• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

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

Getting back to the 2013 paper by Vecchiotti and Zoppis, available at:


Table 1 of the paper compares the interpretations of the electropherograms (graphs) of the Y chromosome STRs - the Y chromosome DNA profiling results for the bra clasp - by the prosecution's technical consultant (Stefanoni) and by the Hellmann court's independent technical consultants (Conti and Vecchiotti).

There are 16 STRs listed; the DYS prefix on the locus identifiers stands for DNA - Y chromosome - sequence number; these identifiers are assigned by an international organization that sets standards for human gene nomenclature.

According to Table 1:

For 15 of the STR loci, Stefanoni reported only 1 peak, but for 1 STR she reported 2 peaks. She concluded that the Y-STR results showed the DNA profile of one male and that the profile was compatible with Sollecito.

For 4 of the STR loci, Conti & Vecchiotti reported only 1 peak, but for 9 STRs they reported 2 peaks, and for 3 STRs they reported 3 peaks. All the additional peaks were above the manufacturer's threshold (50 RFU), with the heights of the peaks not reported by Stefanoni ranging from 59 to 201 RFU. This last peak reached over 32% of the height of the Stefanoni-reported peak, while the others were also of significant relevant height. The peaks not reported by Stefanoni were not in stutter position. Therefore, since the peaks were above threshold and not in stutter position they were not artifacts of the test and, following accepted international DNA profiling standards should have been reported. The C & V results show that three males contributed DNA to the bra clasp sample.

Why did some of the STRs have only 1 or 2 peaks rather than 3? A likely reason is that the Y chromosome STRs of one or both of the males that were the source of the DNA that had not been reported by Stefanoni shared allele repeat values with the DNA profile attributed to Sollecito for those STR loci. "Allele sharing" - a person having some STRs with the same number of repeats as another, even unrelated, person is not uncommon. Persons who are in the same haplogroup although extremely very distantly related will be likely to share some STR alleles*. On the other hand, other technical reasons that are DNA profiling artifacts, for example, drop-out, may be responsible. Yet another possibility is that the two unknown male DNA deposits had degraded during the time (deposited up to 46 days prior to collection and subsequent profiling) that the bra clasp lay on the floor of the murder room, while possibly the DNA compatible with Sollecito's profile was deposited later, at the time the clasp was collected by the obviously dirty and pnossibly DNA contaminated gloves of the scientific police. (The recommended method of collection is to use DNA-free sterile disposable forcepts.)

The conclusion is that the DNA profiling results, and the known failings to follow appropriate storage, chain of custody, and collection methods strongly suggest the male DNA on the bra clasp are the result of contamination. Thus, under Italian law, CPP 192, paragraph 2, no fact against an accused could be lawfully inferred from the DNA profiling of the bra clasp.

*See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Y-chromosome_DNA_haplogroup
For an introduction to the potential and a case summary* of the use of Y-STR haplogroups in forensics, see:


*A 16-year-old girl, Marianne Vaastra, from a small village in Friesland, the Netherlands, was raped and murdered on her way home from another village, in 1999. DNA profiling of autosomal and Y-chromosomes of semen on the victim was conducted.

Some initial suspicion in the case was directed at asylum-seekers from the Middle East who lived relatively near the site of the crime. A mass canvas of DNA profiling of male volunteers and suspects was begun. It became clear, after some time, that the Y chromosome haplotype indicated that the rapist/murderer was a person of northwest European ancestry, excluding the asylum-seekers. The rapist/murderer, after some years of the DNA profiling canvas, was identified by a match of autosomal and Y-chromosome STRs. This individual was a man of Dutch ancestry who lived in a village about 2.5 km from the murder site, was one of the DNA profile volunteers, and confessed to the rape and murder after his arrest.
 
Last edited:
General comment: In a Y-chromosomal forensic profile, the location DYS385 has an "a" peak and a "b" peak. In other words it is typical to see two peaks that are similar in height at this location from a single individual.
 
Last edited:
In a Y-chromosomal forensic profile, the location DYS385 has an "a" peak and a "b" peak. In other words it is typical to see two peaks that are similar in height at this location from a single individual.
Chris, thanks for that information. That changes my interpretation of the DNA profiling results and reports for the bra clasp at DYS3. There is some literature on the topic of duplicated STRs on the Y chromosome of which I had not been aware.*

Considering only the Y-Chromosome, the implication is that the report of Stefanoni of 2 peaks for DYS385 was possibly consistent with her claim of 1 male contributor, while the report of C & V for 3 peaks at DYS385 on its face suggests clear evidence of only 2 contributors (with the peak from a 3rd contributor, evident at some of the other loci, hypothetically hidden by allele sharing, degradation, or a technical glitch).

However, the forensic interpretation for the number of contributors of the Y chromosome results also must consider the results for the autosomic chromosomes, although those results (as far as I understand) won't reveal the sex of the contributors. The report of Conti and Vecchiotti** is required to understand those results, including the errors of interpretation by Stefanoni. The C & V report concludes that "several" minor contributors were revealed by the DNA profiling, rather than only one with DNA profile compatible with Sollecito.

* https://strbase-archive.nist.gov/pub_pres/ButlerJFS_Y-STRduplication.pdf

** See:

 
Forensic evidence is circumstantial evidence which needs to be looked at as a whole together with all of the other circumstantial evidence. Leaving your DNA at a crime scene is considered a strong piece of circumstantial evidence, when looked at as a whole with ALL of the evidence. The picture as a whole is why Knox and Sollecito, together with Guede, shows they are irrefutably involved in the murder and which is why Marasca-Bruno had little choice but to spell it out.

"Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime." wiki

Not only is Sollecito's DNA on the victim's bra hook, his footprint also appears in the victim's blood on the bathmat and his footprint highlighted in luminol - which is designed to highlight blood - outside the victim's locked door. The victim's DNA appears at the tip of Sollecito's kitchen knife, when the victim had never been in his apartment ever. Sollecito switched off his phone the same time as his co-partner as their victim returned home after an evening out with her college friends. Sollecito lied in his police statements, "I told you a sack of ◊◊◊◊" he affirms re claiming Knox was with him all evening. Sollecito has never retracted his claim Knox went out without him and did not return until 'about one a.m.'. Sollecito gave a false alibi of being on his computer all evening and speaking with his father on the phone. The forensic circumstantial evidence of hard phone logs and his internet provider shows Sollecito was not on his computer and nor did he pick up his father's phone call. Sollecito claimed his flat was flooded with water whilst he was doing the washing up, hence why Knox had to go back and forth between his flat and hers with a mop and why he had to dismantle his U-bend. Knox claimed to have had at least the need for two showers that evening and morning with Sollecito himself needing to scrub her thoroughly (she writes in an email to all her contacts as of the time). Knox' lamp was found on the floor underneath the victim's bed as though looking for something on the floor. When asked how come she didn't notice the lamp missing from her room when she had a shower next morning - despite the front door swinging open, she claims - and her response was she got dressed in the semi-dark. Sollecito claims he was too weak to smash down the victim's door, yet a colleague had no problem kicking it open, whilst Knox and Sollecito retreated to the back of the cottage whilst he did so. Clearly the pair locked the door themselves and wanted a third party to discover the body to offset any suspicion away from themselves.

Not to mention the staged burglary and the laptops of the victim, Knox and her flat mate's, plus one of Sollecito's laptops being professionally fried. How curious that Sollecito was a fourth year IT computer student who might know how to do such a thing! Yet Lumumba's tested the same time was absolutely fine, so the defence claim the police IT guys fried the incriminating ones makes you think, how unlucky for Knox and Sollecito that their frying was so highly selective!

Whilst it is understandable defence lawyers will look for holes in the prosecution case ("If the glove don't fit, you must acquit") it is hard to see why some killers attract a fan base that blindly refuses to accept any of the evidence.
Your post could be used as examples in several chapters in a textbook:

Confirmation bias
Intellectual Dishonesty
Willful Blindness
Illogical and Irrational Thinking
Wishful Thinking
Selective Perception
Inability to Accept Being Wrong.
 
The public hearing before a first section tribunal of the CSC of Knox's appeal against the Florence Court of Appeal re-conviction for calunnia remains scheduled for 23 January 2025:


Some relevant details of the MR of the Florence Court of Appeal are reported in this media article:


The CSC tribunal has three options in the type of judgment it may announce:

1. Confirmation of the Court of Appeal re-conviction (a final judgment)

2. Annulment of the Court of Appeal re-conviction with referral back to a different Court of Appeal for retrial

3. Annulment of the Court of Appeal re-conviction with no referral (a final judgment)

The Italian laws relating to appeal proceedings before the CSC may be found in CPP Articles 606 - 628. See:

https://www.altalex.com/documents/codici-altalex/2014/10/30/codice-di-procedura-penale
 
Principles of the ECHR case law on the binding force and execution of judgments of the ECHR are available in the ECHR publication Guide on Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Binding Force and Execution of Judgments.*

Some of the important principles relevant to the Knox v. Italy case concerning the anticipated CSC hearing on the appeal of Knox's reconviction for calunnia include:

Article 46 applies to every judgment in which the Court has found a breach of the Convention. Article 46 means that the Court’s finding imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to put an end to the breach and make reparation for its consequences .

It is for the respondent State to remove any obstacles in its domestic legal system that might prevent the applicant's situation from being adequately redressed.

The measures to execute the judgment taken by the respondent State must be compatible with the conclusions and spirit of the Court’s judgment.
The scope of the legal obligations flowing from a final judgment under Article 46 is set by the reasons for which the Court found the violation.

The question of compliance by the Contracting States with the Court’s judgments falls outside the Court’s jurisdiction unless it is raised in the context of the infringement procedure” provided for in Article 46 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention. Rather, under the second paragraph of Article 46, the function of supervising the execution of judgments is entrusted to the Committee of Ministers.

The Committee of Ministers’ role in the sphere of execution of the Court’s judgments does not prevent the Court from examining a new application concerning measures taken by a respondent State in execution of a judgment if that application contains relevant new information relating to issues undecided by the initial judgment. Measures taken by a respondent State to remedy a violation found by the Court which raise a new issue undecided by the original judgment fall within the Court’s jurisdiction and, as such, may form the subject of a new application that may be dealt with by the Court.

The fact that a supervision procedure in respect of the execution of the judgment is still pending before the Committee of Ministers does not prevent the Court from considering a new application in so far as it includes new aspects which were not determined in the initial judgment.

The last two principles are of potential importance if there is a final re-conviction for calunnia. It suggests that in the case of such re-conviction, Knox should not only pursue the issue with the Committee of Ministers, but file a new case against Italy within the 4-month time limit (which begins with the publication and delivery of the motivation report to the defense).

* https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_art_46_eng
 
Last edited:
Forensic evidence is circumstantial evidence which needs to be looked at as a whole together with all of the other circumstantial evidence.

Yet bad evidence doesn't become good because there's a lot of it. That was the bad philosophy underpinning the Chieffi verdict, and it's easy enough to see why. It encourages the police to throw everything on the wall, and stopping the moment they get what they need. That's why none of the other male profiles were identified.

Leaving your DNA at a crime scene is considered a strong piece of circumstantial evidence, when looked at as a whole with ALL of the evidence.

The other evidence includes obvious contamination, unless Raffaele had three unknown accomplices, all of whom helped taking off Meredith's bra.

The picture as a whole is why Knox and Sollecito, together with Guede, shows they are irrefutably involved in the murder and which is why Marasca-Bruno had little choice but to spell it out.

Marasca-Bruno spelled out why Nencini was wrong. That's where do many misread it.

"Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime." wiki

Not only is Sollecito's DNA on the victim's bra hook,

Along with multiple other profiles. If they got there by contamination (as they must have) why can't Raffaele's?
his footprint also appears in the victim's blood on the bathmat

An identification disputed by experts that, unlike those of the prosecution, actually examined the mat itself. The gap where the lower right part of Raffaele's big toe should have been clearly shows it was Rudy's first two toes.

and his footprint highlighted in luminol - which is designed to highlight blood - outside the victim's locked door.

As you no doubt know luminol reacts not just to blood, which is why further testing is done. And as you also no doubt know the luminol-revealed prints were tested to see if they were made in blood - and all the prints tested negative for blood. This makes sense as there's no actual evidence of blood having been cleaned up.

Even so, the experts again showed that the print called Raffaele's had been mismeasured.

The victim's DNA appears at the tip of Sollecito's kitchen knife, when the victim had never been in his apartment ever.

