Continuation Part Six: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Grinder]

This is what we have long argued is the correct and appropriate thing for Knox to do regarding the criminal slander element. I am slightly confused about the timing though - there might be some reason why now is the right time to file with the ECHR, but I would have thought in principle that it would be better to wait until the other trial process is over.

As I and many others have argued before, Knox appears to have a strong case before the ECHR on the criminal slander conviction. I'd say that in addition to what Knox says on her blog about being denied her rights, being coerced, and being unable to properly understand what was happening, I think that the fundamental inability to prove the mens rea for this crime is also critical to the ECHR case (the coercion element is intimately linked to this). And in addition, the mistaken decision to try the criminal slander in continuance with, and concurrent with, the murder charges was a violation of her right to a fair trial on (ironically) both the criminal slander charge and the murder charges.

I hope Knox doesn't have to wait too long for at least an indication from the ECHR on whether her case has merit.

I totally agree with the timing. If they buy the final conviction on slander then it is hard to do anything but convict.

They need to undo the "statements" first band foremost. Then undo Curatolo as he makes them big time liars. Then show the footprints and make the case that not only weren't they shown to be blood but they like the semen stain aren't dated.

It is beyond time to broadcast the evidence far and wide and show what a joke it is. Curatolo's time being altered by mistake about the buses. The "ear" witnesses not having clocks. The fact that no "witness" came forward except Formica and her testimony conflicts with C and the ear witnesses for timing.

 

[Grinder]

If it is true that the guilty want to find out what everyone else knows, then we should be suspicious of Sophie Purton, Meredith's English friend. Sophie says she and Meredith walked together from the dinner towards their homes. Sophie claims they split up near Meredith's house and went their separate ways. The next day when Sophie came late to the police station she asked Amanda how Meredith was killed. Since the guilty try to find out what others know, we must now ask: Why was Sophie asking about the details of the murder? Is she guilty?

This is a good point for me to comment on what I have read about Sophie. I note that Sophie met Amanda once in Perugia before Meredith was killed. Sophie barely knew Amanda, although as revealed through Mignini Sophie was an easy ear to listen to gossip Meredith passed on to her British girlfriends about Amanda.

Sophie was a late arrival at the police station the day Meredith's body was discovered. Upon arriving she asked Amanda how Meredith was killed. Amanda, possibly then in the anger stage of grief, gave Sophie a blunt answer which Sophie found unsettling.

Mignini played Sophie. Among the several British girls, Sophie became Mignini's pet witness to dis Amanda on the witness stand.

Sophie had no alibi. She went home after dropping off Meredith. Perhaps she had a roommate but I don't think so.

 

[billyryan]

This is what we have long argued is the correct and appropriate thing for Knox to do regarding the criminal slander element. I am slightly confused about the timing though - there might be some reason why now is the right time to file with the ECHR, but I would have thought in principle that it would be better to wait until the other trial process is over.

As I and many others have argued before, Knox appears to have a strong case before the ECHR on the criminal slander conviction. I'd say that in addition to what Knox says on her blog about being denied her rights, being coerced, and being unable to properly understand what was happening, I think that the fundamental inability to prove the mens rea for this crime is also critical to the ECHR case (the coercion element is intimately linked to this). And in addition, the mistaken decision to try the criminal slander in continuance with, and concurrent with, the murder charges was a violation of her right to a fair trial on (ironically) both the criminal slander charge and the murder charges.

I hope Knox doesn't have to wait too long for at least an indication from the ECHR on whether her case has merit.

She has announced it right the night before motor-mouth Maresca and Pacelli get one more chance to slander her,the release date of this I am sure a lot of thought has gone into it by Amanda's team, and I am willing to accept their judgement.I am sure all of her enemies are only talking about one thing tonight and that is her appeal to the ECHR,she has definitely given them something to think about

 

[Strozzi]

Rudy Guede

To me, the inclusion of the qualifying adjective "North" in Formica's description of the man in the collision as "North African" is very important.

