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

[Vixen]

Sarcasm underscores the lunacy of your claims. For example, you pointing out Meredith's money was stolen, and suggesting this would be a motive for Amanda, while failing to recognize the person who was definitively present as Meredith died, the person who left his DNA on Meredith's handbag, the person who had no money, no job, and no family to turn to, is really the one who had the motive. And this from a person who claims to be "impartial, neutral and entirely objective". This is why we collectively laughed when you made that claim.

You are correct, a motive is not "required", but when you don't have a forensic case against someone, it's beneficial during trial to show why something was done. In this case, not only do you not have any forensic evidence of their involvement, but there is no reasonable, credible motive. As for mens rea, the only person this applies to is Guede. His presence in the cottage was to commit a crime. That Meredith came home unexpectedly and caused Guede to commit a different crime from the one he intended to is irrelevant. Mens rae does not exist for Amanda and Raffaele.


I agree. So what happens immediately before the crime? In this case, Amanda and Raffaele both had prior commitments, which freed up, so they could spend a quiet evening together. Meanwhile Guede was canvasing the cottage, breaking in, looking to burglarize it.

So what happens immediately after the crime? In this case Amanda and Raffaele hung around the cottage, called Filomena, called Vanessa, called the Carabinieri. They stayed because they wanted to help. Conversely, Guede went out drinking and dancing before fleeing the country.

So yeah, actions before and after are very telling, and Guede can't escape his actions.


Um, perhaps this is new to you, but the murder took place in Meredith's bedroom and there is a total lack of evidence of Amanda being there. Your delusional interpretation notwithstanding.


You people bring this up all the time, so perhaps you could take a moment and explain this. I assume you believe they turned their phones off so they wouldn't be GPS tracked to the cottage, correct? This would suggest they were aware this could be done if the phones were on. So, given this, please explain why they would choose to turn them off instead of leaving them turned on and remain in the apartment, providing them an alibi. Are you under the misguided notion that all young people must carry their phones with them at all times?


Absolutely agree. Guede's DNA, along with his shoe prints, and a bloody palm print are all over Meredith's bedroom, where she was sexually assaulted and murdered, while there is nary a trace of either Amanda or Raffaele. It's all anyone really needs to know.

The courts concluded that Knox let Guede in. She met him in the basketball court remember, by her own account. Both Guede's and her DNA are on Mez' bra fabric, causing counsel to walk. If the rent money was missing before the murder then one can see it could be a cause for a row. Two strands of long hair was found in the murder room: one gripped in Mez' hand and the other across the top of her bag. A ladies size 37 footprint in the victim's blood IS on the pillow under the body. The burglary was staged AFTER the murder - see scraps of paper scattered over Filomena's room also on top of the body. Sollecito's DNA IS on Mez' bra clasp and HIS knife is outlined on the sheet. Knox' lamp IS on Mez' floor. Probably the reason RS attempted to break the door down earlier because it could be seen through the keyhole. AK's 'sheath moment'. Studies do show that people cover the deceased faces of those they knew whilst alive. I can't imagine a random burglar would bother. The claim there is no sign of the pair in the murder room is a PR hoax. Micheli and Giordani decreed that Guede was an accessory but not the killer. A fact doesn't go away by putting a polished fairytale in its place.

 

[Vixen]

It's not my interpretation, Vixen. It is established forensic science and I've quoted and cited the evidence for you already several times. Like I said, even Stefanoni's testimony supports what I said:

Hellmann MR

Prof. Chris Halkides Ph.D.(Biochemistry), Prof. at Univ. of Wilmington teaching biochemistry, organic chemistry, and forensic chemistry at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington:



Here's yet another biochemist who says the same thing:

Are you now going to claim that Halkides and Anjaria don't have any qualifications in biochemistry or are you going to go for the usual they're "bent" and a "shill for the PR machine" accusation?

How about you providing evidence that DNA in mixed samples can determine what the source of both DNAs are and that they have to be deposited at the same time?

He's a self-professed 'innocence campaigner'. He wasn't at the trial. He didn't give evidence. He wasn't cross-examined. He is simply offering an 'alternative' explanation because he has decided she was framed..