Of course, said knife didn't match the wounds on Meredith. All but one are physically impossible for the kitchen knife to have done, and the last one shows signs of a much smaller knife having been used - matching the bloody outline of a pocket knife on the sheet.

Sollecito switched off his phone the same time as his co-partner as their victim returned home after an evening out with her college friends.

Yet he was active on his computer at least half an hour after Meredith came home. So why was she still in her jacket by then?

Sollecito lied in his police statements, "I told you a sack of ◊◊◊◊" he affirms re claiming Knox was with him all evening.

The bunch of excrement was his statement on the 5th. The one where he gave his movements for the 31st as those of the 1st out of confusion and under pressure.

Sollecito has never retracted his claim Knox went out without him and did not return until 'about one a.m.'.

You know that's not true, right? Unless you're using a Mignini version of retracting where the person has to admit they maliciously lied to ensnare the poor virtuous prosecutor or it doesn't count?

Sollecito gave a false alibi of being on his computer all evening and speaking with his father on the phone.

That was the 31st. The 1st he was in his apartment all night with Amanda. VLC on his computer was active until ca 5:30 in the morning.

The forensic circumstantial evidence of hard phone logs and his internet provider shows Sollecito was not on his computer and nor did he pick up his father's phone call.

He wasn't on it, but VLC was active since the screensaver didn't activate until it crashed. We also know the police overwrote data when they confiscated the laptop - the defense had to find the file that was opened at 21:26.

Sollecito claimed his flat was flooded with water whilst he was doing the washing up, hence why Knox had to go back and forth between his flat and hers with a mop and why he had to dismantle his U-bend.

The defective plumbing in Raffaele's apartment was attested to by multiple people

Knox claimed to have had at least the need for two showers that evening and morning with Sollecito himself needing to scrub her thoroughly (she writes in an email to all her contacts as of the time).

Some people like to be clean. Especially after a night of fare gli gnocchi.

Knox' lamp was found on the floor underneath the victim's bed as though looking for something on the floor.

Yes, as if the enterprising Battistelli wanted to look under the bed but had the presence of mind not to touch any lamp or switch within the room. There's a reason the lamp wasn't a factor in the trials.

When asked how come she didn't notice the lamp missing from her room when she had a shower next morning - despite the front door swinging open, she claims - and her response was she got dressed in the semi-dark.

Because it wasn't missing. It was there when she was in the apartment that morning.

Sollecito claims he was too weak to smash down the victim's door, yet a colleague had no problem kicking it open, whilst Knox and Sollecito retreated to the back of the cottage whilst he did so.

He stopped when the door began to crack, and they called the police instead. Also, retreated back? Have you seen the hallway? Were all eight people suppose to bunch up there?

Clearly the pair locked the door themselves and wanted a third party to discover the body to offset any suspicion away from themselves.

How does that make sense? They are the ones who alerted everyone to the door.

Not to mention the staged burglary

Mere assertion.

and the laptops of the victim, Knox and her flat mate's, plus one of Sollecito's laptops being professionally fried.

By the police. You know that, right? They admitted to it.

How curious that Sollecito was a fourth year IT computer student who might know how to do such a thing!

Yet he didn't.

Yet Lumumba's tested the same time was absolutely fine, so the defence claim the police IT guys fried the incriminating ones makes you think, how unlucky for Knox and Sollecito that their frying was so highly selective!

We know the police did it, though. Also, when is he supposed to have done this?

Whilst it is understandable defence lawyers will look for holes in the prosecution case ("If the glove don't fit, you must acquit") it is hard to see why some killers attract a fan base that blindly refuses to accept any of the evidence.

Because we know the evidence, so we know you're wrong. I have no real opinion on Amanda as a person, as I don't have opinions on most people who are unjustly imprisoned. Some of them I actually dislike, but in the end they still shouldn't go to prison for something they didn't do.
 
Forensic evidence is circumstantial evidence which needs to be looked at as a whole together with all of the other circumstantial evidence.
Most of the circumstantial evidence was behavioral interpretation which is subject to bias and ignorance of how people respond to trauma.
Leaving your DNA at a crime scene is considered a strong piece of circumstantial evidence, when looked at as a whole with ALL of the evidence.
No, "leaving" DNA is not circumstantial, it is forensic evidence. "Finding" DNA is circumstantial because DNA in a shared household is normal, natural, and can be transferred by others.
his footprint also appears in the victim's blood on the bathmat
You've been asked numerous times to explain why, if it were RS's, they would not only leave the bathmat, but point it out to the police. The one time you bothered to answer, it was a ludicrous claim of them 'wanting to put one over on the police' in order to show 'how smart they were'. Of course, bringing the police's attention to evidence of their own guilt contradicts the claim of them being 'smart' enough to 'pull on over on the police'. The reason you've never given another explanation is because there isn't one.
and his footprint highlighted in luminol - which is designed to highlight blood - outside the victim's locked door.
You mean the TMB negative footprint that did not have his DNA in it and was found only to be compatible with his foot? The footprint that was never compared to say...Giacomo's footprint? Giacomo who had sex (let's assume barefooted) with Meredith behind that same door and could have left that footprint?
The victim's DNA appears at the tip of Sollecito's kitchen knife, when the victim had never been in his apartment ever.
1. The alleged DNA was found on the side, not the tip, of the blade.
2. That DNA must have been extraordinarily robust to withstand a soaking in bleach which removed all traces of blood. Or does bleach not destroy DNA in Guiltlandia?
Sollecito switched off his phone the same time as his co-partner as their victim returned home after an evening out with her college friends.
I've already presented the timing of both switching off their phones which clearly shows they were a direct and immediate response to Knox sending the text to Lumumba and Sollecito finding out he doesn't have to take Popovic to the station giving both the night off. It's a logical and plausible explanation vs. a spontaneous "let's go to my house and force Meredith to have sex and kill her" explanation.
Sollecito has never retracted his claim Knox went out without him and did not return until 'about one a.m.'.
I take it you've never read his book or listened to any of his interviews?

