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

[TruthCalls]

The self pity. The self pity!

O, woe is me! O, WOE IS Meeeeeee!!!

Get convicted of a serious crime, do the time. That is how it goes.

.
.

Huh? It was pointed out that it made no sense for Amanda and Raffaele, with no history of anger or violence, to murder Amanda's friend and housemate for no reason. You counter by citing precedent from other cases, and then you proceeded to list two of them. The problem for you is that Stacy made it clear those cases were not remotely similar to this case in as much as in those cases the perpetrator had motive and past behavioral issues consistent with the crime, none of which existed in this case. And how do you respond?? .... O, woe is me! ???? Is that it? A proper response would have been "yeah, OK, I see your point" or "OK, how about these cases...", NOT "WOE IS Meeeeee!!!"

BTW, this is clearly not the first time you've tried this, nor is it the first time it was pointed out to you that your examples are not supporting your position. So my suggestion would be, the next time you try this tact you might want to find a case or two that are truly comparable to this one. Now, I would agree that this is problematic, as I've never known, nor have I ever personally heard of a case comparable to this one, but it's the approach you want to take, you should come armed with the goods.

 

[TruthCalls]

Rationalisation simply doesn't work in a court of law. If you want to argue the would coulds and shoulds you have to be explicit as to how your would coulds and shoulds happened, with supporting evidence. As your hero, Hellmann, was told, in no uncertain terms, as Chieffi handed his arse back to him and ripped up his MR.



.

You know, it's kinda funny, but I didn't notice any rationalization by Stacy, nor did I see a single could, should or would in her post. What I did see is a brief, if not wholly accurate summation of facts from this case. Chieffi may have overturned Hellmann, but Marasca eventually confirmed Hellmann was correct. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

 

[gabeygoat]

I already said, they didn't realise forensic police could analyse footprints. Guede split because he didn't live there he didn't need to help clean up.

people have been able to recognize footprints since, I don't know, we could track things?

 

[gabeygoat]

i don't really follow this thread, and I apologize for my general ignorance. I don't really caer. So, this will sound weird i guess, but why would glass go backwards regardless of where thrown from .

 

[Stacyhs]

I already said, they didn't realise forensic police could analyse footprints. Guede split because he didn't live there he didn't need to help clean up.

Previously, when asked why they'd not only leave but point out the bloody print on the bathmat if it were Sollecito's, your answer was that they thought themselves smarter than the police and that they wanted to "pull one over" on the police.
Now apparently, they just didn't know that footprints, like fingerprints, could be analyzed.

 

[Stacyhs]

The people who think they can spot a criminal just by looking at them or by knowing their ethnicity or gender


..

I can't even count the number of times I seen PGP claim they can see guilt/evil in Knox's eyes. I've never seen anyone claim they can see innocence in someone's eyes. It's always guilt/evil/sociopathy, etc.

 

[Vixen]

i don't really follow this thread, and I apologize for my general ignorance. I don't really caer. So, this will sound weird i guess, but why would glass go backwards regardless of where thrown from .

Depends on whether there is something behind it. The PIP are desperate to prove it was a real burglary because if it was a staged one the question would be, 'Now who would do that?'

.

 

[Vixen]

Previously, when asked why they'd not only leave but point out the bloody print on the bathmat if it were Sollecito's, your answer was that they thought themselves smarter than the police and that they wanted to "pull one over" on the police.
Now apparently, they just didn't know that footprints, like fingerprints, could be analyzed.

You might as well ask why would a perp leave his or her fingerprints or DNA at the crime scene? But they do. The footprint on the bathmat was identified as compatible with Sollecito. How are you going to explain that away? Apart from the usual, oh but he wouldn't have left his footprint for cops to find.

I'll get into my listening pose.


.

 

[Vixen]

You know, it's kinda funny, but I didn't notice any rationalization by Stacy, nor did I see a single could, should or would in her post. What I did see is a brief, if not wholly accurate summation of facts from this case. Chieffi may have overturned Hellmann, but Marasca eventually confirmed Hellmann was correct. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

No, Marasca merely reinstated Vecchiotti & Conti and their unsubstantiated claim 'it could have been contaminated'. When Chieffi Supreme Court judge excoriated them as intellectually dishonest it was pointed out that you can't just say 'anything is possible' or it might have been contaminated', you have to spell out by which path and how it might have been. It proves the case was corrupted as the annulment was on the grounds of 'insufficient evidence' (exactly how much evidence did they need?) yet the legal facts found remain. The key one being that Knox was CERTAINLY present during the murder, did wash her hands of the victim's blood, the burglary was staged and Knox did name Lumumba (says Marasca) to cover up for Guede.

OK, it's nice to be sprung out of jail on a legal loophole your influential <ahem> barrister has discovered, especially if you are serving life but why would you be happy with that judgement that pretty much damns your behaviour?



.



.

 

[Numbers]

i don't really follow this thread, and I apologize for my general ignorance. I don't really caer. So, this will sound weird i guess, but why would glass go backwards regardless of where thrown from .

Some persons, whether the police and prosecutor in Perugia or pro-guilt commentators generally or pro-guilt posters here apply a false and misleading analysis of the physics of window breaking (the practical results) indicated by the positions of the glass shards, including the one embedded in the outer side of a panel of the inside shutter. The glass shards broken off by a rock thrown from outside a window - especially those in or near the impact area - move in the same direction as the rock (some of the momentum of the moving rock is transferred to the glass shards). Few or no glass shards would fall in the opposite direction of the rock's motion (toward the outside), so one would not expect to find many shards on the ground outside the building under the window's location.

For a detailed appreciation of the window break-in, it's best to read the report of the forensic engineer Ron Hendry, who analyzed the beak-in photos far more thoroughly than the police and prosecutor, who chose an explanation of a staged break-in that made no physical sense. See these four sites, each dealing with an aspect of the break-in:

Professional Opinion From Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry

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

www.injusticeinperugia.org

Professional Opinion From Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry

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

www.injusticeinperugia.org

Professional Opinion From Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry

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

www.injusticeinperugia.org

Professional Opinion From Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry

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

www.injusticeinperugia.org

 

[Vixen]

Some persons, whether the police and prosecutor in Perugia or pro-guilt commentators generally or pro-guilt posters here apply a false and misleading analysis of the physics of window breaking (the practical results) indicated by the positions of the glass shards, including the one embedded in the outer side of a panel of the inside shutter. The glass shards broken off by a rock thrown from outside a window - especially those in or near the impact area - move in the same direction as the rock (some of the momentum of the moving rock is transferred to the glass shards). Few or no glass shards would fall in the opposite direction of the rock's motion (toward the outside), so one would not expect to find many shards on the ground outside the building under the window's location.

