at TJMK has EVER produced any evidence that they are closely related. And even what you've presented in an attempt to connect them turned out to be a big fat ZERO.
Certainly there was some kind of sting going on, first with Hellmann and C&V, and then with Marasca- Bruno. Yours is the conspiracy theory because you believe AK and RS were set up by the prosecutor, a ridiculous idea, The more extreme cognitive dissonance is resolved by people in the smoking/drinking example as being 'the nanny state is trying to control our behaviour', so that affords a psychological solution for some. Others shrug and make out they do not care. Your attitude here is to try to pick piecemeal holes in the evidence that convicted the pair because you need to discover flaws that prove the pair were wrongly convicted. Reality tells you that you can't carry someone's full profile DNA from one spot to another.
Really? I look forward to your acknowledgment that Knox was coerced by the police into signing a statement wrongfully suggesting that Lumumba had been involved in crimes against Kercher.
There's an interesting ECHR judgment, ALAKHVERDYAN v. UKRAINE 8838/20 26/06/2025, with some similarities and differences to Knox's situation in the calunnia against Lumumba reconviction.
In the case ALAKHVERDYAN v. UKRAINE, in 2004 the applicant had been questioned in a police station by police as a witness in connection with the murder of two women. He then allegedly was taken to a forest where he alleged he had been torture by police. As a result of the torture he had confessed to the murder of the two women. He later signed a confession at the police station. He had not been provided with a lawyer during this period of time ending with his signed confession. However, some of his statements led to the discovery of new evidence against him. He was convicted of the murders.
Alakhverdyan then applied to the ECHR, claiming that Ukraine had violated his Convention rights under Article 6.1 and 6.3c. The ECHR judgment in 2019 found that to be correct. That does not necessarily mean that he was innocent of the crimes. However, the ECHR judgment indicated that Ukraine had not demonstrated convincingly why the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant was not irretrievably prejudiced by the restriction of his access to a lawyer on 12 December 2004.
Rather than granting the applicant a new trial, Ukraine dealt with the case following the ECHR judgment by its Supreme Court reviewing the case, eliminating from evidence the confession and certain evidence directly derived from the confession, and then accepting other evidence against the applicant that it considered independent of the confession. The Ukrainian Supreme Court allowed only a brief period for the applicant to respond to the evidence it was considering; furthermore, there was no written document from the prosecution specifying the evidence to be considered, and the applicant was required to respond to the alleged evidence before it had been presented orally by the prosecutor. No witnesses were called. Thus, there was no equivalent of a new first-instance adversarial trial.
The ECHR ruled that Ukraine had violated Convention Articles 6.1 with 6.3b and 6.3d in the current judgment. The initial ECHR judgment (same case title) was published 16 April 2019 and remains under the supervision of the CoM as a pending case within the Balitskiy v. Ukraine group of cases, all involving "the applicants’ convictions, between 2002 and 2015, on the basis of self-incriminating statements made in the absence of a lawyer and in circumstances giving rise to a suspicion that the confessions had been given against the applicants’ will (violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c))."
Comparison to Knox v. Italy and the recent re-conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba:
1. The CSC started correctly by quashing the original conviction of calunnia.
2. The CSC then referred the case for retrial before a Court of Appeal. The ECHR would probably not find that objectionable if the retrial were conducted in accordance with the Convention, including proper attention to the conclusion and spirit of ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy.
3. However, the retrial was to be held on evidence, Knox's Memoriales written in English, that the ECHR had stated were retractions in the test of its judgment. There are some ambiguities in the Memoriales, but it should be recalled that the sum of evidence must establish (prove) guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Ambiguities must benefit the defendant. Furthermore, Alakhverdyan v. Ukraine (2025) shows in its text that the ECHR recognizes the principle of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" also being "poisonous" - that is, evidence derived from illegally obtained or otherwise inadmissible evidence is also inadmissible.
4. The CoM supervision of Knox v. Italy will, based on the example of Alakhverdyan v. Ukraine, continue despite the re-conviction and any potential new application by Knox to the ECHR.
The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...
The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...
There's an interesting ECHR judgment, ALAKHVERDYAN v. UKRAINE 8838/20 26/06/2025, with some similarities and differences to Knox's situation in the calunnia against Lumumba reconviction.
In the case ALAKHVERDYAN v. UKRAINE, in 2004 the applicant had been questioned in a police station by police as a witness in connection with the murder of two women. He then allegedly was taken to a forest where he alleged he had been torture by police. As a result of the torture he had confessed to the murder of the two women. He later signed a confession at the police station. He had not been provided with a lawyer during this period of time ending with his signed confession. However, some of his statements led to the discovery of new evidence against him. He was convicted of the murders.
Alakhverdyan then applied to the ECHR, claiming that Ukraine had violated his Convention rights under Article 6.1 and 6.3c. The ECHR judgment in 2019 found that to be correct. That does not necessarily mean that he was innocent of the crimes. However, the ECHR judgment indicated that Ukraine had not demonstrated convincingly why the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant was not irretrievably prejudiced by the restriction of his access to a lawyer on 12 December 2004.
Rather than granting the applicant a new trial, Ukraine dealt with the case following the ECHR judgment by its Supreme Court reviewing the case, eliminating from evidence the confession and certain evidence directly derived from the confession, and then accepting other evidence against the applicant that it considered independent of the confession. The Ukrainian Supreme Court allowed only a brief period for the applicant to respond to the evidence it was considering; furthermore, there was no written document from the prosecution specifying the evidence to be considered, and the applicant was required to respond to the alleged evidence before it had been presented orally by the prosecutor. No witnesses were called. Thus, there was no equivalent of a new first-instance adversarial trial.
