Hear, hear. Complete her rightful sentence for what she did to Mez.Happy New Year to you all. I hope this is the year Amanda finally gets justice.
Hear, hear. Complete her rightful sentence
for what she did to Mez.
Thankfully, that's one New Year's wish you'll never have granted.Hear, hear. Complete her rightful sentence for what she did to Mez.
The case against Knox - and Sollecito - alleging that they were involved in the murder/rape of Kercher ended, with no legal possibility of being renewed, with their definitive final acquittal in 2015.onThankfully, that's one New Year's wish you'll never have granted.
This is getting as convoluted as the Jarndyce and Jarndyce case in Bleak House. By the time Amanda wins her case, any compensation she might get would be swallowed up in costs and fees.
Hoots
Ex-PM Meredith Case, It's Time to Close This Story
Mignini invites us to 'put an end to the matter and reflect on the process'
Giuliano Mignini, a now retired magistrate who coordinated the investigation into the Perugia crime and then represented the prosecution in the trial, calls for "closing, putting an end" to the Meredith Kercher murder case.
He says this to ANSA while talking about the series on Amanda Knox that will also be filmed in the city. "Perhaps - Mignini said - we need to reflect on the trials that have left something incomplete. It is probably precisely this that does not close this story".
And regarding the series on Knox, Mignini said: "I don't know if I will see it". "Perugia has suffered a lot and unjustly for this story" Mignini said. "However - he added - in Avetrana they opposed it, in Perugia they did not. We will also need to know the content of the program. I am very perplexed, to say the least".
It's true that the trials were incomplete in major respects. That is what the ECHR final judgment Knox v. Italy found: Italy had violated Convention Article 3, procedural limb. The trials did not order a prosecutor to effectively and independently investigate Knox's credible claims of mistreatment by the authorities during the interrogations. Furthermore, the ECHR judgment found that the trials were fatally flawed - unfair - because they did not address the issues of the denial of a defense lawyer for Knox during the interrogations although the courts relied on statements she had made in those interrogations (a violation of Italian law, CPP Article 63 and others) and of the conduct of the interpreter during the interrogation(s). These court failures contributed to the ECHR finding that Italy had violated Convention Articles 6.1 with 6.3c and 6.1 with 6.3e.03.11.2024
![]()
Ex pm caso Meredith, è il momento di chiudere questa storia - Notizie - Ansa.it
Invita a "chiudere, a mettere la parola fine" sulla vicenda dell'omicidio di Meredith Kercher, Giuliano Mignini, magistrato ora in pensione che ha coordinato le indagini sul delitto di Perugia e poi ha rappresentato l'accusa nel processo. (ANSA)www.ansa.it
I'm wondering what the old fox is up to. What did he mean by having "left something incomplete" in the trials? He should know by now that the case is irreconcilable due to legal fiction that underpins it. It won't go away until that's resolved.
The meaning of the finding of violations of Convention Articles 6.1 (unfair trial) with 6.3c (denial of defense lawyer, specifically, during interrogation) and Convention Articles 6.1 (unfair trial) with 6.3e (unfair interpretation, specifically, the behavior of the interpreter was prejudicial) means that the ECHR has judged that Knox's original trials and final conviction for calunnia against Lumumba were unfair as a unit - that is, with all the parts of the proceedings considered together.I've often wondered what "as a whole" means in terms of the proceeding? Do they mean until Amanda DID get a lawyer, or was that too late since the damage was already irreparable and extended to all the court proceedings thereafter? If it means to everything, then the use of the 1st memoriale as a new marker for the start of the case is absolutely flawed, and shouldn't even have been considered.
The only thing that concerns me in that case, is the claim that Amanda allegedly knew (sexual ) aspects of the murder before the investigators which would be untainted by any human rights abuses. This seems to be an incredibly weak argument since you're likely to suspect a sexual motive when Meredith was found semi-naked with a pillow under her hips and her underwear strewn all over the place . The cops are hardly going to miss something like that.
It's the only thing that they'd have left but if Italy can make it stick, I think they'll run with it.
Hoots!
We can hope that the CSC will have the good sense to understand the ECHR final judgment and the details of the case so that Knox's renewed conviction for calunnia against Lumumba is annulled, by the CSC apply the nullity laws or other relevant laws.Hopefully, it will be granted.
And she'll have years of being in limbo yet again.We can hope that the CSC will have the good sense to understand the ECHR final judgment and the details of the case so that Knox's renewed conviction for calunnia against Lumumba is annulled, by the CSC apply the nullity laws or other relevant laws.
