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

[Disbelief]

The poser to Truth Calls was, compare and contrast a lab scientist in a university department ~vs~ a crime scene forensic scientist. But never mind, you are too fanatically and blindly invested in your 'faith' to grasp a cool and objective perspective. Any rational view is perceived as a 'threat' by you. BTW you claim any DNA collected after 46 days is not permissible. Says who? You?

The irony is off the charts.

 

[TruthCalls]

The poser to Truth Calls was, compare and contrast a lab scientist in a university department ~vs~ a crime scene forensic scientist. But never mind, you are too fanatically and blindly invested in your 'faith' to grasp a cool and objective perspective. Any rational view is perceived as a 'threat' by you. BTW you claim any DNA collected after 46 days is not permissible. Says who? You?

Why do you continue to ignore the whole point of this discussion - was Stefanoni suspect centric in her analysis. And to that point, you need to explain why 12 alleles, above 50 RFU but not part of either Meredith or Raffaele's profiles, were excluded from the RTIGF report. If she wasn't looking JUST for Raffaele and Meredith, then all of the alleles would have been specified in the RTIGF, and the analysis would proceed from there. But that's not what happened. It's clear she was looking to implicate Raffaele, and the omission of the other 12 alleles was because they didn't serve any purpose in achieving her objective, and in fact, was a clear indication of possible contamination.

And I'll use your own words against you.... you are too fanatically and blindly invested in your 'faith' to grasp a cool and objective perspective. No matter how badly Stefanoni performed a task, you'll defend her as if your life depended on it. You can't accept the way the clasp was collected should have automatically invalidated it, despite it being obvious to even the most casual observer. You can't accept that removing the knife from it's sterile collection bag and placing it in a non-sterile box sitting on a cop's desk, contrary to ENFSI protocol, should have invalidated the knife. To you, the ends justify the means and should never be questioned.

And BTW, I don't think the issue with '46 days' is a timing thing. The clasp lay about the floor as the cottage was turned upside down. It was found in a different location from here it was found, buried under dirty things, and visibly dirtier than it was when first found. DNA can be 25 years old and still be useful, but only if the item where the DNA was found had been properly collected and stored, to ensure the results are valid.

 

[Numbers]

As a follow-up my previous post, here's a hypothetical example of two ECHR cases to consider: are they the same and thus the second inadmissible or is the second one new from an ECHR case law view point?

In the year 2007, the LittleBig Bank on Main Street in Country I, a member state of the CoE, is robbed. The police immediately suspect Mr. A of the crime, and arrest him, although they have no evidence to present in a criminal court. Since the police are convinced of his guilt, the exert some psychological pressure on him in an interrogation without a lawyer and which is not documented, except for his confession. He is convicted of the bank robbery solely on the strength of his confession, and is sentenced to 4 years. Soon after his confession, he writes a note to the police that he is unsure if his confession is true. He files an application with the ECHR, allleging his rights under Convention Articles 3 and 6.1 with 6.3c were violated. The ECHR accepts that application and in a final judgment finds that Country I violated his rights under Article 6.1 with 6.3c, and under Article 3 (procedural limb). At the end of 4 years, he is released. Soon after Mr. A is released, he requests a retrial based on the ECHR final judgment in his case. The courts in Country I retry him; first they must quash the previous conviction. In the retrial, the final judgment finds that he was guilty based soley upon his note to police. The court argues that the note was a defensive ruse to make it seem as though his confession was coerced, the courts can tell that it's fake because of the way he worded his uncertainty, and therefore it was actually proof that he had committed the bank robbery. Can Mr. A file a new application to the ECHR about the re-trial and re-conviction that is admissible under Convention Article 35?

I would truly appreciate any comments from readers here on my hypothetical example. Whether you believe that either the ECHR would find the second ECHR application admissible or inadmissible, please provide a rationale based on ECHR case law. Also, please comment on whether or not you believe the hypothetical example is similar enough to the situation of Amanda Knox to shed light on the admissibility of her second ECHR application on her re-trial and re-conviction (assuming that she has made one).