 

[Stacyhs]

How classy your hating the victims of crime. Of course you hate Lumumba and Mez. That is the only way you can rationalise your irrational admiration for a cruel murderer. But do you think Knox has any respect for people who claim her innocence? I doubt it. No more than she has any respect for Trump who bailed her out with cash.

I'm not even going to dignify that extremely pathetic comment with a reply to it.

It's nothing more than your attempt to redirect from the facts that I presented disproving your claim that

"So, powerful emotions being stirred by Mez seeming to ‘steal’ her job and going out without her. Lumumba confirmed he was on the verge of firing Knox and taking on Mez, who shook a great mojito cocktail."

 

[Stacyhs]

So are you claiming that the judges of the Marasca CSC panel and of the ECHR Chamber judging Knox v. Italy were suffering from conspiracy theories in their minds?

Of course not. Both were obviously shills for the massive Knox PR machine and bought off by Trump!

 

[Vixen]

I'm not even going to dignify that extremely pathetic comment with a reply to it.

It's nothing more than your attempt to redirect from the facts that I presented disproving your claim that

It was an insiders view that AK believed Mez had stolen her job, when Patrik said, don't come in. If you recall, within minutes AK had switched off her phone for the next sixteen hours. Deleted Patrik's message. Was visibly shocked at the Questura when police pulled it up.

 

[Vixen]

Of course not. Both were obviously shills for the massive Knox PR machine and bought off by Trump!

It is factual Curt Knox invested in Gogerty-Marriott PR team. Your pretending he didn't doesn't make the fact go away.

 

[Stacyhs]

He's a self-professed 'innocence campaigner'. He wasn't at the trial. He didn't give evidence. He wasn't cross-examined.

He stated an established forensic science fact that even Stefanoni agrees with. Scientific facts don't change because he wasn't at the trial or didn't give evidence. A fact you cannot disprove with any evidence so you resort to this obvious and laughable strawman.

He is simply offering an 'alternative' explanation because he has decided she was framed..

Assfact.

 

[Vixen]

He stated an established forensic science fact that even Stefanoni agrees with. Scientific facts don't change because he wasn't at the trial or didn't give evidence. A fact you cannot disprove with any evidence so you resort to this obvious and laughable strawman.

Assfact.

The defence didn't call him as an expert witness. Unless you turn up in court to testify your views are not considered. Unlike Stefanoni, he didn't see the crime scene, he didn't see the body and the crime scene layout. he didn't collect the samples. He didn't do the forensic laboratory analysis. He hasn't seen the raw data. Suggesting an 'alternative' explanation doesn't count as evidence. It is conjecture. The DNA evidence was reviewed by Garofano at the request of the authors of Darkness Descending. No way is a scientist going to be told to 'fiddle' his or her results. Garafano could just as easily have criticised the results - the authors respected his independence and integrity to report his own opinion not influenced by anybody else - and Garafano confirmed the DNA analysis by Stefanoni et al was sound. He was head of the Italian version of FBI Forensics. No disrespect but teaching chemistry is not the same as practicing as a professional forensic scientist at a crime scene. As if Stefanoni fiddled her result on the orders of Mignini, as you claim. Pure fantasy.

 

[AmyStrange]

I'm not even going to dignify that extremely pathetic comment with a reply to it.

It's nothing more than your attempt to redirect from the facts that I presented disproving your claim that

Yup, especially since it's coming from someone who hates Meredith but loves Guede.

It's a good thing I didn't buy another irony meter.

I'd probably never be able to hear again.

 

[Stacyhs]

It was an insiders view that AK believed Mez had stolen her job, when Patrik said, don't come in.

LOL. Assfact!

If you recall, within minutes AK had switched off her phone for the next sixteen hours.

Provided for you yet again...and which you'll continue to ignore:

Knox:
PL sends text not to come to work (20:18:12). Reads and replies to him (20:38) and then turns off phone.
Testified she did not want to chance being called into work later.
Logical reason to turn off phone.

Sollecito:
At 20:40, just after AK sends text to PL, Jovana Popovic dropped by RS's apartment. She spoke to Amanda and tells her she no longer needed a ride to the station.
At 20:42:56, Raffaele received a call from his father lasting 3 min and 40sec., then turns off phone.