For a detailed appreciation of the window break-in, it's best to read the report of the forensic engineer Ron Hendry, who analyzed the beak-in photos far more thoroughly than the police and prosecutor, who chose an explanation of a staged break-in that made no physical sense. See these four sites, each dealing with an aspect of the break-in:

Professional Opinion From Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry

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

www.injusticeinperugia.org

Professional Opinion From Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry

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

www.injusticeinperugia.org

Professional Opinion From Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry

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

www.injusticeinperugia.org

Professional Opinion From Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry

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

www.injusticeinperugia.org

I am afraid the late Ron Hendry is wrong here:

If the outer top shelf door at the wall had been left open by Filomena, then the action of the rock being thrown threw the window from the outside may have induced several articles of clothing to fall from the top shelves. When the large rock impacted the inner solid wood shutter, it would have induced a strong rotation of the shutter. This rotation may have slammed the inner wood shutter into a fully opened wardrobe door and this contact may have induced a strong twisting and jostling action of the wardrobe closet to the extent that many of the overstuffed clothing items fell to the floor. The several photos of the inner solid wood shutter and the top shelf door show varying positions between the two. One position we don’t see is the inner shutter swung around to the wall until it was well out of the way. The shutter’s position in the various photographs is always such that it could have been stopped by contact with the wardrobe door.

2. When Rudy entered the room from the window, he may have stumbled on items on the floor, and to try to maintain his balance he may have reached out and grabbed hold of an open wardrobe door and jostled it such that clothing fell from the overstuffed shelves. Alternately, he may have stumbled toward the wardrobe closet and made contact with the closet such that the upper doors swung open and clothing fell from the overstuffed shelves.

3. When Rudy entered the room from the window, one of his shoes may have snagged the coaxial cable connected to the television and this exerted a notable pull on the television and wardrobe closet such that clothing fell from the overstuffed shelves.​

This is because Filomena said it was the two bottom drawers that had been pulled out and their contents overturned. In addition, she denied that her room was untidy.




.



.

 

[Stacyhs]

There's a thing: a burglar wore gloves to conceal his identity in respect of a burglary but then threw all caution to the wind in a rape and murder at the same time, a much, much, more serious offence.

By his own account, he was listening to his iPod in the bathroom while taking a dump. He would have removed his gloves in order to use the iPod and to wipe himself. Or do you think he left gloves on for that?

A burglar carries a small glass breaking hammer but then decides to lob a huge rock weighing 9lbs instead, waking up half the neighbourhood.

What part of "Guede was an experienced burglar even carrying a glass breaking tool with him which the Milan police had confiscated" is confusing you?

That "huge rock", or "boulder as you usually refer to it, is shown in the police video being picked up with ONE HAND.

Speaking of the rock, how incompetent is it for the police not to have collected it until Dec. 18... six weeks after the murder? Whether the burglary was staged or not, the rock may have had vital identifying DNA on it. It's like these cops had never investigated a crime scene before.

 

[Vixen]

By his own account, he was listening to his iPod in the bathroom while taking a dump. He would have removed his gloves in order to use the iPod and to wipe himself. Or do you think he left gloves on for that?


What part of "Guede was an experienced burglar even carrying a glass breaking tool with him which the Milan police had confiscated" is confusing you?

That "huge rock", or "boulder as you usually refer to it, is shown in the police video being picked up with ONE HAND.
View attachment 60356
Speaking of the rock, how incompetent is it for the police not to have collected it until Dec. 18... six weeks after the murder? Whether the burglary was staged or not, the rock may have had vital identifying DNA on it. It's like these cops had never investigated a crime scene before.

Oh really? And did Guede collect his gloves on his way out?



There is nothing unusual about a sealed off crime scene and forensic police returning several times. There was a story of some guy who was convicted when his fingerprint was found decades later.

Police who went around with metal detectors around the cottage and grounds - they found no keys or knives - did say they found similar rocks. This indicates someone who found a rock AFTER arriving at the cottage. Someone who had to go around the back to look for it. Not someone who came ready prepared in advance. Burglars don't have all day.


.

.

 

[Stacyhs]

All the more remarkable Sollecito's full DNA was identified.

It as still a low copy number sample. But no one is disputing his DNA was on the hook. It's how it got there that is crucial.

This was settled in Court - Nencini - and by a top Italian professor, leading expert in genetics. This is factual.

That RS 's DNA is on the hook was settled in the Massei court. Is anyone disputing that? It's how it got there that is crucial. And the Marasca SC accepted the C&V report's findings: probably contamination. This is factual.

Your opinion isn't relevant in respect of what the court upheld. What the court upheld is the relevant one. Please don't tell me you believe there was a conspiracy by the forensic scientists, too, to add to that of the cops and the prosecutor.

The SC also definitively acquitted the pair. What the court upheld is the relevant one. Yet you continue to argue (unconvincingly) for their guilt.

Speaking of the forensic scientists, what would you call Stefanoni's failure to report the negative TMB test results on nine crucial pieces of evidence? An oversight? Whether deliberate or not, that failure to report the results does not reflect well on her.

 

[SpitfireIX]

As Hellmann said, "Anything is possible!" but that's not the duty of the court. The court has to come to a conclusion AFTER hearing ALL of the evidence and not before. You can say, 'Oh Guede could have climbed up without leaving any trace of sodden weather and he could have done this... and he could have done that... He could have worn galoshes that he took off just before climbing He might have worn burglars gloves and, as a basketball player, he had reach and fit shoulder muscles....etcetera."

But the court decided it was proven that the burglary was staged, and not just because of the state of the wall, window or shutters.