That Formica consciously included that adjective tells me only one thing: that she knows - or think she knows - the difference in ethic appearance between "North Africans" and "Central Africans" (or "Sub-Saharan Africans"). Otherwise she would surely have just described the man in the collision as "African".

So if the above is true, then the only thing to establish is what Formica means by "North African", and how she thinks this ethnicity differs visually from other types of African ethnicity. I personally would suggest that people don't use these sorts of specific qualifiers ("North") unless they are aware of - and recognise - the ethnicity differences. I, for example, wouldn't describe someone as "Southern Afghan" in ethnic appearance unless I knew pretty well (or at least thought I did) how that ethnicity manifested itself visually. I happen to know that Northern/Western Afghans (Tajikis) are ethnically significantly different from Southern Afghans (Pashtun). But if I didn't know that, I'd simply say "Afghan". Actually, I suggest that most people would say "Kind of Asian/Indian". In other words, the level of specificity in the description is itself indicative of the level of knowledge (or assumed knowledge) of the person doing the describing.

So the only remaining question is what Formica thinks a "North African" looks like. I would suggest - based on the reasoning above - that it's very likely that she equates the term "North African" with someone of Maghrebi or Berber ethnicity - that is to say, someone with light brown skin tone and somewhat angular facial features, with an appearance far more closely linked to Southern and Eastern Mediterranean ethnic groups (Turkish, Cypriot, Palestinian) than to any Sub-Saharan-African groups.

On that basis, I think it's very unlikely that the person Formica and her boyfriend bumped into was Guede - who has classic West-African ethnicity of very dark skin, larger lips, slightly flattened nose and pronounced brow.

The way of finding out for certain, of course, would be to ask Formica directly a) what her definition of "North African" visual ethnicity is, and b) whether Guede fits the description of the man she saw.

Rudy is sub-Sahara African. He was born near Abidjan, Ivory Coast. He is what we Americans would consider "black African", not North African which we Americans often think of as Arab.

When I first started reading about the case I read that Rudy was born just outside Abidjan, in the Ivory Coast. I picked up on that because as an American college student I studied abroad my junior year - at the French-speaking University of Abidjan in the Ivory Coast. Given the location of his mother's town just outside Abidjan, Rudy's maternal native language may be Kwa. French, the colonial language of the Ivory Coast, is the country's official language. It is doubtful that Rudy spoke French as a toddler. He left the country when he was about 5 to live with his father, a bricklayer, in Italy. Rudy returned briefly to visit his mother when he was about 12. At that age he may have barely spoke his mother's language.

 

[LondonJohn]

I totally agree with the timing. If they buy the final conviction on slander then it is hard to do anything but convict.

They need to undo the "statements" first band foremost. Then undo Curatolo as he makes them big time liars. Then show the footprints and make the case that not only weren't they shown to be blood but they like the semen stain aren't dated.

It is beyond time to broadcast the evidence far and wide and show what a joke it is. Curatolo's time being altered by mistake about the buses. The "ear" witnesses not having clocks. The fact that no "witness" came forward except Formica and her testimony conflicts with C and the ear witnesses for timing.

While I agree with the broad tone of your post, I disagree about the part related to the timing of the ECHR appeal, for the following reasons:

1) There is zero chance that Knox will get even the smallest indication that her ECHR appeal has merit before the outcome of the Nencini appeal, and it's also highly unlikely that she would get any such indication before an SC ratification of the Nencini verdicts. The ECHR has a humungous case backlog. Therefore, all that the Nencini court and the SC will know is that Knox has filed an ECHR appeal. Nothing more than that. Therefore I find it hard to see how that would constitute any sort of game-changing situation to Nencini or the SC.

2) In my opinion, Knox would probably be better off waiting until she knows whether or not she's going to want to appeal to the ECHR on further convictions (i.e. depending on the outcome of Nencini and the SC ratification). In my mind, a single appeal would make more sense. Obviously, Knox must be hoping that she'll ultimately be acquitted on all the other charges, and that therefore there will be no further need to appeal to ECHR. But still........