Both find themselves with an unexpected night off. Logical reasons to turn off phones. But there are no innocent reasons for any of their actions according to you. Everything must have a pro-guilt interpretation.

Deleted Patrik's message.

The message where he told her a holiday evening had few customers (as verified by him and the Swiss professor) so to take the night off but to come in on her next regularly scheduled night? THAT made her think he'd offered Meredith her job? Only in your imagination.

Was visibly shocked at the Questura when police pulled it up.

Cottage, not Questura. Yet again a misrepresentation of what was actually said by Battistelli:

Witness: They were quite embarrassed, I noticed, they were quite surprised.

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - What did they look like? A little… You said earlier they seemed embarrassed, I mean… WITNESS - Yes, surprised, let's say more than anything surprised.

PRESIDENT – Of course, the proceedings cannot be taken into account. This surprise you describe, how did they highlight it, what objective behavior did you…
WITNESS – No, their behavior was not unusual. As I repeat, I had that impression, but they spoke in hushed tones, they spoke in hushed tones, they were quite…

Nowhere in his testimony did he say they were "visibly shocked". That's all you.

Marsi:

PRESIDENT - How were they speaking? Did you hear any words?
WITNESS - Yes. We were greeted, we introduced ourselves, they clearly told us they were waiting for the arrival of...

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - What did they tell you?
WITNESS - They said they were waiting for the Carabinieri to arrive because a burglary had taken place inside the house and they weren't expecting the police to arrive. They said they had called the Carabinieri.

The "visibly shocked" bit is just your usual misleading exaggeration.

 

[Stacyhs]

It is factual Curt Knox invested in Gogerty-Marriott PR team. Your pretending he didn't doesn't make the fact go away.

Really? You're actually claiming I've denied Curt Knox hired G-M? Are you OK?

 

[Numbers]

Thanks for that. Can you post the link so I can monitor it myself?

You may have encountered statements - some were on this thread years ago, relating to Knox's application to the ECHR that was lodged with the ECHR on 24 November 2013 - that Knox's application was going to be inadmissible because 1) she had missed the 6-month deadline for the submission of the application and/or 2) she hadn't exhausted all the (domestic) remedies (which some posters claimed required launching a civil lawsuit in Italy or making a complaint to the Italian police or to the US embassy in Italy or something else). Some posters seemed to adopt the following "logic":

The ECHR states it gets 60,000 or so applications per year.
The ECHR states many, even a majority, of these yearly applications are ruled inadmissible before even being Communicated to the Respondent State.
Knox's application is one of many applications to the ECHR.
Therefore, Knox's application will be ruled inadmissible.

The point is that if a poster makes statements about a topic - for example, the result or mechanisms of a legal process, or the proper way to collect forensic evidence or to conduct a forensic test - but in reality the statements don't take into account the actual steps, reliably documented by the ECHR or technical publications (depending on the topic), the statements in the posts made by that poster are not reliable. If the poster's post contains a logical fallacy, that likewise renders the statements in the post unreliable.

 

[Stacyhs]

The defence didn't call him as an expert witness. Unless you turn up in court to testify your views are not considered. Unlike Stefanoni, he didn't see the crime scene, he didn't see the body and the crime scene layout. he didn't collect the samples. He didn't do the forensic laboratory analysis. He hasn't seen the raw data. Suggesting an 'alternative' explanation doesn't count as evidence. It is conjecture.

Oh, good god almighty! A SCIENTIFIC FACT DOES NOT CHANGE UNDER ANY OF THE CONDITIONS ABOVE. Does the law of gravity change if Isaac Newton doesn't testify to it in court?