I see you've retreated from "It's impossible that Guede climbed in through the window," to "The court ruled that Guede didn't climb in through the window." That's progress, of a sort. And as for the hilted, that's just one of your usual lame attempts to distort and ridicule the other side's arguments.

We are not dealing with alternatives here or what you personally ideally would have wished the court concluded.

No. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, and you continually ignore, we're dealing with what actually happened, rather than just what "the court concluded."

Let me help.

No, let me help. You. Are. Not. The. Teacher. Here.

Were I to say, for example, "Rosemary West is innocent," perhaps because I feel sorry for a woman serving a whole life sentence for murder.

IOW, you're admitting that, in your scenario, you'd be arguing something you didn't actually believe, rather than arguing what you ought to be arguing, which is that West has served enough time and ought to be released.

Ah, I see now. You're attempting to insinuate, obliquely, that we don't really believe Knox is innocent, and that we're trying to come up with tortured reasoning to explain why she ought to be let off just because we feel sorry for her. Shame on you.

So I argue all kinds of possible alternatives. What are you going to do? You are going to shrug and say, 'Well, that is not what the merits court (the trial proper) decided when it weighed up ALL of the facts from ALL of the evidence [not just yours!]"

No, that's absolutely not what I'm going to do. I'm going to start by considering whether any of your alternatives are plausible. If none of them are, I'm going to say, "None of those are plausible." If any of them are, then we'll talk. (Although it will be a rather short conversation, as West's stepdaughter disappeared while her husband was in prison, and she lied about the disappearance, so she's guilty beyond any doubt of at least one murder.)

That is how the rule of law works.

No. Among other things, the rule of law allows for the possibility that police and prosecutors sometimes get it wrong, that courts make mistakes, and that miscarriages of justice occur.

You won't give a toss about my opinion . . .

Must . . . resist . . . temptation . . .

. . . as Rosemary West remains firmly convicted even if some random somewhere believes it to be a miscarriage of justice.

It just dawned on me that you chose West for your example because a) she was extremely cruel, b) she was mind-bogglingly promiscuous, and c) you believe there appears to be no plausible doubt about her guilt^*, thus inviting readers to draw an implicit comparison between her and Knox. Shame on you.

What you call 'factoids' are simply the legal facts settled in court.

No. First, many of the factoids you parrot were never established in court; for example, you keep falsely claiming that Knox's shoe print was found in Kercher's room, when that has never been established.

Second, despite your continual attempts to pretend otherwise, a "legal fact" is not the same as an actual fact.

What you call 'guilters' are simply people who understand the rule of law, because that is all we have . . .

"Everyone who disagrees with me is either ignorant or willfully blind."

and there is the safety net of appeal.

And yet, every time an appeals court rules in favor of Knox, you claim that they are mistaken, incompetent, and/or corrupt.

So whilst you and Jack by the Hedge believe strongly that Guede could have climbed in via that method and that the burglary wasn't staged . . .

Because he could have, for reasons discussed by us and others, and ignored or handwaved away, as usual, by you.

. . . although I believe this is more wishful magical thinking than any real knowledge of the issues . . .

Dammit, Vixen, that's the second one you've broken this week.

scientific, forensic and as argued in court by experts in that type of thing . . .

Begging the question that the police were competent to determine whether the burglary was staged. Further, despite your stubborn refusal to acknowledge them, we can point to several obvious errors in the investigation (for example, failure to consider Romanelli's testimony that there was glass under the clothing on the floor).

I accept that the courts found it to be staged . . .

Of course you do.

. . . and I haven't seen any convincing evidence that anyone was doing Guede any favours or had any liking for him.

Oh, please, spare us the deliberate obtuseness. They already had Guede dead to rights for murder and rape. How much difference was tacking on a burglary charge going to make?? The point of claiming the burglary was staged was to implicate Knox and Sollecito, by bolstering the prosecution's "inside job" theory.

I mean it is possible that Guede got into the cottage that way, just as it is possible, as Trump argues, that he was only convicted of multiple corruption because the Judge's daughter was a Democrat senator political activist.

Appeal to ridicule fallacy. And, BTW, that's an extremely poor example, because Trump's hush-money case was a political prosecution (which unfortunately probably helped him get reelected, but which will probably also get the prosecutor elected the next Attorney General of New York State), as opposed to the classified-documents/obstruction case, in which the Justice Department had Trump dead to rights, and could possibly have secured a conviction before the election if they hadn't botched the prosecution.

As Hellmann said, 'Anything is possible" But that is not the function of criminal law courts. It is a crude basic system of ascertaining the balance of probability to a high bar that the case against the defendant/s is proven AFTER all the evidence, testimony and legal argument is heard, by ALL of the parties and as per codified statute in the case of Italy.

And, as has been explained to you ad nauseam, courts sometimes get it wrong, especially in high-profile cases where there's tremendous pressure to solve a case quickly.

So does your opinion or mine matter as to determining guilt or innocence? No, it does not.

Yet you seem to have plenty of opinions about how all the appeals courts that found Knox and Sollecito not guilty got it wrong.
_________________
^*West's husband committed two murders before they met, so there is a non-zero chance that she wasn't involved in the murders which she was convicted of participating in with him, although the evidence that she was is quite strong. However, as I mentioned, there is zero doubt that West murdered her stepdaughter while her husband was in prison.

 

[Vixen]

It as still a low copy number sample. But no one is disputing his DNA was on the hook. It's how it got there that is crucial.


That RS 's DNA is on the hook was settled in the Massei court. Is anyone disputing that? It's how it got there that is crucial. And the Marasca SC accepted the C&V report's findings: probably contamination. This is factual.



The SC also definitively acquitted the pair. What the court upheld is the relevant one. Yet you continue to argue (unconvincingly) for their guilt.

Speaking of the forensic scientists, what would you call Stefanoni's failure to report the negative TMB test results on nine crucial pieces of evidence? An oversight? Whether deliberate or not, that failure to report the results does not reflect well on her.

No, Marasca-Bruno did not say 'probably'. It waffled on about some imaginary astonishing investigation deficiencies, because they allowed Bongiorno to corrupt their judgment with her cod 360-page Gill report. Gill a paid-for defence advocate for some crank US scientists with ridiculous nationalistic beliefs, who was never cross-examined and his views never tested at trial.