If instead the CSC makes the renewed conviction final, Knox's courses of action include notifying the CoE Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR of the Italian failure to redress Italy's violations of the Convention and, within 4 months of the issuance of a CSC final motivation report, lodging a new case with the ECHR.
lodging a new case with the ECHR.
If I understand correctly the Sacco MR states that they are not obligated to accept the ECHR's decision that the N6 mem. was a recantation/retraction.That surely has a long way to go? It all has to go past the committee of ministers to be considered a final resolution.
The problem seems to be that Italy is weaponising the memoriale that the ECHR deemed to be a retraction. A prompt assignment of a lawyer might also have pre-empted the need for the memoriale in the first place. The ECHR also indicated that the "telephone call with her mother" on the 10th November also was a retraction. I take it that this refers to the prison intercept of the same date that had already been cited as a reiteration of guilt by the Italian courts. If that's the case it seems to me that Italy is in direct conflict with the ECHR judgement,
So why would the COM simply accept Italy's action report as a resolution?
In the intererim, it also looks as though Amanda's defence team as well as non-governmental organisations such as the Italian innocence project can communicate with the committee of ministers, if they think the proceedings are unfair. There may well be others that could intervene if Italy decides to run with i
Seems like the upcoming SC could say Sacco's court erred in its interpretation somehow. But, not being a lawyer, we'll just have to wait and see."The defense argument according to which this Court is called upon to merely acknowledge the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights of the substantive content of Knox's memorial of 6 November 2007, in the sense of the retraction of the accusatory statements made verbally to the investigators at 01:45 and 05:45 on the same 6 November, cannot be shared.
If, by mere hypothesis, one were to follow the aforementioned argument of the defendant and her defense, it would be evident that the present referral proceeding is superfluous, since it was instead ordered by the Court of Cassation precisely for the purpose of interpreting the declarations contained in the memorial, an activity implying a judgment on the merits that goes beyond the bounds inherent to the scrutiny of the Supreme Court."
Thanks for this excellent summary.If I understand correctly the Sacco MR states that they are not obligated to accept the ECHR's decision that the N6 mem. was a recantation/retraction.
Seems like the upcoming SC could say Sacco's court erred in its interpretation somehow. But, not being a lawyer, we'll just have to wait and see.
If I understand correctly the Sacco MR states that they are not obligated to accept the ECHR's decision that the N6 mem. was a recantation/retraction.
It looks to me that the Florence court
was not in a position to evaluate whether it was shareable or not. The ECHR judgement is final and isn't a matter to be quibbled about. So, I'd agree with you in that respect.
I'd still argue that the ECHR judgement regarding the lawyer and interpreter violations are overarching; therefore Italy's considerations on the memoriale are irrelevant. I that that CDV should be arguing that if HE were promptly assigned to assist Amanda on the 6th November he'd never have advised her to make the memoriale in the first place, or at least have advised her on the content. The non-assignment of a lawyer of course undermined the fairness of the proceedings as a whole. In other words the use of the memoriale in the current proceedings is deceptive.
Hoots!
Some of the MRs in the Knox - Sollecito case show nationalistic pride in ancient Italy or Rome as a founder of Western judicial systems.The best outcome would be for the SC to do what the M-B SC did: annul the conviction without remand to another appellate court. I don't expect that even though I think it's what should be done. When it comes to Italian courts, nothing they do surprises me anymore.
The case against Knox - and Sollecito - alleging that they were involved in the murder/rape of Kercher ended, with no legal possibility of being renewed, with their definitive final acquittal in 2015.on
What may happen in 2025:
An ECHR verdict on the ECHR case Sollecito v. Italy 1157/18 (Lodged 22 Dec 2017; Communicated to Italy 1 Feb 2022). See:
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
An Italian CSC verdict on Knox's appeal against her 2024 re-conviction for calunnia against Lumumba; the re-conviction resulted from an Italian Appeals court trial based on the new Italian law meant to provide retrials for those found in an ECHR verdict to have been unfairly convicted. We'll see at some time (2025 or 2026) in this case whether Italy can actually follow its own laws fairly.
I'd be interested to know what you would expect?The best outcome would be for the SC to do what the M-B SC did: annul the conviction without remand to another appellate court. I don't expect that even though I think it's what should be done. When it comes to Italian courts, nothing they do surprises me anymore.