The DNA evidence was reviewed by Garofano at the request of the authors of Darkness Descending. No way is a scientist going to be told to 'fiddle' his or her results. Garafano could just as easily have criticised the results - the authors respected his independence and integrity to report his own opinion not influenced by anybody else - and Garafano confirmed the DNA analysis by Stefanoni et al was sound. He was head of the Italian version of FBI Forensics

Ah, yes; Garofano. So, quote where he says mixed DNA must be deposited at the same time and that when each was deposited can be determined. Go on, give that a whirl.
Can you present a single forensic expert who agrees with Garofano on his claim the peak heights show Knox was bleeding? Because I can present several who do not:

There are several reasons why Garofano’s interpretations are wrong. In response to a question of mine, Professor Dan Krane wrote, “Inferring tissue source from peak heights is just plain silly -- to the point of being absolutely outrageous. It hardly bears more comment than that, but if high peaks mean blood then what would you expect from semen which has a ten to one hundred fold higher concentration of DNA?” Professor Greg Hampikian concurred with the view that peak heights were not an indication of whether or not blood was the source of DNA. The peak heights for Raffaele’s profile on the cigarette butt were reported to me as being about the same height as those on the cotton box, and the former are presumably from saliva.

(Prof. Greg Hampikian, Ph.D. biochemistry)

Even Massei accepted this forensic fact:

...the Massei report did not assume that mixed DNA was equivalent to mixed blood (pp. 278-279, English Translation). “It should then be highlighted that in that same bathroom various [300] trace specimens were found, of a mixed nature and testing positively for blood. It is true that, according to what was asserted and explained, it is not possible with a mixed trace specimen that tested positive for human blood to determine which of the trace’s contributors the blood belongs to.

No disrespect but teaching chemistry is not the same as practicing as a professional forensic scientist at a crime scene.

In contrast to your usual hyperbole, you now attempt to minimize Halkides' qualification as a BIOchemist. You asked what my qualifications were as a BIOchemist so I provided a Ph. D. BIOchemist and others as well.

As if Stefanoni fiddled her result on the orders of Mignini, as you claim. Pure fantasy.

Your habit of accusing me of things I have never said just reveals your own dishonesty... or delusions. Unless you can provide evidence that I ever said the above, which you can't, then stop it.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yup, especially since it's coming from someone who hates Meredith but loves Guede.

It's a good thing I didn't buy another irony meter.

I'd probably never be able to hear again.

Vixen doesn't love Guede but she does minimize what he did in order to place blame on Knox and Sollecito. With an emphasis on Knox.

 

[AmyStrange]

Vixen doesn't love Guede but she does minimize what he did in order to place blame on Knox and Sollecito. With an emphasis on Knox.

Maybe, but it's just interesting to me that he doesn't belittle Guede like he does Amanda, and calling Meredith "Mez" is so transparent, it's not even funny.

I just wish he'd tell us what his mission here is. I mean, you can tell he's not reading everyone's responses all the way through. I suspect he only reads the first sentence or paragraph.

I also wish he did what you do and break down his responses in the same way, sentence by sentence, or paragraph by paragraph.

As usual, these are just my opinions.

Your mileage may vary of course.

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen wrote in message #5752

Meredith a ‘mean girl’? No, more likely, whilst initially the pair got on well, texting and going to a chocolate festival and the concert where Knox met Sollecito; by the time of the murder, the two barely texted/phoned each other at all and we can see from AK’s texts to Mez asking what she was doing at Halloween, hinting very strongly she wanted to join her, that Mez evaded her questions and indeed went out with a group of friends, leaving Knox to twiddle her thumbs. Being American, Halloween was a big thing for her. Not so much for Catholic Italian Sollecito, who was cramming for exams. In retrospect, people were looking for possible reasons for the pair’s frosty relationship – if that’s what it was – and Sophie Purton and dad, John Kercher, mentioned things such as Mez complaining about having Knox’ sex toy and condoms in her face in the bathroom, Knox suddenly singing at the top of her voice whilst they were all out dining, and stuff like that. But four females in a flat share don’t necessarily have a lot in common, each will live their own lives away from the cottage. Each comes with their own prior baggage. Knox says in her writings that she had a thing about rejection at school and hung out with the rejects. So, coming to a new country and still feeling like a reject must have hurt. But Mez wasn’t necessarily being a ‘mean girl’. She hung out with fellow students from Leeds University who were all on the same Erasmus scheme and on similar courses. So it might seem cliquey but that is what people do. It’s possible they fell out over Giacomo downstairs. Knox was heard to say to Mez, ‘You can have him’, as though staking a claim on him herself. Certainly, she was rarely around the cottage after that, preferring to stay at Sollecito’s. It’s true that girls tend to resort to psychological measures when falling out with each other, such as sending one to Coventry, whereas guys might slug out their differences in a car park. Certainly, English girls don’t approve of ‘showing off’ and Knox was variously described as loud and annoying, especially at the Questura after the murder, to which Sophie voiced objections. We can also guess they were not close friends as Knox........