I don't argue for innocence or guilt, I follow the rule of law and what takes place in the court room.



.

 

[Stacyhs]

Oh really? And did Guede collect his gloves on his way out?

There's this new clothing invention called "pockets". In order to play his iPod and clean himself, he'd have to remove his gloves. Or do you want to argue he'd do that with winter gloves on?

There is nothing unusual about a sealed off crime scene and forensic police returning several times. There was a story of some guy who was convicted when his fingerprint was found decades later.

Agreed. Nothing unusual about going back to a crime scene What IS unusual is failing to collect crucial evidence items for six weeks like the jacket she was wearing when attacked, the bra clasp, her purse, and the rock. All of which were important evidence for both the assault/murder and the break-in.
Do you now want to argue that those were not vital and obvious evidence items that should have been collected immediately and NOT six weeks later after the cottage had been turned topsy-turvy?

Police who went around with metal detectors around the cottage and grounds - they found no keys or knives - did say they found similar rocks. This indicates someone who found a rock AFTER arriving at the cottage. Someone who had to go around the back to look for it. Not someone who came ready prepared in advance. Burglars don't have all day.

Jesus Christ. No one is saying he came prepared with his own custom rock! Yes, Vixen, he picked up a rock AFTER arriving at the cottage. Sherlock Holmes could not have deduced that any better. You don't know where on the property he picked it up. For all you or we know, it was right there on the parking parapet.

 

[Vixen]

I see you've retreated from "It's impossible that Guede climbed in through the window," to "The court ruled that Guede didn't climb in through the window." That's progress, of a sort. And as for the hilted, that's just one of your usual lame attempts to distort and ridicule the other side's arguments.


No. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, and you continually ignore, we're dealing with what actually happened, rather than just what "the court concluded."


No, let me help. You. Are. Not. The. Teacher. Here.


IOW, you're admitting that, in your scenario, you'd be arguing something you didn't actually believe, rather than arguing what you ought to be arguing, which is that West has served enough time and ought to be released.

Ah, I see now. You're attempting to insinuate, obliquely, that we don't really believe Knox is innocent, and that we're trying to come up with tortured reasoning to explain why she ought to be let off just because we feel sorry for her. Shame on you.


No, that's absolutely not what I'm going to do. I'm going to start by considering whether any of your alternatives are plausible. If none of them are, I'm going to say, "None of those are plausible." If any of them are, then we'll talk. (Although it will be a rather short conversation, as West's stepdaughter disappeared while her husband was in prison, and she lied about the disappearance, so she's guilty beyond any doubt of at least one murder.)


No. Among other things, the rule of law allows for the possibility that police and prosecutors sometimes get it wrong, that courts make mistakes, and that miscarriages of justice occur.


Must . . . resist . . . temptation . . .


It just dawned on me that you chose West for your example because a) she was extremely cruel, b) she was mind-bogglingly promiscuous, and c) you believe there appears to be no plausible doubt about her guilt^*, thus inviting readers to draw an implicit comparison between her and Knox. Shame on you.


No. First, many of the factoids you parrot were never established in court; for example, you keep falsely claiming that Knox's shoe print was found in Kercher's room, when that has never been established.

Second, despite your continual attempts to pretend otherwise, a "legal fact" is not the same as an actual fact.


"Everyone who disagrees with me is either ignorant or willfully blind."


And yet, every time an appeals court rules in favor of Knox, you claim that they are mistaken, incompetent, and/or corrupt.


Because he could have, for reasons discussed by us and others, and ignored or handwaved away, as usual, by you.



Dammit, Vixen, that's the second one you've broken this week.


Begging the question that the police were competent to determine whether the burglary was staged. Further, despite your stubborn refusal to acknowledge them, we can point to several obvious errors in the investigation (for example, failure to consider Romanelli's testimony that there was glass under the clothing on the floor).


Of course you do.


Oh, please, spare us the deliberate obtuseness. They already had Guede dead to rights for murder and rape. How much difference was tacking on a burglary charge going to make?? The point of claiming the burglary was staged was to implicate Knox and Sollecito, by bolstering the prosecution's "inside job" theory.


Appeal to ridicule fallacy. And, BTW, that's an extremely poor example, because Trump's hush-money case was a political prosecution (which unfortunately probably helped him get reelected, but which will probably also get the prosecutor elected the next Attorney General of New York State), as opposed to the classified-documents/obstruction case, in which the Justice Department had Trump dead to rights, and could possibly have secured a conviction before the election if they hadn't botched the prosecution.


And, as has been explained to you ad nauseam, courts sometimes get it wrong, especially in high-profile cases where there's tremendous pressure to solve a case quickly.


Yet you seem to have plenty of opinions about how all the appeals courts that found Knox and Sollecito not guilty got it wrong.
_________________
^*West's husband committed two murders before they met, so there is a non-zero chance that she wasn't involved in the murders which she was convicted of participating in with him, although the evidence that she was is quite strong. However, as I mentioned, there is zero doubt that West murdered her stepdaughter while her husband was in prison.

You do know that Knox was eager to talk? When she met with Mignini accompanied by Ghirga and Dalla Vedova, when asked by Mignini, in his role as prosecutor for the case, why she had said she was at the scene with 'Patrick', she said, 'Because it could be true."

At that point, being defence lawyers Ghirgha and Dalla Vedova sprung to shut her up. They demanded a ten-minute break to speak to their client. Knox was crying her eyes out at every mention of being at the scene (to Mignini's mind as though she was reliving being there). Mignini wanted to continue as he knew Knox just wanted to tell all. Her two lawyers strongly urged Knox to ask to terminate the interview (being defence lawyers, that is what they do, they shut their clients up from incriminating themselves), so Knox took the strong message and terminated it.

As I have argued, Knox could have been straight with them all along as that is what she wanted to do but once Mom and dad Curt had arrived and her US Embassy lawyer appointed, she was firmly shut up and told to go the normal 'no comment' route. But at that stage she had already changed her story three or four times.

She could have had a lesser charge and sentence due to cooperation with the police and courts, out in five or six years, fairly anonymous and ready to rebuild her life without the horrible mental health trauma of having to live a lie for her family and friends for the rest of her life with the bonkers claim that she was set up by Mignini.