3) The aggravation part of the criminal slander conviction is still being assessed. The conviction is therefore not even strictly final yet. And I wonder whether the Nencini court and/or the SC might be slightly annoyed that an ECHR appeal is being lodged when one element of the offence is still under adjudication.


On top of that, I would take factual issue on your second sentence. What you wrote is only true if they accept the aggravation factor for the criminal slander. The aggravating factor - which is being retried in Nencini's court - is that Knox knew Lumumba to be innocent when she accused him (with the direct implication being that she could only know he was innocent because she herself was involved in the murder and therefore knew Lumumba wasn't there). If the aggravating factor isn't added by Nencini, then it's perfectly allowable for Nencini to acquit on the murder charges and convicting on non-aggravated criminal slander.

 

[LondonJohn]

Rudy is sub-Sahara African. He was born near Abidjan, Ivory Coast. He is what we Americans would consider "black African", not North African which we Americans often think of as Arab.

When I first started reading about the case I read that Rudy was born just outside Abidjan, in the Ivory Coast. I picked up on that because as an American college student I studied abroad my junior year - at the French-speaking University of Abidjan in the Ivory Coast. Given the location of his mother's town just outside Abidjan, Rudy's maternal native language may be Kwa. French, the colonial language of the Ivory Coast, is the country's official language. It is doubtful that Rudy spoke French as a toddler. He left the country when he was about 5 to live with his father, a bricklayer, in Italy. Rudy returned briefly to visit his mother when he was about 12. At that age he may have barely spoke his mother's language.

Yes. In fact, the umbrella ethnicity "Sub-Saharan African" actually embraces a vast number of distinctly separate ethnic sub-groups. These separate "sub-ethnicities" have chiefly perpetuated due to the deep tribal insularities within Sub-Saharan African demographics (most tribes are bitter enemies of many of their neighbouring tribes).

In Ivory Coast, for example, there are literally dozens of different ethnic sub-groups, with three major sub-groups. I think Guede most likely has Bete ethnicity (based on his family name and his visual appearance).

But the important thing, as you point out, is that all Sub-Saharan African ethnic groups are visually considerably different from what one would term "North African".

 

[Mary_H]

She has announced it right the night before motor-mouth Maresca and Pacelli get one more chance to slander her,the release date of this I am sure a lot of thought has gone into it by Amanda's team, and I am willing to accept their judgement.I am sure all of her enemies are only talking about one thing tonight and that is her appeal to the ECHR,she has definitely given them something to think about

I think they had a deadline, after which it would be too late to file.

In my opinion, this strengthens Amanda's image considerably in Europe.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think they had a deadline, after which it would be too late to file.
In my opinion, this strengthens Amanda's image considerably in Europe.

If so, that would definitely explain the timing, and should not aggravate the Nencini court or the SC.

Not sure about the second part though. Yes, it does show that Knox is fighting back, but anyone has the right to file an appeal to the ECHR. The important thing is knowing whether that appeal has merit.


If I remember correctly, the ECHR has a three-stage process of considering appeals. The first stage is a screening to see whether the appellant has any prima facie grounds for appeal (this is to throw out the most frivolous and ridiculous appeals at the earliest possible point). The second stage is to do a more detailed examination to see whether there really are sufficient grounds to appeal. All appeals that pass stage 2 then go on to stage 3 and have their appeal heard at the ECHR.

With that in mind, Knox's appeal really means very little until it passes at least stage one. And, given the pile-up of cases at the ECHR, even this initial screening is unlikely to take place for several months. Until then, Knox's appeal cannot be described as having any proven merit (although objective rational observers would reason that there are, at the very least, solid grounds for appeal in this case).

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Wow. Barbie's new piece on todays events. Notes: drops of blood overlooked in the bathroom by Knox.

Raf not who they really want.


"No other spots on the knife were retested during this appellate trial, and Crini asked that the original findings—that Kercher’s DNA is on the blade—be considered in their final verdict in the new appeal. He said that the new tests proved for sure that Knox was the author of the murder".

So although we find that the test showed no DNA of MK as important. These goons show it as once again Knox's DNA is on the handle.