Sollecito claimed his flat was flooded with water whilst he was doing the washing up, hence why Knox had to go back and forth between his flat and hers with a mop and why he had to dismantle his U-bend.
Have you ever wondered WHY they would need to invent that story as the police would never have even known about her taking a mop to his place if Knox had not told them? Or do you need it to push a theory of a blood cleanup at RS's place? Why would he need to dismantle his u-bend? Does he need a mop for that? Not that I expect any answers from you.
Knox claimed to have had at least the need for two showers that evening and morning with Sollecito himself needing to scrub her thoroughly (she writes in an email to all her contacts as of the time).
They couldn't possibly have wanted to be clean before having sex and to be clean the next morning after having sex? And here we've been told by the colpevolisti what dirty, unhygienic person she was!

And, no...she wrote no such thing in her email home on Nov. 4. She does write in her book that the night of Nov. 1, they took a shower together:
"When we took a shower together, he washed my hair and then toweled me dry, even cleaning my ears with a Q-tip. To me, it was intensely tender; it felt as intimate as sex."

Why do you need to twist what she actually said into an innuendo that she needed to be scrubbed down to remove evidence? You only need to twist things that badly when you are desperate.
Knox' lamp was found on the floor underneath the victim's bed as though looking for something on the floor.
Or ...as though it had been knocked off her desk during the attack. Or...as though someone is just making up crap to fit their own beliefs.
When asked how come she didn't notice the lamp missing from her room when she had a shower next morning - despite the front door swinging open, she claims - and her response was she got dressed in the semi-dark.
Again, why do you need to just make things up? That is NOT what she said. What she said was that she didn't need to turn on the light as there was natural light coming in from her window and from the corridor which let in light from the terrace door.
Clearly the pair locked the door themselves and wanted a third party to discover the body to offset any suspicion away from themselves.
Clearly, then, they would have gone on to Gubbio and let Filomena come home to discover her ransacked room, call the police, and discover the body. Do you ever listen to yourself? In fact, if they had gone on to Gubbio and Filomena had called the police, they would likely never have been suspected in the first place!
and the laptops of the victim, Knox and her flat mate's, plus one of Sollecito's laptops being professionally fried.
How curious that Sollecito was a fourth year IT computer student who might know how to do such a thing!

Are you really still pushing the "RS fried the laptops" story? Even AFTER the police admitted they did it?
So, tell me, Vixen, if RS fried the laptops, how were the police able to turn his on and surf it the night of Nov. 5/6 when they went to his apartment? Hmmm?
Have you thought that they didn't fry Lumumba's because they may have just hooked it up correctly either before or after frying the others? Even screw-ups don't always screw up.

Whilst it is understandable defence lawyers will look for holes in the prosecution case ("If the glove don't fit, you must acquit") it is hard to see why some killers attract a fan base that blindly refuses to accept any of the evidence.
It's not hard to see that some people form an opinion early in a case before all the defense evidence comes out and it's almost entirely the police/prosecution CLAIMS that are in the media. It's not hard to see that, the more publicly and emotionally invested they become in that opinion, the less likely they are to be able to accept contradictory evidence no matter how strong it is. Being an unmitigated narcissist doesn't help with that, either; see Donald Trump.
 
and the laptops of the victim, Knox and her flat mate's, plus one of Sollecito's laptops being professionally fried.
How curious that Sollecito was a fourth year IT computer student who might know how to do such a thing!
Funny thing is, IT classes do not get into the electrical design of computers, so Raffaele would be no more qualified than anyone else on how to fry a laptop. So this premise alone is laughable. Further, laptops are powered by bricks which convert AC to DC power. In order to fry a laptop you'd have to have a DC power source which isn't compatible with the laptop, something most people don't have. And finally, laptops are notoriously difficult to work on. They are typically put together using dozens of specialized screws, requiring unique tools, and once inside, unless you can read circuits, you'll have no idea where to apply a current to fry it. As an IT professional for over 40 years, I'm not sure I could do it. Sure, I could hit it with some AC power at the DC input and that would likely do some serious damage, but the burn marks would give that away. These laptops were not melted, they were incorrectly powered by a DC source of the wrong voltage.

Like virtually all of Vixen's claims, this one bore no sign of careful thought. Like the Perugia police, she throws things out that, when examined closely, make no sense. In this case, it seems clear Vixen has no computer hardware skills, nor does she have any idea what a "fourth year IT computer student" would or would not know, but she just can't resist trying to blame Amanda and/or Raffaele for everything. That's how she gets to her 'mountain' of evidence, not realizing she undermines her own credibility in the process.
 
I like your avatar Stacyhs. Trump would never have been elected in Britain since people like Trump don't exist in Britain.
 
Funny thing is, IT classes do not get into the electrical design of computers, so Raffaele would be no more qualified than anyone else on how to fry a laptop. So this premise alone is laughable. Further, laptops are powered by bricks which convert AC to DC power. In order to fry a laptop you'd have to have a DC power source which isn't compatible with the laptop, something most people don't have. And finally, laptops are notoriously difficult to work on. They are typically put together using dozens of specialized screws, requiring unique tools, and once inside, unless you can read circuits, you'll have no idea where to apply a current to fry it. As an IT professional for over 40 years, I'm not sure I could do it. Sure, I could hit it with some AC power at the DC input and that would likely do some serious damage, but the burn marks would give that away. These laptops were not melted, they were incorrectly powered by a DC source of the wrong voltage.

Like virtually all of Vixen's claims, this one bore no sign of careful thought. Like the Perugia police, she throws things out that, when examined closely, make no sense. In this case, it seems clear Vixen has no computer hardware skills, nor does she have any idea what a "fourth year IT computer student" would or would not know, but she just can't resist trying to blame Amanda and/or Raffaele for everything. That's how she gets to her 'mountain' of evidence, not realizing she undermines her own credibility in the process.
My husband was also an IT specialist for 40 years. He's built computers from nothing but parts more than once. When I asked him how the laptops' hard drives could have gotten fried, he said the same thing as you. He said simply hooking them up backwards would also fry the hard drives.
But, ultimately, Vixen's claim that RS could have fried them doesn't explain how the police could have logged onto his laptop when he was already in police custody.
 
I like your avatar Stacyhs. Trump would never have been elected in Britain since people like Trump don't exist in Britain.
I had a similar one when he was in office before and vowed not to remove it until he was out of office. I'll keep this one until he's gone again.
I think people like him do exist in Britain only the British aren't generally stupid enough to elect, much less re-elect, them.
 
Out of everything Vixen has said recently about this 17-18 year old case, the following is perhaps #1 in how she misunderstands criminal forensics.

Leaving your DNA at a crime scene is considered a strong piece of circumstantial evidence, when looked at as a whole with ALL of the evidence.