 

[Stacyhs]

The poser to Truth Calls was, compare and contrast a lab scientist in a university department ~vs~ a crime scene forensic scientist.

But that was not in response to anything that Truth Calls' post was actually about. His post discussed Massei's acceptance of Stefanoni's analysis despite Tagliabracci's and other experts' testimony of "all of the technical flaws and procedural violations" because Stefanoni "would have no reason to not be honest". He discussed Stefanoni's failure to include alleles above RFU 50 if they didn't match Raffaele or Meredith because she was suspect-centered.
Your commentary went off on a hypothetical word salad about Kohberger's knife sheath and how he committed his crime along with your usual irrelevant commentary.

But never mind, you are too fanatically and blindly invested in your 'faith' to grasp a cool and objective perspective. Any rational view is perceived as a 'threat' by you.

I don't think the irony of that retort is lost on anyone here.

BTW you claim any DNA collected after 46 days is not permissible. Says who? You?

Oh, did I? Then you'll have no trouble quoting and citing where I said that or anything close to it.

What I DID say was:
"The sheath was not collected 46 days after the crime with numerous people tramping through the house and bedroom."

But since you seem to be having trouble understanding, let me 'splain it to you, Lucy:

That's pointing out that there was far less probability of Kohberger's DNA on the knife sheath being from contamination than Raffaele's DNA on the bra hook being from contamination. Clear now?

 

[Numbers]

Readers here may come to the opinion that the Knox-Sollecito case was largely driven by unusual or eccentric prosecution behavior and incompetence of the police, thereby avoiding "judgmental" views that the authorities were seeking by their official misconduct to frame Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba, possibly motivated by the perceived need of the authorities to solve the murder/rape of Kercher as quickly as possible with a minimum of investigative effort.

However, it is known from US exoneration statistics that official misconduct plays a significant role in wrongful convictions in the US. False or misleading forensic evidence, another factor contributing to the wrongful provisional convictions of Knox and Sollecito, also occurred in some US wrongful convictions. Here are US statistics from exonerations in 2024 on the factors contributing to the wrongful convictions overturned that year:

Official Misconduct: We know of official misconduct in 104, or 71% of exonerations that occurred in 2024. Most of these cases involved more than one kind of misconduct, such as the failure to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense (95 cases), witness tampering (43 cases), perjury by an official actor (39 cases), knowing presentation of perjured testimony (11), police misconduct in interrogations (9), prosecutorial dishonesty in court (8), or forensic misconduct (5).

Mistaken Witness Identification: Thirty-eight exonerations in 2024 (26%) were for convictions based at least in part on mistaken witness identifications.

False Confessions: Twenty-two exonerations (15%) involved false confessions.

Perjury or False Accusation: One hundred and six cases (72%) included perjury or other false accusations.

False or Misleading Forensic Evidence: Forty-two cases (29%) involved forensic evidence that was false or misleading.

Source: https://exonerationregistry.org/sites/exonerationregistry.org/files/documents/2024_Annual_Report.pdf

 

[Numbers]

It's of interest that the Italian courts in their re-trial and re-conviction of Amanda Knox for calunnia against Lumumba again violated her rights to a fair trial, since in the final ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy, the ECHR wrote:

166. La Cour estime partant que le Gouvernement n’est pas parvenu à démontrer que la restriction de l’accès de la requérante à l’assistance judiciaire lors de l’audition du 6 novembre 2007 à 5 h 45 n’a pas porté une atteinte irrémédiable à l’équité du procès dans son ensemble.

167. Eu égard à ce qui précède, l’article 6 §§ 1 et 3 c) de la Convention a été méconnu en l’espèce.

Google translation:

166. The Court therefore considers that the Government has failed to demonstrate that the restriction of the applicant's access to legal aid during the hearing on 6 November 2007 at 5:45 a.m. did not irremediably affect the fairness of the trial as a whole.