I'm no Sherlock Holmes but I think I could do a better Job than Barbie and co.

http://http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/25/prosecutor-in-amanda-knox-appeal-knox-is-guilty.html

I wonder if she's right in thinking they are angling for a guilty verdict against Amanda coupled with an acquittal or minor charge against Raffaele.

This would suit the bureaucratic algebra and the politics of the court system. They could say the police were right all along, and their perfect system did not err. If justice was not served, well, the Americans are to blame for that, as they were with the cable car and the CIA agents. These are the people who blew up their own skyscrapers so they could blame the Arabs, after all. Just ask Ferdinand, the Honorary President...

 

[Grinder]

While I agree with the broad tone of your post, I disagree about the part related to the timing of the ECHR appeal, for the following reasons:

1) There is zero chance that Knox will get even the smallest indication that her ECHR appeal has merit before the outcome of the Nencini appeal, and it's also highly unlikely that she would get any such indication before an SC ratification of the Nencini verdicts. The ECHR has a humungous case backlog. Therefore, all that the Nencini court and the SC will know is that Knox has filed an ECHR appeal. Nothing more than that. Therefore I find it hard to see how that would constitute any sort of game-changing situation to Nencini or the SC.

Perception. Of course there was no way to get the case through the ECHR before this case, even if they had filed right after Hellmann. This will make the news there and the "jury" will be made aware of it. Since the calunnia is final I don't imagine they can do much with it at the current appeal.

[quote[2) In my opinion, Knox would probably be better off waiting until she knows whether or not she's going to want to appeal to the ECHR on further convictions (i.e. depending on the outcome of Nencini and the SC ratification). In my mind, a single appeal would make more sense. Obviously, Knox must be hoping that she'll ultimately be acquitted on all the other charges, and that therefore there will be no further need to appeal to ECHR. But still........[/quote]

I wouldn't make those assumptions at all. I think she believes she will be convicted by this jury but that this is a shot across the bow. I would guess that their arguments will "leak" and the current jury will be able to see their arguments.

3) The aggravation part of the criminal slander conviction is still being assessed. The conviction is therefore not even strictly final yet. And I wonder whether the Nencini court and/or the SC might be slightly annoyed that an ECHR appeal is being lodged when one element of the offence is still under adjudication.

I didn't know that but once again, I think the timing is perfect or a little late.

On top of that, I would take factual issue on your second sentence. What you wrote is only true if they accept the aggravation factor for the criminal slander. The aggravating factor - which is being retried in Nencini's court - is that Knox knew Lumumba to be innocent when she accused him (with the direct implication being that she could only know he was innocent because she herself was involved in the murder and therefore knew Lumumba wasn't there). If the aggravating factor isn't added by Nencini, then it's perfectly allowable for Nencini to acquit on the murder charges and convicting on non-aggravated criminal slander.

Well I could be wrong as I didn't know that they were trying the aggravating portion, but if convicted of the murder the aggravating element returns without a doubt. It does seem that aggravation is automatic with a murder conviction.

I guess we'll just have to complement each other on this

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, it's interesting to see Knox's blog piece about the ECHR appeal make explicit reference to the police not informing her that she was a suspect.

As many of us have argued here (and elsewhere), it appears absolutely clear that the police should have considered Knox a suspect - as opposed to a mere witness - from the moment she walked into the interrogation room that night, and should have informed her of that fact before she was ever asked the first question in that interrogation.

Of course, it's likely that the police (and PM) knew that the very act of declaring Knox a suspect - and the attendant informing her of her rights, protections and obligations as a suspect - would have meant that they probably wouldn't have been able to ask her any questions that night. Certainly not without a defence lawyer present. That would be why they deliberately chose to keep her mis-classified as a "witness" - a violation of Knox's human rights.

With any luck, Knox's ECHR appeal will therefore shine a light on this despicable practice of deliberately delaying categorising people as suspects. It's almost certainly happened in Knox's case, and other evidence suggests that it is a widespread malpractice elsewhere in the Italian criminal justice system.