Compare this with what Dr. Peter Gill writes in reviewing the case. He said that the most basic difference between what may or may not have been either Knox's or Sollecito's DNA as found at the scene, when compared with what was found belonging to Rudy Guede, the killer, is as follows....

Both Knox and Sollecito would have left their DNA in the cottage as a result of their normal, day to day presence there. In contrast, Guede had no lawful reason to have been on the upper floor, the floor occupied by the four women.

And add to this what the final, acquitting court said - that regardless of what was found where, there was no reliable forensic presence of either Sollecito or Knox in the murder room itself, whereas Guede's was all over the place in that room. Not to mention his own invention, that the victim had invited him into that room! Which no one can verify because he killed her.

This 'all of the evidence' trope, is also what Harvard's Martha Grace Duncan raised with Italian legal expert, Dr. Stefano Maffei clung to, in his own belief that there was enough 'evidence' to convict. Even if all of the evidence was bogus, he seemed to be claiming that there was, in Italian law, a threshold of simple volume of bogus evidence, where it suddenly becomes, in aggregate, legitimate.

Okay, that was Dr. Maffei's expert view. Duncan called it a wrong view.

The one phrase which has continually knocked reason off of the rails is, 'when looked at as a whole with ALL the evidence', even if all that volume of evidence was itself bogus.

One needs to read Duncan's view of this, beginning on page 55 of the link below.


So, between Dr. Peter Gill and Martha Grace Duncan, there really is nothing left to consider either Knox or Sollecito guilty of anything.
 
Out of everything Vixen has said recently about this 17-18 year old case, the following is perhaps #1 in how she misunderstands criminal forensics.



Compare this with what Dr. Peter Gill writes in reviewing the case. He said that the most basic difference between what may or may not have been either Knox's or Sollecito's DNA as found at the scene, when compared with what was found belonging to Rudy Guede, the killer, is as follows....

Both Knox and Sollecito would have left their DNA in the cottage as a result of their normal, day to day presence there. In contrast, Guede had no lawful reason to have been on the upper floor, the floor occupied by the four women.

And add to this what the final, acquitting court said - that regardless of what was found where, there was no reliable forensic presence of either Sollecito or Knox in the murder room itself, whereas Guede's was all over the place in that room. Not to mention his own invention, that the victim had invited him into that room! Which no one can verify because he killed her.

This 'all of the evidence' trope, is also what Harvard's Martha Grace Duncan raised with Italian legal expert, Dr. Stefano Maffei clung to, in his own belief that there was enough 'evidence' to convict.
Even if all of the evidence was bogus, he seemed to be claiming that there was, in Italian law, a threshold of simple volume of bogus evidence, where it suddenly becomes, in aggregate, legitimate.
Okay, that was Dr. Maffei's expert view. Duncan called it a wrong view.

The one phrase which has continually knocked reason off of the rails is, 'when looked at as a whole with ALL the evidence', even if all that volume of evidence was itself bogus.

One needs to read Duncan's view of this, beginning on page 55 of the link below.


So, between Dr. Peter Gill and Martha Grace Duncan, there really is nothing left to consider either Knox or Sollecito guilty of anything.
This is interesting and appalling - since Dr. Maffei is, if I understand correctly, a professor of Italian law specializing in Italian criminal procedure. He makes no mention of the key principles of Italian criminal procedural law relevant to the case that establish that Knox and Sollecito in a lawful trial had to be acquitted of the murder/rape charges: CPP Article 192, paragraph 2, Article 530, paragraph 2, and Article 533, paragraph 1. These articles state, respectively, that no "judicial" fact may be inferred from circumstantial evidence unless that evidence is serious, precise, and consistent; that a judge must pronounce an acquittal if the proof (evidence) is insufficient, contradictory, or absent; and that a judge shall pronounce a judgment of conviction only if the accused is proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. No article in Italian procedural law states that an accused is to be considered guilty as a result of a probabilistic or subjective judicial analysis of a mass of irrelevant, ambiguous, or unreliable alleged evidence.

I suggest that Maffei's views reflect the strength of enduring inquisitorial prejudices among Italian legal professionals.
 
Last edited:
According to the news article cited below, the CSC hearing is still scheduled for 23 January (tomorrow). Knox will not be at the hearing. A verdict is expected late on Thursday.

 
'Each piece of circumstantial evidence had a plausible, innocent explanation, but when all these were combined, somehow they morphed into evidence of guilt" was how Hellmann was overturned.
 
Lumumba is attending the CSC hearing. It's not clear if that will have any influence on the CSC verdict, since I suspect the CSC judges in a tribunal review cases before the formal legal presentations at the hearing. I doubt that the Florence Court of Appeal was influenced by Knox's presence at that retrial, which led to her provisional re-conviction. See:

 
Last edited:
May the nightmare finally be over for her.

A detailed news article touches on Knox's X post. One interesting point in the article is that it reports that Knox stated she was denied a visa to enter Australia because of her "criminal background". I've added another news article with some further elaboration on these details.


 
Last edited:
Head up:

Knox' conviction for criminal calunnia against Patrick Lumumba is upheld and this is final.

Amanda Knox fails to overturn slander conviction in Italy​


Justice for Patrick Lumumba at last. Knox has never apologised to him for her serious crime against him.
 
One initial report of the definitive ("final") conviction of Knox for calunnia by the CSC today:


The immediate next step for Knox would be for her through her lawyers to notify the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the Committee of Ministers - Council of Europe - of this development, as a noncompliance of Italy with the ECHR final judgment Knox v. Italy.
 
One initial report of the definitive ("final") conviction of Knox for calunnia by the CSC today:


The immediate next step for Knox would be for her through her lawyers to notify the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the Committee of Ministers - Council of Europe - of this development, as a noncompliance of Italy with the ECHR final judgment Knox v. Italy.
I can't see they have any legal grounds, as Italy did the conventional process of vacating the conviction and sending it back down to the merits court for trial. It is not as if it is a miscarriage of justice given Knox did falsely accuse Lumumba of a heinous crime, of the rape and murder of a lovely young girl, putting him at grave risk of a serious conviction and life imprisonment. in fact, it was by sheer fortuitous chance that a witness came forward which established Lumumba's alibi elsewhere. Imagine if that witness had not come forward. Knox was ordered to pay him damages and she has not done so.
 