167. In view of the foregoing, Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention has been infringed in the present case.

The wording of paragraph 166 makes it clear that a retrial not leading to an acquittal or to a quashing the original conviction could not undo the unfairness of the original conviction. Yet the Italian courts ignored that ECHR conclusion, or interpreted it in a way contrary to the judgment's conclusions and spirit. The irony is that Italy had many years before the Knox case received the ECHR case law on the requirements on a Respondent State to redress the effects of a violation of the Convention on an applicant compatible with the conclusions of the final judgment:

249. The Court points out that by Article 46 of the Convention the High Contracting Parties undertook to abide by the final judgments of the Court in any case to which they were parties, execution being supervised by the Committee of Ministers. It follows, inter alia, that a judgment in which the Court finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in their domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to redress so far as possible the effects... Furthermore, subject to monitoring by the Committee of Ministers, the respondent State remains free to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention, provided that such means are compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court's judgment.

SCOZZARI AND GIUNTA v. ITALY [GC] 39221/98 41963/98 13/07/2000

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights

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...

hudoc.echr.coe.int

In another case with Switzerland being the Respondent State, the ECHR expanded and clarified the Respondent State's responsibilities regarding redress, especially with respect to the re-opening of proceedings:

90. In the instant case the Chamber considered that the reopening of proceedings at domestic level could constitute an important aspect of the execution of the Court’s judgments. The Grand Chamber shares that view. However, the reopening procedure must also afford the authorities of the respondent State the opportunity to abide by the conclusions and the spirit of the Court judgment being executed, while complying with the procedural safeguards in the Convention. This applies all the more where, as in the instant case, the Committee of Ministers merely notes the existence of a reopening procedure without awaiting its outcome. In other words, the reopening of proceedings that have infringed the Convention is not an end in itself; it is simply a means – albeit a key means – that may be used for a particular purpose, namely the full and proper execution of the Court’s judgments. Seeing that this is the sole criterion for assessing compliance with Article 46 § 1 and applies equally to all Contracting States, no discrimination can result between those which have introduced a reopening procedure in their legal system and others.

VEREIN GEGEN TIERFABRIKEN SCHWEIZ (VgT) v. SWITZERLAND (No. 2) [GC] 32772/02 30/06/2009

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights

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...

hudoc.echr.coe.int

Thus, the Respondent State in re-opening proceedings must conform to the conclusions and spirit of the final ECHR judgment that found one or more violations, and the re-opened proceedings must themselves be conducted in accordance with the Convention and ECHR case law. For the Knox v. Italy case, that means the re-trial and re-conviction may be judged by the ECHR for conformity to the Convention and ECHR case law if Knox has submitted an application by the deadline (approximately August 7, 2025).

 

[Stacyhs]

Still waiting for Vixen to quote and cite me for this:

Vixen said:
BTW you claim any DNA collected after 46 days is not permissible. Says who? You?

 

[Bill Williams]

I would truly appreciate any comments from readers here on my hypothetical example. Whether you believe that either the ECHR would find the second ECHR application admissible or inadmissible, please provide a rationale based on ECHR case law. Also, please comment on whether or not you believe the hypothetical example is similar enough to the situation of Amanda Knox to shed light on the admissibility of her second ECHR application on her re-trial and re-conviction (assuming that she has made one).

I'm not sure what to say. I am not immersed in ECHR case law, not at all. I read your stuff, not with a mind of either agreement or disagreement. I try to stuff it into my mind somewhere, where retrieval is not always guaranteed.

I still hold the view, though, that without some sort of police-force, the ECHR is very much neutered in enforcing their orders. Harsh language doesn't seem to cut it.

It is rather surprising, given my attitudes about ECHR, that Italy, in fact, did initiate a process to remedy the initial ECHR concern about the calunnia conviction. Yet, instead of actually remedying it, Italy turned around and doubled down on it, as if the ECHR had not said anything.