Yada yada yada. It is amazing that someone spends this amount of time writing complete fiction, including even admitting that 'we can also guess', when the issue is not guessing, it is what the evidence says.

One bit of evidence? It's available without guessing. When the victim's boyfriend testified at trial about his girlfriend's relationship with AK, he basically said it was normal. I am sure that you will now make more guesses as to why he might say that, guesses which impeach his testimony, while claiming he was really saying that the two of them were scrapping.

Yet, your posts/fictions still leave the taste that the victim did something to rile someone else to kill her. All that, when EVRY COURT, convicting and acquitting, said that both AK as well as RS had had no motive to do the deed. The guilt-finding courts all found that it was, for them, a spur of the moment thing. And yes, that was decided by the courts as the various prosecutions came up with motives for the killing by the truckful.

Are you okay? You spend a lot of time writing this fan-fiction about a character who never existed - the guilter Amanda Knox.

 

[Welshman]

The courts concluded that Knox let Guede in. She met him in the basketball court remember, by her own account. Both Guede's and her DNA are on Mez' bra fabric, causing counsel to walk. If the rent money was missing before the murder then one can see it could be a cause for a row. Two strands of long hair was found in the murder room: one gripped in Mez' hand and the other across the top of her bag. A ladies size 37 footprint in the victim's blood IS on the pillow under the body. The burglary was staged AFTER the murder - see scraps of paper scattered over Filomena's room also on top of the body. Sollecito's DNA IS on Mez' bra clasp and HIS knife is outlined on the sheet. Knox' lamp IS on Mez' floor. Probably the reason RS attempted to break the door down earlier because it could be seen through the keyhole. AK's 'sheath moment'. Studies do show that people cover the deceased faces of those they knew whilst alive. I can't imagine a random burglar would bother. The claim there is no sign of the pair in the murder room is a PR hoax. Micheli and Giordani decreed that Guede was an accessory but not the killer. A fact doesn't go away by putting a polished fairytale in its place.

There are lies in Vixen’s posts which have been constantly repeated. It was never part of the prosecution’s case that Amanda’s hair was in Meredith’s room or mentioned in any motivation report. Raffaele’s knife didn’t match the bloody imprint on the bed. Vixen constantly bangs on about Amanda and Raffaele telling numerous lies but says several lies in a short post. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was so solid, why is it necessary for Vixen to resort to lying to support her claims? Why is it necessary to lie about non-existent evidence to argue Amanda was in Meredith’s room? Vixen lies that the notion there was no trace of Amanda in Meredith’s room is a hoax when in reality it is the notion there were traces of Amanda in Meredith’s room which is a hoax.



Post dated 20.03.2016

Claim: and even defense forensic expert 'Photoshop' Vinci discovered Amanda's DNA on the bra, together with Rudy's.

Truth: Amanda’s DNA was not on the clasp and this has never been part of the prosecution’s case. There is no record of the defence agreeing Amanda’s DNA was on the clasp.

Post dated: 07.06.2016

Claim: A ladies size 37 footprint in Mez' blood.

Truth: There was no size 37 female footprint in Meredith’s room. The defence clearly showed all the footprints belonged to Rudy as detailed below

The Truth About the Shoe Prints in Meredith's Room

A site detailing the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollecito.

www.injusticeinperugia.org

 

[Stacyhs]

The courts concluded that Knox let Guede in.

Marasca did not conclude that at all. Nor did Hellmann.

She met him in the basketball court remember, by her own account.

Which she retracted several times remember, by her own account and the ECHR and anyone without selective memory.

Both Guede's and her DNA are on Mez' bra fabric, causing counsel to walk.

The prosecution never claimed Knox's DNA was on the bra fabric or anywhere in Kercher's bedroom. Would you care to hazard a guess why? Take a few moments and ponder that.