 

[RoseMontague]

By the way, it's interesting to see Knox's blog piece about the ECHR appeal make explicit reference to the police not informing her that she was a suspect.

As many of us have argued here (and elsewhere), it appears absolutely clear that the police should have considered Knox a suspect - as opposed to a mere witness - from the moment she walked into the interrogation room that night, and should have informed her of that fact before she was ever asked the first question in that interrogation.

Of course, it's likely that the police (and PM) knew that the very act of declaring Knox a suspect - and the attendant informing her of her rights, protections and obligations as a suspect - would have meant that they probably wouldn't have been able to ask her any questions that night. Certainly not without a defence lawyer present. That would be why they deliberately chose to keep her mis-classified as a "witness" - a violation of Knox's human rights.

With any luck, Knox's ECHR appeal will therefore shine a light on this despicable practice of deliberately delaying categorising people as suspects. It's almost certainly happened in Knox's case, and other evidence suggests that it is a widespread malpractice elsewhere in the Italian criminal justice system.

I agree. It is despicable how they manipulate the system to violate people's rights.

 

[GreyFox]

Take two they're small

I wonder if she's right in thinking they are angling for a guilty verdict against Amanda coupled with an acquittal or minor charge against Raffaele.

This would suit the bureaucratic algebra and the politics of the court system. They could say the police were right all along, and their perfect system did not err. If justice was not served, well, the Americans are to blame for that, as they were with the cable car and the CIA agents. These are the people who blew up their own skyscrapers so they could blame the Arabs, after all. Just ask Ferdinand, the Honorary President...

This way they get what they wanted all along. Blame Foreigners for the murder in their town. With the exception of their one Italian son who was brainwashed by the devil American. (Good for Raf.)

A little payback for the pilots that never stood trial , fully supported by a majority of it's citizens who today still never heard of a guy named Guede.

It's two fingers up so to speak. Either way if I'm Knox's lawyers I'm setting up my cards for the case back home in the states. I sure as hell wouldn't invest my hopes on these clowns. If it works out great. If not set it up for the grand finale.

 

[Planigale]

This is what we have long argued is the correct and appropriate thing for Knox to do regarding the criminal slander element. I am slightly confused about the timing though - there might be some reason why now is the right time to file with the ECHR, but I would have thought in principle that it would be better to wait until the other trial process is over.

As I and many others have argued before, Knox appears to have a strong case before the ECHR on the criminal slander conviction. I'd say that in addition to what Knox says on her blog about being denied her rights, being coerced, and being unable to properly understand what was happening, I think that the fundamental inability to prove the mens rea for this crime is also critical to the ECHR case (the coercion element is intimately linked to this). And in addition, the mistaken decision to try the criminal slander in continuance with, and concurrent with, the murder charges was a violation of her right to a fair trial on (ironically) both the criminal slander charge and the murder charges.

I hope Knox doesn't have to wait too long for at least an indication from the ECHR on whether her case has merit.

For the benefit of our US readers; the ECHR is not a supreme court. It will not readjudicate on the conviction. The mens rea is to be judged by the italian criminal court, the ECHR will not consider this. What this is more akin to is a separate action by Ms Knox against the Italian state for a breach of her human rights. If the ECHR finds in her favour, they can order compensation, they can direct Italy to take action to correct the breach, what they cannot do is set aside the conviction. Appropriate action may be for the case to go back to the Italian appeal or supreme court to reassess taking into account the direction of the echr, and it is the Italian courts who would void a conviction, or not if on review they felt the conviction remained valid even taking into account the direction of the echr.

The appeal to echr cannot occur until local appeals have been exhausted, so the appeal on the callunia conviction can go forward but not the murder conviction. However, since the interviews that formed the basis of the callunia conviction also form part of the murder conviction, any ruling on one conviction will impact on the other, and would need to be considered by the supreme court in any subsequent appeal against the murder conviction. They may order a retrial excluding the any evidence from the police interviews, or the calunia conviction. This Forum may run and run.