Unless the ECHR can reach into Italy's judicial system and arrest judges for non-compliance, I'm not sure what good the ECHR does.

 

[Numbers]

I'm not sure what to say. I am not immersed in ECHR case law, not at all. I read your stuff, not with a mind of either agreement or disagreement. I try to stuff it into my mind somewhere, where retrieval is not always guaranteed.

I still hold the view, though, that without some sort of police-force, the ECHR is very much neutered in enforcing their orders. Harsh language doesn't seem to cut it.

It is rather surprising, given my attitudes about ECHR, that Italy, in fact, did initiate a process to remedy the initial ECHR concern about the calunnia conviction. Yet, instead of actually remedying it, Italy turned around and doubled down on it, as if the ECHR had not said anything.

Unless the ECHR can reach into Italy's judicial system and arrest judges for non-compliance, I'm not sure what good the ECHR does.

Bill, I agree with you totally about the enforcement problem. The Council of Europe - ECHR - CoM system is set up to succeed only if the member states of their own volition "abide" by the ECHR judgments. The CoM does not have the authority to enforce ECHR judgments, it can only "supervise" them, which in most cases means providing some technical legal help to a respondent state that seeks to implement a judgment, but in other cases, it means diplomatically nagging and embarrassing a respondent state that seeks to avoid implementing a judgment. So in the almost-worst cases, it takes an insanely long time for an ECHR judgment to be implemented. In the very worst cases, the state leaves or is kicked out of the ECHR system, following provisions in the Council of Europe - ECHR treaty. This happened twice*: First, with Greece during the period when a junta took over the Greek government, resulting in a severe degradation of human rights. Greece notified the CoE it was leaving the organization on 12 February 1969; however, after a democratic government was installed, Greece rejoined on 28 November 1974. Second, with Russia after its 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Russia was expelled on 16 March 2022 from the Council of Europe; in anticipation of that vote, on 15 March 2022, Russia had notified the CoE it was leaving the CoE.

The good thing about Italy is that it has so far followed the final judgments of the ECHR in many cases, sometimes after trying everything else, including sometimes doing nothing to resolve a case for a long time. The DEJ (Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR) has compiled a list of achievements of each country as a result of ECHR judgments under CoM supervision. The list for Italy is at:

https://rm.coe.int/ma-italy-eng/1680a186af

There's also a list of the main issues from ECHR judgments currently actively before the CoM; Knox v. Italy is not listed, because it is currently under Standard Supervision:

https://rm.coe.int/mi-italy-eng/1680a23c95

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_Council_of_Europe

 

[Mojo]

I'm not sure what to say. I am not immersed in ECHR case law, not at all. I read your stuff, not with a mind of either agreement or disagreement. I try to stuff it into my mind somewhere, where retrieval is not always guaranteed.

I still hold the view, though, that without some sort of police-force, the ECHR is very much neutered in enforcing their orders. Harsh language doesn't seem to cut it.

It is rather surprising, given my attitudes about ECHR, that Italy, in fact, did initiate a process to remedy the initial ECHR concern about the calunnia conviction. Yet, instead of actually remedying it, Italy turned around and doubled down on it, as if the ECHR had not said anything.

Unless the ECHR can reach into Italy's judicial system and arrest judges for non-compliance, I'm not sure what good the ECHR does.

In the UK we're continually being told that the ECHR is an all-powerful dictatorship that stops our governments carrying out their policies.

 

[Vixen]

But that was not in response to anything that Truth Calls' post was actually about. His post discussed Massei's acceptance of Stefanoni's analysis despite Tagliabracci's and other experts' testimony of "all of the technical flaws and procedural violations" because Stefanoni "would have no reason to not be honest". He discussed Stefanoni's failure to include alleles above RFU 50 if they didn't match Raffaele or Meredith because she was suspect-centered.
Your commentary went off on a hypothetical word salad about Kohberger's knife sheath and how he committed his crime along with your usual irrelevant commentary.