So now it's "counsel" that walked when before it was always Vinci who walked? A claim which you've never once presented evidence for despite repeated requests to do so. Quelle surprise! As I've pointed out before, but which you yet again ignored, Vinci testified in court for the defense on Sept. 18, 2009, more than a year after the "Knox DNA MIGHT be on Kercher's bra" story came out in Oct. 2008.

Additionally, as expert David Balding concluded:

Software says Knox's DNA not on crime scene bra clasp​

If the rent money was missing before the murder then one can see it could be a cause for a row.

If one ignores that employed Knox had several thousands of dollars in her back account and unemployed Guede had none.

Two strands of long hair was found in the murder room: one gripped in Mez' hand and the other across the top of her bag.

As has been pointed out to you innumerable times but which, true to form, you ignore: they were not dyed blonde which Knox was as the time.

Under a microscope, dyed blonde hair appears with a smooth, uniform color, unlike the granular, crayon-like appearance of natural hair color. The color appears as if the hair shaft has been evenly coated, and the dye penetrates the hair cortex, filling it with color. In contrast, natural hair has a cortex that is largely colorless, with pigment granules distributed throughout.

Stop just ignoring anything and everything that doesn't suit your narrative.

A ladies size 37 footprint in the victim's blood IS on the pillow under the body.

Not even Massei accepted that. Claiming it, even in capital letters, does not make it true.

The burglary was staged AFTER the murder - see scraps of paper scattered over Filomena's room also on top of the body.

Paper that could have been on the duvet when pulled off the bed and placed over the body or knocked/blown off the side table.

Sollecito's DNA IS on Mez' bra clasp and HIS knife is outlined on the sheet.

Jesus Christ. The knife outline on the bed is considerably smaller than the kitchen knife as presented in court. Even the prosecution admitted that the kitchen knife could NOT have made some of the smaller cuts.

Knox' lamp IS on Mez' floor.

No one has said it wasn't. HOW and WHO brought it into the room has never been established.

Probably the reason RS attempted to break the door down earlier because it could be seen through the keyhole. AK's 'sheath moment'.

Mere speculation not founded on any evidence.

Studies do show that people cover the deceased faces of those they knew whilst alive. I can't imagine a random burglar would bother.

Guede knew Meredith whilst alive. Nor was he a random burglar as he had been in the downstairs apartment before, including while Meredith was there. At least you're not repeating Mignini's nonsense that only a woman would cover the body. Some progress at least.

The claim there is no sign of the pair in the murder room is a PR hoax.

Hoax? You sound like Trump.
Did the PR declare that no evidence of Knox was found in the bedroom and that the single piece of evidence against Sollecito was most likely due to contamination? And here I thought that was the Marasca SC.

Micheli and Giordani decreed that Guede was an accessory but not the killer. A fact doesn't go away by putting a polished fairytale in its place.

Great examples of judicial facts that do not agree with the actual facts. Both Micheli and Giordano created those 'facts' BEFORE the first appellate trial where C & V decimated the bra and knife evidence and that court found otherwise.

 

[Stacyhs]

Maybe, but it's just interesting to me that he doesn't belittle Guede like he does Amanda, and calling Meredith "Mez" is so transparent, it's not even funny.

I just wish he'd tell us what his mission here is. I mean, you can tell he's not reading everyone's responses all the way through. I suspect he only reads the first sentence or paragraph.

I also wish he did what you do and break down his responses in the same way, sentence by sentence, or paragraph by paragraph.

As usual, these are just my opinions.

Your mileage may vary of course.

Agreed. She doesn't feel the need to belittle Guede like she does Amanda. Why only she knows... although I have my suspicions.

 

[Numbers]

First, here's the link to the ECHR's case law on admissibility, including individual applications; 120 pages long, it covers Convention Article 34 and 35:

https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Admissibility_guide_ENG

Amanda Knox's website includes a tab for Press, where she provides a drop down menu for "legal updates". In that section, she includes the MRs (in the original Italian) of the Florence Court of Appeal provisional re-conviction and the CSC final re-conviction for calunnia, and some other information.