Good comment, Chris.In 2014 BBC reporter Melissa Hogenboom wrote, "He [Professor David Balding] is another forensic scientist who reviewed evidence from the Kercher case. "Every crime sample that was ever collected was contaminated. Even in the most pristine conditions in a laboratory, you cannot have a DNA-free environment," he says. "The point is you have to allow for that to do a correct evaluation of the evidence; all of that kind of contamination just isn't a problem, as it's not going to match. The only contamination that matters is something that would have got the suspect's DNA." Prof Balding helped to analyse the bra clasp on which Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was detected in the Kercher investigation."
Although it is possible that I am misreading this passage, I have two reservations with Professor Balding's comments. One is that if you find a prior suspect's DNA and find unknown DNA, you cannot conclude with certainty that the suspect's DNA arose from the crime and other DNA arose from activity unrelated to the crime. To do so contracts an axiom of DNA testing, namely that the existence of a profile does not indicate how or when it got there. Two is that Professor Balding is apparently referring to a situation in which there is already a suspect. Yet there are times when the DNA itself is the first piece of evidence that may implicate someone; in other words, there were no prior suspects.
As applied to this case, I would argue that the presence of several male Y-chromosomal profiles on the clasp reduces its probative value considerably. I am not sure that Professor Balding would agree.
At this point, it's a crap shoot what they'll decide as far as I'm concerned. As I said, nothing Italian courts do surprises me anymore. Look at the SC that overturned Hellmann and basically instructed Nencini to convict. Nencini's and Sacco's ridiculous MRs only confirmed my opinion.I'd be interested to know what you would expect?
Hoots
If the reasoning of the CSC trial on the appeal from the judgment of provisional conviction for calunnia by the Florence Court could be expected to strictly follow Italian law and the ECHR case law (including the judgment Knox v. Italy), there would be no doubt that either the CSC would annul the case on the grounds of nullity or acquit Knox.I'd be interested to know what you would expect?
Hoots
I suggest that the presence of several male DNA profiles on the clasp - a fact of the alleged evidence not pointed out by the prosecution - introduces doubt into the probative implication - the forensic meaning - of a DNA profile allegedly matching Sollecito's on the clasp. Since doubt about the probative meaning of alleged evidence benefits the defense, this alleged evidence cannot be used to infer a fact under Italian law (CPP Article 192, paragraph 2). Nor can it be used to convict based on ECHR case law.In 2014 BBC reporter Melissa Hogenboom wrote, "He [Professor David Balding] is another forensic scientist who reviewed evidence from the Kercher case. "Every crime sample that was ever collected was contaminated. Even in the most pristine conditions in a laboratory, you cannot have a DNA-free environment," he says. "The point is you have to allow for that to do a correct evaluation of the evidence; all of that kind of contamination just isn't a problem, as it's not going to match. The only contamination that matters is something that would have got the suspect's DNA." Prof Balding helped to analyse the bra clasp on which Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was detected in the Kercher investigation."
Although it is possible that I am misreading this passage, I have two reservations with Professor Balding's comments. One is that if you find a prior suspect's DNA and find unknown DNA, you cannot conclude with certainty that the suspect's DNA arose from the crime and other DNA arose from activity unrelated to the crime. To do so contracts an axiom of DNA testing, namely that the existence of a profile does not indicate how or when it got there. Two is that Professor Balding is apparently referring to a situation in which there is already a suspect. Yet there are times when the DNA itself is the first piece of evidence that may implicate someone; in other words, there were no prior suspects.
As applied to this case, I would argue that
the presence of several male Y-chromosomal profiles on the clasp reduces its probative value considerably. I am not sure that Professor Balding would agree.
L'esistenza di un fatto non può essere desunta da indizi a meno che questi siano gravi, precisi e concordanti.
I'd agree the presence of other, partial male profiles does reduce it's probative value, but I think the way it was collected did even more damage to it's value, and I would think is a likely explanation for the other partial profiles.In 2014 BBC reporter Melissa Hogenboom wrote, "He [Professor David Balding] is another forensic scientist who reviewed evidence from the Kercher case. "Every crime sample that was ever collected was contaminated. Even in the most pristine conditions in a laboratory, you cannot have a DNA-free environment," he says. "The point is you have to allow for that to do a correct evaluation of the evidence; all of that kind of contamination just isn't a problem, as it's not going to match. The only contamination that matters is something that would have got the suspect's DNA." Prof Balding helped to analyse the bra clasp on which Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was detected in the Kercher investigation."