I don't think the irony of that retort is lost on anyone here.

Oh, did I? Then you'll have no trouble quoting and citing where I said that or anything close to it.

What I DID say was:
"The sheath was not collected 46 days after the crime with numerous people tramping through the house and bedroom."

But since you seem to be having trouble understanding, let me 'splain it to you, Lucy:

That's pointing out that there was far less probability of Kohberger's DNA on the knife sheath being from contamination than Raffaele's DNA on the bra hook being from contamination. Clear now?

No, you have still entirely missed the point. But never mind.

 

[Vixen]

In the UK we're continually being told that the ECHR is an all-powerful dictatorship that stops our governments carrying out their policies.

Americans think the ECHR an incredibly powerful body with the authority to overturn criminal convictions and hand out sums of €2m in compensation. Not that the US cares about human rights.

 

[Numbers]

I'm not sure what to say. I am not immersed in ECHR case law, not at all. I read your stuff, not with a mind of either agreement or disagreement. I try to stuff it into my mind somewhere, where retrieval is not always guaranteed.

I still hold the view, though, that without some sort of police-force, the ECHR is very much neutered in enforcing their orders. Harsh language doesn't seem to cut it.

It is rather surprising, given my attitudes about ECHR, that Italy, in fact, did initiate a process to remedy the initial ECHR concern about the calunnia conviction. Yet, instead of actually remedying it, Italy turned around and doubled down on it, as if the ECHR had not said anything.

Unless the ECHR can reach into Italy's judicial system and arrest judges for non-compliance, I'm not sure what good the ECHR does.

An additional follow-up.

It's clear that each CoE member state (or former member state) has its own history and style of how soon, if ever, it conforms to (abides by) the final judgments of the ECHR.

Bill, as you and other readers here may recall, I've previously posted small tables of comparative ECHR conformance for Italy and some of the other CoE states, generally those with about the same population size (about 60 million) and a clearly democratic government: the UK, France, and Germany (the latter having a larger population), as well as a few other states. I've measured the conformance by, for example, comparing how many ECHR leading cases the state had before the CoM for supervision and how many had been finally resolved.

The Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR (DEJ) has created a large table giving that type of ECHR conformance information for all the CoE member states, including former member Russia, for the number of leading cases before the CoM and for the total number of cases before the CoM, including the percentages of those cases pending (not resolved) and of those closed (finally resolved), for each state.

This table is included in the DEJ's factsheet on each CoE state. The state factsheet gives additional information, for example, the total Just Satisfaction paid by the state for each year starting with 2014.

For Italy's factsheet, see:

Italy - Department for the Execution of Judgments<br>of the European Court of Human Rights - www.coe.int

www.coe.int

(scroll down to find the table with a heading "Percentage" on the left side of the web page)

ETA:

A second follow-up. I believe I have created an accessible copy of the DEJ table here:

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/execution/viz/PercentageLeadingTotal/Dashboard1

 

[TruthCalls]

No, you have still entirely missed the point. But never mind.

What I know is you're still not addressing the suppression of 12 alleles on the bra clasp, and how that's clear evidence of a suspect centric analysis.

 

[TruthCalls]

Americans think the ECHR an incredibly powerful body with the authority to overturn criminal convictions and hand out sums of €2m in compensation. Not that the US cares about human rights.

I find your comment incredibly insulting and bigoted. The irony of your comment is Bill Williams just posted a comment making it clear he has no faith in a court that has no real enforcement capabilities. He might not be "American", but he is North American and he does understand what the court can and can not do, as I suspect virtually everyone else does.

 

[Numbers]

Americans think the ECHR an incredibly powerful body with the authority to overturn criminal convictions and hand out sums of €2m in compensation. Not that the US cares about human rights.

Vixen, your comments in the quoted post show your opinions, as TruthCalls points out in post #5955, but nothing factual about Americans or the US. Your post is entirely lacking in any statistical or other empirical evidence.