 

[Diocletus]

For the benefit of our US readers; the ECHR is not a supreme court. It will not readjudicate on the conviction. The mens rea is to be judged by the italian criminal court, the ECHR will not consider this. What this is more akin to is a separate action by Ms Knox against the Italian state for a breach of her human rights. If the ECHR finds in her favour, they can order compensation, they can direct Italy to take action to correct the breach, what they cannot do is set aside the conviction. Appropriate action may be for the case to go back to the Italian appeal or supreme court to reassess taking into account the direction of the echr, and it is the Italian courts who would void a conviction, or not if on review they felt the conviction remained valid even taking into account the direction of the echr.

The appeal to echr cannot occur until local appeals have been exhausted, so the appeal on the callunia conviction can go forward but not the murder conviction. However, since the interviews that formed the basis of the callunia conviction also form part of the murder conviction, any ruling on one conviction will impact on the other, and would need to be considered by the supreme court in any subsequent appeal against the murder conviction. They may order a retrial excluding the any evidence from the police interviews, or the calunia conviction. This Forum may run and run.

What a mess.

I think that an outstanding judgment of a human right violation would also be a very substantial impediment to extradition.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>The argument is specious and utterly unacceptable. The sides involved a war are not necessarily morally equal. The Allied and the Nazis were not exactly the same thing (albeit the Allied included Stalin).
In fact I consider fighting for democracy, equality and law as not exactly the same as fighting for tyranny.
There may be one side right and the other side wrong. What you fight for makes a difference. So are methods. Methods must be consistent with the aim. It would make no sense that I push to pervert justice in order to enforce justice, to produce mafia in order to defeat mafia, to conceal corruption to fight corruption... You can't just assume that, since I am fighting these things, I must be committing those things: because I am fighting against fascists, I must be a fascist... this reasoning is inconsistent, it's insane; I would be an insane if I did that, that would be completely inconsistent and would make no sense; I would be fighting on a side only incidentally, as I would share the same values of the enemy, I could equally change side in any moment when convenient. This would mean I had nothing sincere to fight for, why should I be engaged in a war in the first place then? I would be a mercenary and everybody would be mercenaries.

Is the Italian legal system currently doing anyone any good other than its "soldiers?" If not, then they are mercenaries. There are too many lawyers, too many cases, too many years of waiting for cases to be processed, too many petty laws that require that differences be settled in court rather than out, and too many debts-never-to-be-paid. The Italian legal system, as happens with many systems, has grown out of control and now serves only itself. The fighting is not about good versus bad, the fighting is about seeing how long people can stay employed -- by fighting.

There are many ways the system could be made more efficient. One that comes to mind is prohibiting leaks. You say it can't be done, but it can be done, because it is done in other countries. If everyone in a system has the attitude that something can't be done and there is no way out, then the system will remain troubled.

When people really want to solve their problems, they find ways to solve them. When the situation is called a problem but really provides benefits those in power don't want to part with, then the problem will continue to be enabled.

But this is not something I ever said about Italy. This has nothing to do with the actual situation.
One side is right and the other side is wrong. One sight is right and the other side is corrupt. This dicothomy exists, you won't make it become that everyone is equal.

Yes, one side is right and one side is wrong. How can you possibly believe you are fighting fascism when you support a system that allows continuous wiretapping of phones and prison cells?

 

[billyryan]

For the benefit of our US readers; the ECHR is not a supreme court. It will not readjudicate on the conviction. The mens rea is to be judged by the italian criminal court, the ECHR will not consider this. What this is more akin to is a separate action by Ms Knox against the Italian state for a breach of her human rights. If the ECHR finds in her favour, they can order compensation, they can direct Italy to take action to correct the breach, what they cannot do is set aside the conviction. Appropriate action may be for the case to go back to the Italian appeal or supreme court to reassess taking into account the direction of the echr, and it is the Italian courts who would void a conviction, or not if on review they felt the conviction remained valid even taking into account the direction of the echr.

The appeal to echr cannot occur until local appeals have been exhausted, so the appeal on the callunia conviction can go forward but not the murder conviction. However, since the interviews that formed the basis of the callunia conviction also form part of the murder conviction, any ruling on one conviction will impact on the other, and would need to be considered by the supreme court in any subsequent appeal against the murder conviction. They may order a retrial excluding the any evidence from the police interviews, or the calunia conviction. This Forum may run and run.