Last edited:
Italy has attempted such repeat miscarriages of justice before in ECHR cases, and only followed the ECHR final judgment after repeated prodding by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. This case deserves to be examined by the CoM under Enhanced Supervision.
 
Italy has attempted such repeat miscarriages of justice before in ECHR cases, and only followed the ECHR final judgment after repeated prodding by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. This case deserves to be examined by the CoM under Enhanced Supervision.
Cassation is cassation - the Supreme Court. It has to be fair to Lumumba also.

Perhaps Knox should ask Trump for his help...oh-oh...she burnt that bridge when she bit the hand that fed her by funding her great escape from Italy in the first place. Dear old Don is not known for forgiveness. In fact, my perception of him is of a vindictive vengeful bastard. He was very hurt by her take down of him. _DOH!
 
Last edited:
I can't see they have any legal grounds, as Italy did the conventional process of vacating the conviction and sending it back y young girl, putting him at grave risk of a serious conviction and life imprisonment. in fact, it was by sheer fortuitous chance that a witness came forward which established Lumumba's alibi elsewhere. Imagine if that witness had not come forward. Knox was ordered to pay him damages and she has no done so.
It is correct that Knox has exhausted the current legal path in Italy based on this definitive conviction for calunnia. However, Italy remains in violation of her rights under international law - the final ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy. It now remains for the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to advise Italy to re-examine the case to bring Italy into compliance with international law under its CoE treaty obligations.

Note that Italy has not, to this date, provided the CoM with the required Action Plan to resolve the Knox v. Italy judgment:

 
Forensic evidence is circumstantial evidence which needs to be looked at as a whole together with all of the other circumstantial evidence. Leaving your DNA at a crime scene is considered a strong piece of circumstantial evidence, when looked at as a whole with ALL of the evidence. The picture as a whole is why Knox and Sollecito, together with Guede, shows they are irrefutably involved in the murder and which is why Marasca-Bruno had little choice but to spell it out.

"Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime." wiki
Ah, er, no. For reasons that Dr. Peter Gill spells out.

There are many reasons why someone might leave their DNA at a crime scene. One of them is that someone may actually live at that crime scene and have been active there prior to the crime being committed. Regardless of what other 'circumstantial evidence' may or may not exist, the fact that Knox lived, resided, slept and showered on that floor for a number of weeks, makes the presence of her DNA **anywhere** there NOT evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. This also applies to Raffaele, who was legally and innocently on that floor....

Who it doesn't apply to is Rudy Guede, the actual lone-killer. It is his DNA which is found in the murderroom, which buttresses his own admission that he'd been in the room at the time of the murder.

What's missing from that room? Any DNA profile of either Knox or Sollecito. The most likely explanation for Sollecito's profile to appear on that clasp, is that the scientific police, themselves, contaminated the clasp with obviously dirty gloves - collecting the clasp 46 days AFTER the murder. The scientific police even filmed themselves contaminating things.....
 
Enjoy your petty victory, Vixen
Head up:

Knox' conviction for criminal calunnia against Patrick Lumumba is upheld and this is final.

Amanda Knox fails to overturn slander conviction in Italy​


Justice for Patrick Lumumba at last. Knox has never apologised to him for her serious crime against him.
Why do you and Lumumba insist on lying about that?
Apology Amanda to Patrick:

“Patrick? I don’t see you. But I’m sorry. I’m sorry, because I didn’t want to wrong you. I was very naïve and not remotely courageous, because I should have been able to endure the pressure that pushed me to wrong you. I didn’t want to contribute to all that you suffered. You know what it means to have unjust accusations imposed on your skin. You didn’t deserve what you went through. I hope you’ll succeed in finding your peace.”
First Appeal Trial
http://www.themurderofmeredithkerch...Z-Lawyers-Knox-Parisi-Maori-Vedova-Ghirga.pdf (pg 11)

Lumumba was in court:

The apology to Lumumba: "I didn’t mean to harm you". In the course of her spontaneous statement, Knox also referred to Patrick Lumumba, who was involved in the investigation for his statements, but later found unrelated to the crime. " Where are you? - she said still moved, looking with her eyes for the Congolese musician, today in the courtroom - I’m sorry because I didn’t want to do you wrong. I was naive, I had to endure the pressure. You know what it means...
 
It is correct that Knox has exhausted the current legal path in Italy based on this definitive conviction for calunnia. However, Italy remains in violation of her rights under international law - the final ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy. It now remains for the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to advise Italy to re-examine the case to bring Italy into compliance with international law under its CoE treaty obligations.

Note that Italy has not, to this date, provided the CoM with the required Action Plan to resolve the Knox v. Italy judgment:

There are safety nets, rightly for redress of maladministration. However, we should all remember that her crime of calunnia was not a victimless crime. Lumumba spent two weeks in prison accused of aggravated murder and rape, arrested in his underwear in front of his young family; forced to shut down his business, had his reputation ruined. This isnt a case of wrongful conviction. Knox did do it, and what is more she made a great theatre out of it, screaming, 'He's bad, he's bad!'

There is no way that is 'just a case of false memory'; it was cold and deliberate and rightly a criminal offence. Not dissimilar to Susan Smith making up a story of a 'man with bushy hair'. (Woman found guilty of killing her kid.)

We could be cynical and question why Knox was so incredibly anxious to pin the blame on her kind boss. No way was it just an innocent mistake.
 
Cassation is cassation - the Supreme Court. It has to be fair to Lumumba also.

Perhaps Knox should ask Trump for his help...oh-oh...she burnt that bridge when she bit the hand that fed her by funding her great escape from Italy in the first place. Dear old Don is not known for forgiveness. In fact, my perception of him is of a vindictive vengeful bastard. He was very hurt by her take down of him. _DOH!
LOL! He 'funded' her release?

crazy.jpg
 
There are safety nets, rightly for redress of maladministration. However, we should all remember that her crime of calunnia was not a victimless crime. Lumumba spent two weeks in prison accused of aggravated murder and rape, arrested in his underwear in front of his young family; forced to shut down his business, had his reputation ruined. This isnt a case of wrongful conviction. Knox did do it, and what is more she made a great theatre out of it, screaming, 'He's bad, he's bad!'

There is no way that is 'just a case of false memory'; it was cold and deliberate and rightly a criminal offence. Not dissimilar to Susan Smith making up a story of a 'man with bushy hair'. (Woman found guilty of killing her kid.)