People like Gill and Vecchiotti think they are being kind when really, sometimes honesty is the best policy for a happy life.



.

 

[Numbers]

Status of Execution [of the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy before the DEJ/CoM]:



Bilateral contacts are ongoing to obtain the submission of an action plan or report.

The authorities submitted a preliminary communication on 10 January 2020, informing on the payment of just satisfaction and of the dissemination of the judgment.

Source: https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-52517

There's a Guide for the drafting of action plans and reports for the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.
See: https://rm.coe.int/guide-drafting-action-plans-reports-en/1680592206

Some interesting points:

1. The respondent state is required to produce an action plan (or action report, if it believes the execution is complete) 6 months after the ECHR judgment becomes final. For Knox v. Italy, that date is 24 June 2019. Italy should have had an action plan for the case on or before 24 December 2019. So it's currently 5 years and 4 months behind.

2. When a respondent state does not have an action plan by the deadline, the DEJ is supposed to send a reminder setting a new time limit 3 months beyond the previous time limit (for standard supervision; Knox v. Italy is under standard supervision). If the respondent state fails to provide the action plan at the new time limit without an explanation, the supervision may be raised to enhanced supervision (meaning relatively frequent reviews by the CoM). No information as to whether this procedure was followed in this case is publicly available.

3. Action plans are intended to be dynamic and change with significant developments in the execution process. An action report is the final report issued when the execution is complete in the view of the respondent state an.d of the CoM's review.

Now that Italy has taken some actions in the case (without having provided any action plan to the DEJ/CoM), it will be interesting to learn what it believes it has accomplished in 1. annulling the initial final conviction of calunnia; 2. remanding Knox to a new trial, using her Memoriales as evidence of calunnia; and 3. re-convicting her of calunnia on the basis of the Memoriales and the inquisitorial assumption that she was present in the cottage at the time of the murder of Kercher. Of further interest will be the view of the DEJ/CoM on the action plan or report delivered by Italy.

 

[Stacyhs]

The verified objective, scientifically recorded as of the call point phone logs show Batistelli arrived circa 12:30 and Sollecito rang HIS SISTER at 12:54 and then the Carabinieri proper (not the police whom you should call [and not the military police!]). This is a fact upheld in court. It is not relevant what you believe.

Oh, dear. The ONLY court that found Battistelli arrived before the 112 calls was Nencini. Massei and Hellmann both found he arrived AFTER. From the Hellmann MR:

There has been much discussion on what did ‐ or did not ‐ transpire prior to the call made to 112 with respect to the unexpected arrival of the Police, the Prosecutor conjecturing that the call to the Carabinieri on 112 had been made at the sight of the unexpected arrival of the Police, and made only to corroborate the theory of their innocence. But on the basis of testimony given by the Police personnel on duty and from the schedules recorded on the printouts, even Court of the Assizes of First Instance reached the conclusion that those telephone calls had been made prior to the arrival of the Police, and with no knowledge of their imminent arrival.

Marasca does not claim the calls were made after the postales arrived, either.
Yet, again, you refuse to answer my question: Did the police miss the FIVE phone call made during the time the postales...and you...claim they were there?
Your refusal to address that can only be inferred as an admission that these 'trained observers' either missed all five calls or they just were not there before 1:00.

Here is a pic of the natural light Mez had in her room.


View attachment 60346


She really didn't need to borrow Knox' lamp.

You're right. She didn't need Knox's lamp DURING BROAD DAYLIGHT!

But you still haven't answered my question: If guilty, is it more logical and plausible than not that Knox would have invented a story to explain the lamp rather than just say, "I don't know how it got there,"?

When someone is repeatedly asked a question and they refuse to answer it, it's because they either can't or they can't give a rational answer.

 

[Stacyhs]

No, Marasca-Bruno did not say 'probably'.

The certainly imply it here:

Observed during the first inspection of the scientific police, the item had been ignored and left there, on the floor, for some time (46 days), until, during a new search, it was finally picked up and collected. It is sure that, during the period of time between the inspection in which it was observed and when it was collected, there had been other accesses by the investigators, who turned the room upside down in a search for elements of evidence useful to the investigation. The hook was maybe stepped on or moved (enough to be retrieved on the floor in a different place from where it was firstly noticed). And also, the photographic documentation produced by Sollecito’s defense demonstrates that, during the sampling, the hook was passed hand in hand between the operators who, furthermore, wore dirty latex gloves.

It waffled on about some imaginary astonishing investigation deficiencies, because they allowed Bongiorno to corrupt their judgment with her cod 360-page Gill report. Gill a paid-for defence advocate for some crank US scientists with ridiculous nationalistic beliefs, who was never cross-examined and his views never tested at trial.

And there we have it yet again: Prof. Peter Gill, one of the most distinguished DNA forensic experts in the world, is nothing more than a paid shill and the multiple US scientists who agree with him are "cranks" only influenced by their national bias.
Not only that, but FIVE Cassation judges were all "corrupted" by Bongiorno! Pssst...you missed an opportunity to claim a mafia connection!

I don't argue for innocence or guilt, I follow the rule of law and what takes place in the court room.

Bull. You argue for guilt all the time and only bother with the rule of law or court room events when it suits your own narrative. You ignore anything else.

.

 

[Stacyhs]

The self pity. The self pity!

O, woe is me! O, WOE IS Meeeeeee!!!

Get convicted of a serious crime, do the time. That is how it goes.

.
.

Such a response only indicates that you cannot defend your comment against my point that your two examples are not comparable to the Kercher case.

I'll ask you yet again:
Do you have evidence that Paxton SOLD the story to Rolling Stone or do you mean she "sold" it in the sense that she convinced them?

This ignoring of difficult questions you're asked is becoming quite the habit.

 

[Stacyhs]

Rationalisation simply doesn't work in a court of law. If you want to argue the would coulds and shoulds you have to be explicit as to how your would coulds and shoulds happened, with supporting evidence. As your hero, Hellmann, was told, in no uncertain terms, as Chieffi handed his arse back to him and ripped up his MR.



.

You're at the stage of throwing anything you can think of against the wall and hoping something will stick.

I made no rationalizations nor mentioned any 'coulds or shoulds'. Do try and at least make your responses somewhat relevant to what is actually said.