Any idea Planigale on the cost of filing a case with the ECHR could the persecutors have been hoping that Amanda just could not raise the necessary funds to take this case to Europe,over on .org there is no mention of ECHR,but the Kerchers three lawyers and Pacelli for Lumumba get their voices heard tomorrow,the cost to the Kerchers of hiring three lawyers for six years must be enormous,why one, would not have done them I can only speculate,like somebody convinced them that an American and Italian family would end up picking up the tab

 

[kwill]

What this is more akin to is a separate action by Ms Knox against the Italian state for a breach of her human rights.

That sentence makes me glad, no matter the outcome.

And it makes me glad that her lawyers filed the action today, when otherwise there is no news except that prosecution attorneys are still saying that a homeless heroin addict -- the one and only person who claims to have seen her anywhere near her flat on the night of the murder -- must be taken seriously.

Even though his testimony gives her an alibi . . . he is proof of something something something that somehow adds up to a vicious, violent murder of a new friend.

I only wish she could also sue the owners of the tabloids everywhere that published lie after lie after lie.

 

[LondonJohn]

For the benefit of our US readers; the ECHR is not a supreme court. It will not readjudicate on the conviction. The mens rea is to be judged by the italian criminal court, the ECHR will not consider this. What this is more akin to is a separate action by Ms Knox against the Italian state for a breach of her human rights. If the ECHR finds in her favour, they can order compensation, they can direct Italy to take action to correct the breach, what they cannot do is set aside the conviction. Appropriate action may be for the case to go back to the Italian appeal or supreme court to reassess taking into account the direction of the echr, and it is the Italian courts who would void a conviction, or not if on review they felt the conviction remained valid even taking into account the direction of the echr.

The appeal to echr cannot occur until local appeals have been exhausted, so the appeal on the callunia conviction can go forward but not the murder conviction. However, since the interviews that formed the basis of the callunia conviction also form part of the murder conviction, any ruling on one conviction will impact on the other, and would need to be considered by the supreme court in any subsequent appeal against the murder conviction. They may order a retrial excluding the any evidence from the police interviews, or the calunia conviction. This Forum may run and run.

While this is absolutely correct, I think that it falls within the ECHR's ambit to examine the mens rea aspect in this particular case. That's because, even though the ECHR does not - as you point out - deal with errors of law or fact per se, it in fact does have jurisdiction do do so if, as a consequence, the appellant's human rights (per the European Convention on Human Rights) have been infringed.

I would argue that Knox's right to a fair trial on the criminal slander charge was infringed by the Italian Courts' refusal to accept that she could have been improperly coerced into naming Lumumba. The mens rea for the act was not present, and through this omission the Italian courts violated Knox's right to a fair trial (in other words, they dispensed summary justice in an improper manner).

If a person was beaten until they "confessed" in a Greek prison, then was convicted on the basis of this "confession", there would be similar grounds for appeal to the ECHR. The Knox situation is not materially different in this regard.

Lastly, you make a very valid point about the lack of remedy of the ECHR vis-a-vis the sovereign states. However, precedent and politics suggest that in individual cases, member nations tend to apply swift remedies in line with ECHR rulings. There only appears to be conflict where entire areas of legislation are ruled invalid by the ECHR. Therefore, if Knox was found to have had her human rights breached in relation to the criminal slander conviction, I'd fully expect the Italian Supreme Court to move quickly to quash the conviction. Stranger things have happened though........

 

[LondonJohn]

What a mess.

I think that an outstanding judgment of a human right violation would also be a very substantial impediment to extradition.

Any ECHR judgement on this case is not going to come before the current Nencini appeal trial (including any SC ratification) is complete. Therefore, if Knox does stand finally convicted on the murder charges, and an extradition request is made, the most that the US authorities are likely to know by that time is whether or not the ECHR appeal has been summarily dismissed for having no merit.