We could be cynical and question why Knox was so incredibly anxious to pin the blame on her kind boss. No way was it just an innocent mistake.
Blah, blah, blah.....we've heard that all before and it makes no more sense now than it did then.

Saul Kassin disagrees with you but I'm sure you can put up your expertise on false confessions against his any day.

And no one has ever said it was "just an innocent mistake" but you be you and claim it anyway.
 
There are safety nets, rightly for redress of maladministration. However, we should all remember that her crime of calunnia was not a victimless crime. Lumumba spent two weeks in prison accused of aggravated murder and rape, arrested in his underwear in front of his young family; forced to shut down his business, had his reputation ruined. This isnt a case of wrongful conviction. Knox did do it, and what is more she made a great theatre out of it, screaming, 'He's bad, he's bad!'

There is no way that is 'just a case of false memory'; it was cold and deliberate and rightly a criminal offence. Not dissimilar to Susan Smith making up a story of a 'man with bushy hair'. (Woman found guilty of killing her kid.)

We could be cynical and question why Knox was so incredibly anxious to pin the blame on her kind boss. No way was it just an innocent mistake.
The problem with your conclusion, Vixen, is the Italian Supreme Court and the ECHR both ruled her rights were violated during the interrogation. The ISC ruled the statements could be used for the calunnia charge, but the ECHR ruled it inadmissible for any charge. So no, legally she did not.

Apparently the Italian courts seem to think the memoriale (one or both) is grounds for calunnia, but the ECHR has said otherwise, that the first memoriale was a recant of the statement she legally never made. You can ramble on all you want about how awful a person Amanda is, but we all know she was coerced into making the statement. Remember, if Amanda was willfully implicating Lumumba, then one has to wonder why Donnino was so concerned about convincing Amanda she was suffering from traumatic amnesia.

I get the feeling you feel a bit cheated, with Amanda being acquitted of every other charge they threw at her, so you have decided to relish this decision and, in the process, you are deliberately ignoring all that we know was wrong with how the interrogation was conducted. And no, it was not an innocent mistake, it was deliberate coercion by the police to get one person they believed was involved to implicate another person THEY believed was involved. There is no evidence to suggest Amanda initiated this.
 
The problem with your conclusion, Vixen, is the Italian Supreme Court and the ECHR both ruled her rights were violated during the interrogation. The ISC ruled the statements could be used for the calunnia charge, but the ECHR ruled it inadmissible for any charge. So no, legally she did not.

Apparently the Italian courts seem to think the memoriale (one or both) is grounds for calunnia, but the ECHR has said otherwise, that the first memoriale was a recant of the statement she legally never made. You can ramble on all you want about how awful a person Amanda is, but we all know she was coerced into making the statement. Remember, if Amanda was willfully implicating Lumumba, then one has to wonder why Donnino was so concerned about convincing Amanda she was suffering from traumatic amnesia.

I get the feeling you feel a bit cheated, with Amanda being acquitted of every other charge they threw at her, so you have decided to relish this decision and, in the process, you are deliberately ignoring all that we know was wrong with how the interrogation was conducted. And no, it was not an innocent mistake, it was deliberate coercion by the police to get one person they believed was involved to implicate another person THEY believed was involved. There is no evidence to suggest Amanda initiated this.

The only way Knox can get out of it is by blatantly lying to the press, claiming she only said it after a long night of interrogation and pressure from the police. She arrived circa 10:30 of her own volition; the police even urged her to go home as she was not needed.

Donnino was a civil servant and not a police officer her job was to be on call as an interpreter for foreign language assistance. Knox named Lumumba within about 50 minutes - 'all night interrogation with tag teams of twelve Special Squad from Rome', as she told ROLLING STONE, my foot. Donnino was being kind to Knox, her friend having been butchered. Her remark about amnesia after a skiing accident was perfectly innocent. Knox has vilified and caused Donnino a great deal of harm by her claim Donnino made her do it. No matter how great a trauma you might experience there is no way you would have a false memory of something that never happened.

Truth is, Knox named Lumumba to deflect suspicion away from herself. Giving her book the same title as Auschwitz survivor Frankl is just disgusting, as though her experience is comparable to his.
 
The only way Knox can get out of it is by blatantly lying to the press, claiming she only said it after a long night of interrogation and pressure from the police. She arrived circa 10:30 of her own volition; the police even urged her to go home as she was not needed.

Donnino was a civil servant and not a police officer her job was to be on call as an interpreter for foreign language assistance. Knox named Lumumba within about 50 minutes - 'all night interrogation with tag teams of twelve Special Squad from Rome', as she told ROLLING STONE, my foot. Donnino was being kind to Knox, her friend having been butchered. Her remark about amnesia after a skiing accident was perfectly innocent. Knox has vilified and caused Donnino a great deal of harm by her claim Donnino made her do it. No matter how great a trauma you might experience there is no way you would have a false memory of something that never happened.

Truth is, Knox named Lumumba to deflect suspicion away from herself. Giving her book the same title as Auschwitz survivor Frankl is just disgusting, as though her experience is comparable to his.
What? No accusation that she never apologized to Lumumba again?
 
What are some of the practical effects of Knox's final re-conviction for calunnia? If these effects are examined, some of the underlying non-judicial reasons for the re-conviction may become apparent.

1. Knox will be unable to apply to Italy for compensation for wrongful conviction. Thus, she is placed in the same position as Sollecito in his attempt to get compensation for unjust detention, although his position may change (in theory, at least) with a favorable ECHR final judgment in Knox v. Italy.

2. Italy, in a purported Final Report, could ask the Committee of Ministers to close (Finally Resolve) the case Knox v. Italy, claiming that Knox had been retried on the calunnia charge following the requirements of the Convention and the final ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy, especially in that her statements made during the interrogation were not used, but she had been re-convicted solely by evidence of a statement she had made independent of the interrogation statements. Thus, with the retrial, the violations of Convention Article 6.1 are resolved. Regarding the violations of Convention Articles 6.3c and 6.3e, as well as of Convention Article 3 (procedural limb), since Italy has published Knox v. Italy in an Italian translation and placed that text in a CSC website available to the judges and prosecutors, Italy has assured that such violations are unlikely to be repeated.