As some may be aware, the European Convention on Human Rights:

was directly inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948. Its main difference lies in the existence of an international court, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), whose judgments are legally binding on states parties. This ensures that the rights set out in the Convention are not just principles but are concretely enforceable through individual complaint or inter-state complaint procedures.

To guarantee this judicial enforcement, the Convention established both the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and the ECtHR, which has sat in Strasbourg since its creation in 1959. Any person who believes their rights under the Convention have been violated by a state party can bring a case before the Court, provided their state allows it under Article 56 of the Convention. Judgments finding violations are binding on the states concerned, which are obliged to comply, particularly by paying appropriate compensation to applicants for any damage suffered. The Committee of Ministers supervises the execution of judgments.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was:

Drafted by a United Nations (UN) committee chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, it was accepted by the General Assembly as Resolution 217 during its third session on 10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris, France

Eleanor Roosevelt was an American (US citizen), the wife of Franklin D. Roosevelt, president of the US (1933-1945). She was a well-known advocate of human rights.

See:

European Convention on Human Rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[AmyStrange]

I find your comment incredibly insulting and bigoted. The irony of your comment is Bill Williams just posted a comment making it clear he has no faith in a court that has no real enforcement capabilities. He might not be "American", but he is North American and he does understand what the court can and can not do, as I suspect virtually everyone else does.

Yup, some guilters are just too stupid for words.

 

[Vixen]

I find your comment incredibly insulting and bigoted. The irony of your comment is Bill Williams just posted a comment making it clear he has no faith in a court that has no real enforcement capabilities. He might not be "American", but he is North American and he does understand what the court can and can not do, as I suspect virtually everyone else does.

I was rather thinking of 'hate preacher' Hamzu with the hook. The UK was handtied from doing anything with this chap because he took out an Article 8 edict from the ECHR, citing 'the right to family life'. Yet as soon as he touched down in the USA, he was carted off to jail. The ECHR does have teeth, for example, it could - and did - issue emergency judicial orders to stop a state (i.e., the UK) from summarily deporting an asylum seeker off to Rwanda. The problem is, so many convicted criminals use the ECHR as another court of appeal. In the case of Knox and Sollecito, you don't think they give a toss about human rights and a false-positive HIV result or some cop making them accidentally incriminate themself. No, their sole aim is to cash in on their acquittal and to further the fake narrative. Knox criminally tried to subvert justice by pointing police at Lumumba, to cover up for Guede [this is official] and then thought it 'd be great for her new career as an 'exoneree' if she could get this declared a breach of human rights, demand €2m in compensation and at the same time use it as part of her book and tv series about her "MOJ" [sic]. These two couldn't care less about humans right. The ECHR's pending applications are full of applications from people like these, who are just trying their luck, and delaying the genuine cases of human rights abuses.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, your comments in the quoted post show your opinions, as TruthCalls points out in post #5955, but nothing factual about Americans or the US. Your post is entirely lacking in any statistical or other empirical evidence.

As some may be aware, the European Convention on Human Rights:



The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was:


Eleanor Roosevelt was an American (US citizen), the wife of Franklin D. Roosevelt, president of the US (1933-1945). She was a well-known advocate of human rights.

See:

European Convention on Human Rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I am well aware of the splendid record in human rights of Eleanor Roosevelt. Unfortunately, the US has voted in a 34-times convicted felon, six-times Bankrupt, suspected Epstein-Maxwell enabler, Putin supporter as a morals devoid head of state. No sign of any nod to human rights in your government. Lucky AK and RS to be able to appeal to the ECHR at all.

 

[Vixen]

What I know is you're still not addressing the suppression of 12 alleles on the bra clasp, and how that's clear evidence of a suspect centric analysis.

The merits courts (Massei and Nencini) rejected Professor Taglibracci's arguments in this and preferred that of Dr. Stefanoni's.