Chieffi got his ass handed back to him by Marasca. And Marasca had the last word on the murder verdict which agreed with Hellmann.

 

[Stacyhs]

Depends on whether there is something behind it. The PIP are desperate to prove it was a real burglary because if it was a staged one the question would be, 'Now who would do that?'

.

The PGP are desperate to prove it was a staged burglary because without it being staged, they'd have to admit that Guede broke in and killed Kercher all by his big boy self.

 

[SpitfireIX]

It's very strange that the exact same scientists who identified evidence against Guede are suddenly corrupt and incompetent when they found forensic evidence against Knox and Sollecito under exactly the same conditions and testing.

You are the one who has chosen his own facts. 'It's all contaminated' when it comes to the latter but obvious when it's Guede's, even though his DNA on Mez' sweatshirt cuffs were in the same place as the lonely bra hook found under the pillow under the body with Sollecito's clear and full DNA signature on it. Imagine cutting or tearing the bra off and the hook. Anyone would think the 'burglar' was staging a work of art as in creating a theatrical murder scene for laughs instead of just grabbing Filomena's valuables and beating it..

@Stacyhs, who knows far more about the case than I do, has addressed the "substance" (and I use the word loosely) of your response quite well. However, I will point out that you utterly failed to answer any of the points that I made, choosing only to attack one tangential aside that you thought gave you a small rhetorical opening.

• You failed to admit that you were wrong about Mignini's having been convicted of abuse of office, and you have twice failed to acknowledge that the Committee to Protect Journalists sent two letters to the President of Italy protesting his intimidation and harassment of reporters.
• You failed to retract your accusation that I said that anyone who thinks Knox and Sollecito are guilty is a conspiracy theorist, even when I provided incontrovertible evidence that I had said no such thing.
• You failed to admit that you were wrong about the ECHR's having "dismissed almost all" of Knox's claims.

Direct question, Vixen. How is it that you're so wrong about so many things so much of the time, stubbornly refuse to admit it, but then accuse us of being desperate?

 

[Stacyhs]

I am afraid the late Ron Hendry is wrong here:




This is because Filomena said it was the two bottom drawers that had been pulled out and their contents overturned. In addition, she denied that her room was untidy.

The photos taken on Nov. 2 don't show two drawers pulled out. I can find nothing in her testimony or photos showing "the two bottom drawers that had been pulled out and their contents overturned." The clothing strewn about came from the wardrobe.

Do you see two drawers pulled out and their contents dumped out?


No drawers here.

 

[Numbers]

The photos taken on Nov. 2 don't show two drawers pulled out. I can find nothing in her testimony or photos showing "the two bottom drawers that had been pulled out and their contents overturned." The clothing strewn about came from the wardrobe.
View attachment 60363
Do you see two drawers pulled out and their contents dumped out?

View attachment 60364
No drawers here.

IIRC, Hendry found evidence that the rock thrown through the window had impacted the wardrobe and that impact resulted in some of the wardrobe contents spilling out.

 

[Numbers]

Looking at the Status of Execution of the case Knox v. Italy, one might conclude that nothing ever happens after an ECHR judgment is final and is then supervised by the DEJ/CoM. However, some cases, even with Italy as the respondent state, show more activity.

For instance, the Tapis group of cases has seen significant activity, although it may be far from resolved. The Talpis group includes several cases relating to sexual violence (rape) or domestic violence against women and the dysfunctions of the Italian judicial and police systems in holding accused males responsible - generally by delaying court proceedings until the crimes become time-barred, preventing domestic violence through protection orders or other measures, and issuing trial MRs that hold the female victim responsible for the crime committed against her (e.g., slut-shaming). Five cases are included in the group; Talpis v. Italy 41237/14 final 18/09/2017 and J. L. v. Italy 5671/16 final 27/08/2021 are considered the leading cases, and M. S. v. Italy 32715/19 final 07/10/2022 is considered the leading repetitive case, of the group.

Some of the dysfunctions and biases shown in this group of cases are similar to those exhibited against Knox by the police, prosecutors, and courts.

See:

HUDOC-EXEC

hudoc.exec.coe.int

HUDOC-EXEC

hudoc.exec.coe.int

HUDOC-EXEC

hudoc.exec.coe.int

 

[Stacyhs]

You do know that Knox was eager to talk? When she met with Mignini accompanied by Ghirga and Dalla Vedova, when asked by Mignini, in his role as prosecutor for the case, why she had said she was at the scene with 'Patrick', she said, 'Because it could be true."

Actually, she said "Because I thought it might be true." (pg. 92) What you quoted was what the interpreter's version. She's always maintained that she temporarily came to believe what she was being told was true.
The Mignini interview happened on Dec. 17 which was one month and ten days AFTER she had written " I didn’t lie when I said I thought the killer was Patrick. I was very stressed at the time and I really did think he was the murderer. But now I remember that I can’t know who the murderer was because I didn’t return back to the house."

At that point, being defence lawyers Ghirgha and Dalla Vedova sprung to shut her up.

Ah...the "interpretation a la Vixen" is supplied. Looks to me like the defense lawyers were objecting to Mignini not following proper procedure in his questioning.

They demanded a ten-minute break to speak to their client.

Knox continued for several minutes answering questions after you claim her lawyers "sprung to shut her up."
The defense asked for...not demanded...a ten-minute break after the questioning because Knox was crying at that point.

Knox was crying her eyes out at every mention of being at the scene (to Mignini's mind as though she was reliving being there). Mignini wanted to continue as he knew Knox just wanted to tell all.

They were talking about the interrogation and why she accused Lumumba. That is why she got emotional. Mignini, thinking she's guilty, would assume it's because she was "reliving being there," when it's more likely she was reliving the interrogation itself. An interrogation she describes as the worst experience of her life.

Her two lawyers strongly urged Knox to ask to terminate the interview

There is no evidence in the transcript that they "strongly urged" her to end the interview. The did ask her if she wanted to continue or not. She chose not to.

(being defence lawyers, that is what they do, they shut their clients up from incriminating themselves), so Knox took the strong message and terminated it.

Oh, just stop it. Your imagined scenarios don't work on us.