3. Italy, based on the reasoning above, in its internal prosecutorial and judicial view, will thus not conduct any further investigation into the events of the interrogation and Knox's generation of the interrogation statements or her later unsolicited statements, especially not the one used to re-convict her.

One question is what the CoM response would be to a purported Final Report by Italy written up more or less according to the ideas in paragraph 2 above.
 
Last edited:
For those interested in forensic DNA profiling and the potential effects of alleged lab or reporting misconduct:

Crime lab analyst altered DNA evidence in hundreds of cases, prosecutors say

Yvonne Woods, a former lab scientist at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, altered DNA test results and compromised hundreds of cases, prosecutors say.

Investigators subsequently found a slew of test results in Woods’s records containing manipulated data, the affidavit states. Woods allegedly changed or removed test results that indicated a DNA sample may have been contaminated, which would have required her to redo tests. Woods also allegedly deleted test results in sexual assault cases indicating male DNA was present, reporting instead that no male DNA was found in samples.
See:
 
What did the ECHR final judgment Knox v. Italy say regarding:

1. The statements Knox made during the interrogation - did the ECHR indicate that a fair retrial for calunnia eliminating merely those elements would redress the violations of the Convention by Italy?

2. The written statements Knox wrote in English after the interrogation? Was the ECHR aware of a seeming contradiction or ambiguity in Knox's 6 November 2007 1 pm statement written in English?

3. All the "other evidence" of calunnia besides the two interrogation statements that the Italian government claimed existed?

Answers:

1. The ECHR judgment made no explicit statement on how Italy should redress the violations. One can infer that it was suggesting that Italy use the "nullity" provisions of Italian law to dismiss the case in a retrial (or should have been used in the case when it was first before the Italian courts) because it listed those provisions (CPP Articles 178, 180, and 182) as relevant Italian law in paragraph 105. There is no other reason for those Italian laws to be cited because they were not employed by the judges in the case when it was before the Italian courts.

2. The ECHR stated that the English statements written by Knox, starting at 1 pm on 6 November 2007, were a retraction of her accusation against Lumumba. The ECHR may be treating the 6 November and 7 November statements together; see paragraph 20. The ECHR was aware of possible ambiguities in the 6 November 1 pm statement, because it quotes Knox's writing:
I know that the fact that I cannot fully remember the events that I claim took place at R.S.'s house at the time M.K. was killed is compromising for me. I confirm the statements I made last night concerning events that may have taken place at my house with D.L., [and] at the same time I want to state clearly that these events seem to me more unreal than those I have just related, namely that I stayed at R.S.'s house.

The ECHR also includes Knox's testimony from the trial on 12 June 2009 when she was questioned by Lumumba's lawyer, paragraphs 48 - 61. In paragraphs 57 - 58, quoting Knox's testimony about her 6 November 1 pm English statement, she states she only meant to affirm that she had made the interrogation statements to the police, but that she was confused and did not want them to be considered reliable. That the ECHR quotes all this testimony indicates that they were well aware of Knox's 6 November 1 pm statement appearing to have some contradiction or ambiguity.

This knowledge did not prevent the ECHR from issuing a judgment pronouncing that the calunnia trial had been totally and irreversibly unfair (paragraphs 166 and 187).

3. The Italian government in its response to the ECHR included a statement (paragraph 143) that Knox was convicted of calunnia not only because of her interrogation statements but also because of all the other evidence:

Furthermore, the Government alleges that the applicant was convicted of malicious accusation not only on the basis of the statements made on 6 November 2007, but also because of a “multitude of other circumstances”, recalled in the judgment of the Assize Court of 5 December 2009 (see paragraph 80 above).

In paragraph 80, the ECHR lists several elements of evidence that the Massei court used to establish it's conviction of Knox for calunnia, including the following:

(iii) in her text of 6 November 2007 (added to the file, as it constituted evidence concerning the applicant (corpo di reato) for the offence in question) the applicant had written: “I confirm the statements that I made last night concerning events that could have taken place at my home with D.L. (...) in these flashbacks that I have, I see D.L. as the murderer”.

Thus, the ECHR judgment that the trial of Knox was a violation of Convention Article 6.1 includes the ECHR's rejection of "all the other evidence", including the 6 November 2007 1 pm English text that Knox wrote, as elements able to overcome the unfairness introduced by the initial failures by the authorities of not providing defense counsel or a fair interpreter.

All the above indicates that the CSC final judgment re-convicting Knox of calunnia was an act of non-compliance with the final ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy, and thus a violation of Italy's solemn treaty obligation to follow the final judgments of the ECHR. This noncompliance according to Convention Article 46 is suitable for review by the Committee of Ministers.
 
Last edited:
I'm obviously disappointed with this outcome but I'm genuinely not surprised. As I remember CDV didn't expect the case to be reopened according to the press releases at the time. Amanda and her lawyers then expected the Florence court to be a formality but were caught out there as well, being surprised at the outcome. It appears to me that they've been a bit over-confident in expecting a favourable result. Maybe It's my Brit mindset but I'm wondering if a more compromising approach would have been the better part of valour. I don't think the current filming Italy has helped her either, so, I'm not sure if Amanda and her defence team have played this right.

Amanda has been very vocal about the violations she suffered that night; however, that promotes a blame game along the lines of 'If I didn't slander Lumumba then it must have been YOU!' On the other hand proposing an escape route to the mutual benefit of both the defence and court, maybe to the point of conceding that calunnia didn't exactly exist might have been a more favourable strategy. A 'no one was to blame' strategy may have left Lumumba stranded but that might have been acceptable collateral damage if Italy were to save face.

Now the shutters are firmly down since Italy is not going to be blamed for this. Italy has apparently decided that if Amanda is going to get a favourable outcome she's going to have to jump through multiple burning hoops to get it. The tactic may be to exhaust Amanda's will to fight this both morally and financially. Maybe the C.O.M. would agree with that since the use of the 1st memoriale seems to be in direct contradiction to the ECHR judgement. I still think she can get a favourable decision but it's going to cost her a whole lot more time and money.

Just my 2p worth.

Hoots
 
Last edited:
LOL! He 'funded' her release?

View attachment 58637

Op-Ed: Amanda Knox: Donald Trump supported me when I was wrongly accused of murder. What do I owe him?​

By Amanda Knox
May 4, 2017 3 AM PT



Do keep up!
 
Back
Top Bottom