Information on how an individual may apply to the ECHR is contained in the link downloadable at this website:

Your application to the ECHR - How to apply and how your application will be processed

This brochure, describing the various stages of the procedure by which the Court examines an application, is intended to answer the main questions that applicants might ask, especially once their application has been sent to the Court. Available in 16 languages here

edoc.coe.int

I'm not aware of an ECHR site that lets the public know if a particular application has been submitted. If anyone knows of one that currently exists, please post the link (or DM me).

To know that an application has been received, reviewed, and deemed by the ECHR to be a case worthy of adjudication, see the HUDOC website, and search "Communicated Cases" under "Document Collections". One can filter by Respondent State, for example, Italy:

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22respondent%22:[%22ITA%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22COMMUNICATEDCASES%22]}

There is one more information ECHR website that may be of some interest. That is the ECHR State of Proceedings Online. If one knows the application number for a case, one can enter that and find out where the application is in the ECHR process. But the information supplied is limited; it simply reports the last stage reached, such as "Communicated", the application date, date of the stages already reached, and the name of the applicant's representative. It predicts nothing about the dates of potential future events or stages.

I hope the above helps satisfy your questions.

Here are some ECHR statements on some admissibility issues in applications (I've added the words in square brackets for clarity and omitted inline citations and some less relevant text for brevity):

3. For a number of years now, and owing to a variety of factors, the Court has been submerged by individual applications (64,100 were pending as of 31 January 2021). The overwhelming majority of these applications are, however, rejected without being examined on the merits for failure to satisfy one of the admissibility criteria laid down by the Convention. For instance, in 2020, out of the 39,190 applications disposed of by the Court, 37,289 were declared inadmissible or struck out of the list of cases.

107. Under Rule 55 of the Rules of Court, any plea of inadmissibility must be raised by the respondent Contracting Party [State], in so far as the nature of the objection and the circumstances so allow, in its written or oral observations on the admissibility of the application. Any omission by the Government to raise such objections in their initial observations on the admissibility of the case may lead the Court to conclude that they are estopped [prohibited] from raising those objections at a later stage in the proceedings....

111. The rationale for the exhaustion rule [of Convention Article 35, requiring the ECHR to only deal with applications where "all domestic remedies have been exhausted"] is to afford the national authorities, primarily the courts, the opportunity to prevent or put right the alleged violations of the Convention ....

118. If more than one potentially effective remedy [legal path] is available, the applicant is only required to have used one of them....
Indeed, when one remedy has been attempted, use of another remedy which has essentially the same purpose is not required....
It is for the applicant to select the remedy that is most appropriate in his or her case....
To sum up, if domestic law provides for several parallel remedies in different fields of law, an applicant who has sought to obtain redress for an alleged breach of the Convention through one of these remedies is not necessarily required to use others which have essentially the same objective....

119. It is not necessary for the Convention right to be explicitly raised in domestic proceedings provided that the complaint is raised “at least in substance”....

123. Applicants are only obliged to exhaust domestic remedies which are available in theory and in practice at the relevant time and which they can directly institute themselves – that is to say, remedies that are accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of their complaints and offering reasonable prospects of success....

148. Where the Government claims non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, it bears the burden of proving that the applicant has not used a remedy that was both effective and available....

174. The four-month rule [requiring submission of an application within 4 calendar months of the final domestic decision] is a public policy rule and the Court has jurisdiction to apply it of its own motion, even if the Government has not raised that objection....

175. The four-month rule cannot require an applicant to lodge his or her complaint with the Court before his or her position in connection with the matter has been finally settled at the domestic level....

186. The four-month period starts running from the date on which the applicant and/or his or her representative has sufficient knowledge of the final domestic decision....

188. Service on the applicant: Where an applicant is entitled to be served automatically with a copy of the final domestic decision [the Motivation Report], the object and purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention are best served by counting the four-month period as running from the date of service of the copy of the decision ... irrespective of whether that decision had been previously delivered orally...

190. Where the domestic law does not provide for service, it is appropriate to take the date the decision was finalised [published and placed into a court or other official registry] as the starting-point, that being when the parties were definitely able to find out its content....

Source: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Admissibility_guide_ENG