As I have argued, Knox could have been straight with them all along as that is what she wanted to do but once Mom and dad Curt had arrived and her US Embassy lawyer appointed, she was firmly shut up and told to go the normal 'no comment' route. But at that stage she had already changed her story three or four times.

Another load of imagined rubbish.

She could have had a lesser charge and sentence due to cooperation with the police and courts, out in five or six years,

Really? Out in 5 or 6 years when Guede got 16 years and he wasn't even accused of being the mastermind or wielding the knife? In what world would she have received 1/3rd his sentence? Sheesh.

fairly anonymous and ready to rebuild her life without the horrible mental health trauma of having to live a lie for her family and friends for the rest of her life with the bonkers claim that she was set up by Mignini.

Blah, blah, blah, blah.....

People like Gill and Vecchiotti think they are being kind when really, sometimes honesty is the best policy for a happy life.

Wait....I thought Gill was paid off and Vecchiotti bent. Now they're just trying to be kind along the line of Popovic and Altieri? Do you ever listen to yourself?

 

[Vixen]

Actually, she said "Because I thought it might be true." (pg. 92) What you quoted was what the interpreter's version. She's always maintained that she temporarily came to believe what she was being told was true.
The Mignini interview happened on Dec. 17 which was one month and ten days AFTER she had written " I didn’t lie when I said I thought the killer was Patrick. I was very stressed at the time and I really did think he was the murderer. But now I remember that I can’t know who the murderer was because I didn’t return back to the house."

Ah...the "interpretation a la Vixen" is supplied. Looks to me like the defense lawyers were objecting to Mignini not following proper procedure in his questioning.

Knox continued for several minutes answering questions after you claim her lawyers "sprung to shut her up."
The defense asked for...not demanded...a ten-minute break after the questioning because Knox was crying at that point.


They were talking about the interrogation and why she accused Lumumba. That is why she got emotional. Mignini, thinking she's guilty, would assume it's because she was "reliving being there," when it's more likely she was reliving the interrogation itself. An interrogation she describes as the worst experience of her life.


There is no evidence in the transcript that they "strongly urged" her to end the interview. The did ask her if she wanted to continue or not. She chose not to.


Oh, just stop it. Your imagined scenarios don't work on us.

Another load of imagined rubbish.


Really? Out in 5 or 6 years when Guede got 16 years and he wasn't even accused of being the mastermind or wielding the knife? In what world would she have received 1/3rd his sentence? Sheesh.


Blah, blah, blah, blah.....

Wait....I thought Gill was paid off and Vecchiotti bent. Now they're just trying to be kind along the line of Popovic and Altieri? Do you ever listen to yourself?

Yes, innocenters campaigning for the likes of for example, Lord Longford for Myra Hindley or Michael Mansfield for Barry George often have a soft view of the world and a wet idea that it is not possible for their client sitting in front of them to do what they are accused of doing. They never get to see the victim. In their eyes, the defendant is the victim of a nasty cold establishment with hostile police and malicious prosecutors. Their client is the victim, in their eyes, not the poor sod laid out on a mortuary slab with their body sliced open with a circular saw and scalpel and their innards preserved in a jar in formaldehyde. Poor Mez had her body picked over at least twice before her parents could bring her home. Yet according to the PIP it is Knox who is the victim. How dare the police or Mignini even suspect her, is the mind set.

As for Knox crying every time Mignini brought up her claim she was with 'Patrick' at the murder scene, it was not just the sobing, it was her placing her hands over her ears as though reliving the scream. At the questura she was seen banging her hand against her forehead. You might claim she was 'reliving the interrogation' but her interview with the police where she was simply waiting for Sollecito to finish and offered to help identify people frequenting the cottage. Yes, the police are aggressive suspicious buggers but such an interview is not going to cause you severe PTSD, maybe just a feeling of ire and irritation for a few days.

People do reenact body language when relating an emotional experience in their life. They'll screw their eyes up, frown, perhaps shed a few tears as they recount what happened. Or maybe they'll express anger or sadness depending on what the incident was. In relating happy occasions, people will smile or laugh accordingly. Yes, your body language talks.

Police said Knox revealed a state of emotional shock when shown her message to Patrick, She had deleted his message. Mignini noticed her emotional breakdown - the first time for him - when he went with Napoleoni and I believe Cacchierri [_sp?] - and all three remaining roommates back to the cottage to the crime scene. On looking at the knives in the drawer to see if any were missing, Knox' hitherto vacant and blank (actually wanting to resume college ASAP, whilst all the other students in Perugia were fleeing the hell out of there) had a major nervous breakdown. I believe this is when she confessed but the cops aren't allowed to say what she said. Napoleoni then covered her head with blankets to escort her out to the police car to shield her from photographers. Yes, she was a suspect very early on because of her own behaviour and attempts to control the narrative, with all the long emails to friends. memos to the police, letters from her prison diary.



.

 

[Vixen]

Actually, she said "Because I thought it might be true." (pg. 92) What you quoted was what the interpreter's version. She's always maintained that she temporarily came to believe what she was being told was true.
The Mignini interview happened on Dec. 17 which was one month and ten days AFTER she had written " I didn’t lie when I said I thought the killer was Patrick. I was very stressed at the time and I really did think he was the murderer. But now I remember that I can’t know who the murderer was because I didn’t return back to the house."

Ah...the "interpretation a la Vixen" is supplied. Looks to me like the defense lawyers were objecting to Mignini not following proper procedure in his questioning.

Knox continued for several minutes answering questions after you claim her lawyers "sprung to shut her up."
The defense asked for...not demanded...a ten-minute break after the questioning because Knox was crying at that point.


They were talking about the interrogation and why she accused Lumumba. That is why she got emotional. Mignini, thinking she's guilty, would assume it's because she was "reliving being there," when it's more likely she was reliving the interrogation itself. An interrogation she describes as the worst experience of her life.


There is no evidence in the transcript that they "strongly urged" her to end the interview. The did ask her if she wanted to continue or not. She chose not to.


Oh, just stop it. Your imagined scenarios don't work on us.

Another load of imagined rubbish.


Really? Out in 5 or 6 years when Guede got 16 years and he wasn't even accused of being the mastermind or wielding the knife? In what world would she have received 1/3rd his sentence? Sheesh.