The ECHR ruled that Ukraine had violated Convention Articles 6.1 with 6.3b and 6.3d in the current judgment. The initial ECHR judgment (same case title) was published 16 April 2019 and remains under the supervision of the CoM as a pending case within the Balitskiy v. Ukraine group of cases, all involving "the applicants’ convictions, between 2002 and 2015, on the basis of self-incriminating statements made in the absence of a lawyer and in circumstances giving rise to a suspicion that the confessions had been given against the applicants’ will (violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c))."
Comparison to Knox v. Italy and the recent re-conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba:
1. The CSC started correctly by quashing the original conviction of calunnia.
2. The CSC then referred the case for retrial before a Court of Appeal. The ECHR would probably not find that objectionable if the retrial were conducted in accordance with the Convention, including proper attention to the conclusion and spirit of ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy.
3. However, the retrial was to be held on evidence, Knox's Memoriales written in English, that the ECHR had stated were retractions in the test of its judgment. There are some ambiguities in the Memoriales, but it should be recalled that the sum of evidence must establish (prove) guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Ambiguities must benefit the defendant. Furthermore, Alakhverdyan v. Ukraine (2025) shows in its text that the ECHR recognizes the principle of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" also being "poisonous" - that is, evidence derived from illegally obtained or otherwise inadmissible evidence is also inadmissible.
4. The CoM supervision of Knox v. Italy will, based on the example of Alakhverdyan v. Ukraine, continue despite the re-conviction and any potential new application by Knox to the ECHR.
The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...
The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...
However, this is more or less what I've been saying for years, i.e. that there are judicial facts and actual facts in this case. The theories of multiple attackers, staged break-in, and that Rudy did not deliver the fatal wound are judicial facts, but not actual facts. Those judicial facts are more likely to be wrong since they do not resolve the case. Actual facts are more likely to be those that DO resolve the case. No sustainable narrative can be woven around any assertion that Amanda actually killed Meredith without it sounding ridiculous, so it can be dismissed as a judicial fact and an actual fact.
If you are asking what grounds Knox has for a potential new application, as previously discussed on the threat, the final re-conviction for calunnia based on her Memoiriales - her retractions in English written soon after the interrogation - would be the grounds for a new application. The ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy identified those writings as retractions. The Italian courts wrongfully, unlawfully, and unfairly chose to identify the ambiguities in those writings as evidence of the crime of calunnia.
@Vixen, I admire your sticking with this against the opposition. That being said, you are almost certainly wrong. This thing that Knox and Sollecito were found responsible for the killing but not guilty of murder? Where is that from.
The only evidence for Sollecito's and Knox's guilt is Knox's confession. False confessions are a thing, most folks exonerated of murder they were convicted of have confessed.
Here's a whole list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession#Cases_by_country.
The cognitive dissonance here seems to be all you.
If you are asking what grounds Knox has for a potential new application, as previously discussed on the threat, the final re-conviction for calunnia based on her Memoiriales - her retractions in English written soon after the interrogation - would be the grounds for a new application. The ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy identified those writings as retractions. The Italian courts wrongfully, unlawfully, and unfairly chose to identify the ambiguities in those writings as evidence of the crime of calunnia.
Yes of course, but how does that constitute a re-application when there has been no action plan submitted and no final resolution made? In other words, the current proceedings aren't concluded, so why would Amanda need to reapply? Amanda can use the Italian Innocence Project as an NGO to communicate her dissatisfaction with the slander reconviction, so I have no idea how there would be any need for a new application.
Yes of course, but how does that constitute a re-application when there has been no action plan submitted and no final resolution made? In other words, the current proceedings aren't concluded, so why would Amanda need to reapply? Amanda can use the Italian Innocence Project as an NGO to communicate her dissatisfaction with the slander reconviction, so I have no idea how there would be any need for a new application.
There's a new final court decision - the recent final re-conviction for calunnia. The CoM is not authorized under the Convention to examine such court decisions; the responsibility falls to the ECHR under the Convention. The CoM only supervises the states in their response to past ECHR judgments. So there needs to be a new ECHR judgment to rule whether or not the new final re-conviction for calunnia satisfies or does not satisfy the Convention's requirements. The CoM can and will continue to supervise Italy's response to the Knox v. Italy judgment of 2019. It can't supervise the final re-conviction without an ECHR judgment on that re-conviction, it could only complain to the ECHR about it under Article 46. It's the complexity of the Convention itself that requires this.
See Convention Article 46 and its ECHR case law for more information.
Which is pretty much what Chief of Police De Felice admitted to that very day:
"Initially the American gave a version of events we knew was not correct. She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them in. They all participated but had different roles."
IOW: That guilty ***** finally broke down and verified what Off. Ficarra was able to figure out once she saw that text that Knox sent to Lumumba. She was confirming she'd meet up with that POS Lumumba later that night and take him to the cottage to force Kercher to have sex with him!
This has to be among the most absurd statements ever posted on this thread.
If Vixen's post were to be taken seriously, it would mean that the Italian CSC had ruled that Knox had killed Kercher, but it was a justifiable act of self-defense.
Vixen seems to be desperate to avoid the truth that Knox and Sollecito were finally acquitted of the murder/rape of Kercher because there was no credible evidence that they had committed the crime. That means someone else had committed the murder/rape. Indeed, all the credible evidence indicates that one person was culpable for the murder/rape of Kercher, and that person is Rudy Guede. He was convicted of participating in the murder/rape with others, but the "with others" was a judicial error based on what may be called prosecutorial "overreach".
Oh, I dunno. It's difficult to determine if it's the MOST absurd as there have been so very many by the PGP on this thread. I'd have a hard time choosing from that cesspool of insanity.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