Although it is possible that I am misreading this passage, I have two reservations with Professor Balding's comments. One is that if you find a prior suspect's DNA and find unknown DNA, you cannot conclude with certainty that the suspect's DNA arose from the crime and other DNA arose from activity unrelated to the crime. To do so contracts an axiom of DNA testing, namely that the existence of a profile does not indicate how or when it got there. Two is that Professor Balding is apparently referring to a situation in which there is already a suspect. Yet there are times when the DNA itself is the first piece of evidence that may implicate someone; in other words, there were no prior suspects.
As applied to this case, I would argue that the presence of several male Y-chromosomal profiles on the clasp reduces its probative value considerably. I am not sure that Professor Balding would agree.
There are several issues regarding the validity of the bra clasps as evidence against anyone - except perhaps the authorities who failed to collect the bra during the initial investigation, leaving it to lie at the crime scene on the floor where it was subject to potential contamination for well over 40 days (IIRC), mishandled it during the collection process by touching the hook with a dirty glove (as seen on the police video), possibly tested it twice without notifying the defense or court of the double test, and misrepresented the DNA profile results as only those of Kercher and Sollecito.I'd agree the presence of other, partial male profiles does reduce it's probative value, but I think the way it was collected did even more damage to it's value, and I would think is a likely explanation for the other partial profiles.
I'm also curious what your thoughts are on Raffaele's DNA being 1/6th that of Meredith's and what that says of the trace. I've always believed that if Raffaele had touched the hook, his DNA should have been greater than Meredith's, considering the hook is protected and not touching her body. That it was only 1/6th of hers, in my mind, supports the theory that this was contamination. Then again, my profession was IT, not forensic DNA, so maybe I'm in the weeds on this one. Wouldn't be the first time....
![]()
It is not disputed that Raffaele touched Meredith's door. DNA of his could have been transferred onto a glove and from the glove onto the clasp. To your question, I would say that one needs to do a study that was very specific before making inferences from the amount of DNA from an item of evidence. In 2013 Meakin and Jamieson wrote a review article and provided some useful generalizations (below). Obviously there has been work done since then, which would have to be reviewed, to update their conclusions. There has been some good work done on tertiary transfer, for example.I'd agree the presence of other, partial male profiles does reduce it's probative value, but I think the way it was collected did even more damage to it's value, and I would think is a likely explanation for the other partial profiles.
I'm also curious what your thoughts are on Raffaele's DNA being 1/6th that of Meredith's and what that says of the trace. I've always believed that if Raffaele had touched the hook, his DNA should have been greater than Meredith's, considering the hook is protected and not touching her body. That it was only 1/6th of hers, in my mind, supports the theory that this was contamination. Then again, my profession was IT, not forensic DNA, so maybe I'm in the weeds on this one. Wouldn't be the first time....![]()
After almost 60 years of wearing a bra myself....I agree. I hold the material on either side of the hooks and eyes, not the hooks or eyes. The fact that none of RS's or RG's DNA was found on the material the H and E's were sewn to strongly suggests the clasp was not touched by either to remove the bra.There are several issues regarding the validity of the bra clasps as evidence against anyone - except perhaps the authorities who failed to collect the bra during the initial investigation, leaving it to lie at the crime scene on the floor where it was subject to potential contamination for well over 40 days (IIRC), mishandled it during the collection process by touching the hook with a dirty glove (as seen on the police video), possibly tested it twice without notifying the defense or court of the double test, and misrepresented the DNA profile results as only those of Kercher and Sollecito.
Another issue is that the bra was not found intact, but with a ripped or sliced strap, suggesting it had been violently removed from Kercher's body during the crime, not removed by the usual procedure of freeing the hooks from the eyes of the clasps.
A further issue is that IIUC the hooks and eyes of a bra clasp are generally not touched in the process of putting on or taking off a bra. The fabric on either side of the clasp is held and stretched to join or release the hooks and the eyes or release them.
Among the other concerns relating to the bra clasp DNA profiles and how they were obtained, is whether the results were reproducible. In a bizarre and significant "error", after DNA testing, the bra clasp samples were retained inside sealed tubes containing a liquid that would certainly have broken up the continuity between the DNA chemical units (bases). This degradation would prevent meaningful DNA profile results from any future testing of the samples, so there could be no retest. It's the equivalent of shredding a document so that the individual letters may exist, but the words and sentences are destroyed.After almost 60 years of wearing a bra myself....I agree. I hold the material on either side of the hooks and eyes, not the hooks or eyes. The fact that none of RS's or RG's DNA was found on the material the H and E's were sewn to strongly suggests the clasp was not touched by either to remove the bra.
In any particular case, the important question is whether an error was made in that case – a realistic suspicion of error in a case can be explored in more detail by examination of the records and quality controls in that case.