Blah, blah, blah, blah.....

Wait....I thought Gill was paid off and Vecchiotti bent. Now they're just trying to be kind along the line of Popovic and Altieri? Do you ever listen to yourself?

Actually, Knox told police she knew Mez' throat had been 'slit' because a policeman told her. The policeman, Altosto, denied even knowing anything about the body.

The claim she got it from Altieri in the car came later.

Let's not forget the lady-sized digit marks found around Mez' mouth in the attempt to shut her up or strangle her.




.

 

[Numbers]

One would expect that with the recent final re-conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba, the Italian government would be able to put together very quickly an action plan - or even an action report - for the ECHR case Knox v. Italy, that remains under the supervision of the DEJ/CoM, which is now being sought through "bilateral contacts" by the DEJ/CoM.*

The Florence Court of Appeal MR and the CSC MR seem to make the conviction based upon Knox's Memoriale a sure thing under Italian law, as those courts understand or interpret it.

Does any poster here have an estimate or guess when the Italian government would produce that document for the DEJ/CoM?

Does any poster here wish to guess what such an action plan or action report would state?
One hint on one possibility for the above: Review the responses of the Italian government to the ECHR in the text of the judgment Knox v. Italy.

* https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-52517

 

[Numbers]

BTW, one might see a direct and consistent line of thinking by the Italian judicial authorities in three writings: 1. The Marasca CSC panel MR discussing Knox's application to the ECHR and how it would not affect the Italian judicial outcome in the calunnia against Lumumba case, 2. The responses of the Italian government (which may reflect the opinions of the judiciary) to the questions of the ECHR as presented in the text of the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy, and 3. the Florence Court of Appeal provisional re-conviction MR of Knox for calunnia and its finalization by the Bondi CSC panel MR, which found the Florence Court's MR perfectly sound in logic, facts, and law.

One question observers of the case may ask is why there appears to be such relative uniformity among the Italian judiciary (recall Judge Hellman's Perugia Court of Appeal also chose to provisionally convict Knox of calunnia, although that court's MR contains information that would seem to contradict the verdict of guilt). Is it a "conspiracy" or a difference in the way cases are considered in Italy compared to the expectations of the European Convention on Human Rights? Recall that among the large-population European democracies, Italy has an exceptionally large number of cases pending before the ECHR and the CoM.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yes, innocenters campaigning for the likes of for example, Lord Longford for Myra Hindley or Michael Mansfield for Barry George often have a soft view of the world and a wet idea that it is not possible for their client sitting in front of them to do what they are accused of doing. They never get to see the victim. In their eyes, the defendant is the victim of a nasty cold establishment with hostile police and malicious prosecutors. Their client is the victim, in their eyes, not the poor sod laid out on a mortuary slab with their body sliced open with a circular saw and scalpel and their innards preserved in a jar in formaldehyde. Poor Mez had her body picked over at least twice before her parents could bring her home. Yet according to the PIP it is Knox who is the victim. How dare the police or Mignini even suspect her, is the mind set.

As for Knox crying every time Mignini brought up her claim she was with 'Patrick' at the murder scene, it was not just the sobing, it was her placing her hands over her ears as though reliving the scream. At the questura she was seen banging her hand against her forehead. You might claim she was 'reliving the interrogation' but her interview with the police where she was simply waiting for Sollecito to finish and offered to help identify people frequenting the cottage. Yes, the police are aggressive suspicious buggers but such an interview is not going to cause you severe PTSD, maybe just a feeling of ire and irritation for a few days.

People do reenact body language when relating an emotional experience in their life. They'll screw their eyes up, frown, perhaps shed a few tears as they recount what happened. Or maybe they'll express anger or sadness depending on what the incident was. In relating happy occasions, people will smile or laugh accordingly. Yes, your body language talks.

Police said Knox revealed a state of emotional shock when shown her message to Patrick, She had deleted his message. Mignini noticed her emotional breakdown - the first time for him - when he went with Napoleoni and I believe Cacchierri [_sp?] - and all three remaining roommates back to the cottage to the crime scene. On looking at the knives in the drawer to see if any were missing, Knox' hitherto vacant and blank (actually wanting to resume college ASAP, whilst all the other students in Perugia were fleeing the hell out of there) had a major nervous breakdown. I believe this is when she confessed but the cops aren't allowed to say what she said. Napoleoni then covered her head with blankets to escort her out to the police car to shield her from photographers. Yes, she was a suspect very early on because of her own behaviour and attempts to control the narrative, with all the long emails to friends. memos to the police, letters from her prison diary.

Utter rubbish.

 

[Stacyhs]

Actually, Knox told police she knew Mez' throat had been 'slit' because a policeman told her. The policeman, Altosto, denied even knowing anything about the body.

Amanda said it was probably the translator but she wasn't sure.

Mignini: "It is not so... not necessarily.... however who told you of the injury to the throat, say it."

Knox: It was most likely the interpreter .The first interpreter was the person with whom I spoke the most ... all the information I had came more or less from him."

In the interview with Mignini on Dec. 17, 2007, Knox said several times that she didn't remember how she learned how Kercher had died when pressed by Mignini. She was not remembering clearly. It was actually Mignini who first suggested it was a policeman:

Mignini: And how was she killed, when did she find out? Excuse me, I'll give you an example, she could have been shot, stabbed, poisoned... I mean...

Knox: "I didn’t know how she was murdered... I thought there was this foot in the room but I didn’t know anything else...."

Mignini:"Did the police tell you when? Who told you about the police?"

Knox: "I don’t remember."

Lawyer: "No, but she also said she doesn’t know how she was killed"

Mignini: "This is important, so you don’t know how she was killed?"

Knox:"No"

Mignini: "The police told you that her throat was cut. What did the police tell you?"

Knox: "I don’t remember."

Mignini: " A man, a woman?

Knox: "I don’t remember ...."

Mignini: "And when did he tell you?"

Knox: "When I was at the police station, but I don’t remember. When they first questioned me I remember that they said "we don’t even know if it’s Meredith" I don’t remember when they told me, I just remember that the police told me when I was at the police station because I didn’t know what happened..."

Mignini: "You didn’t know how she was killed, what did the police tell you?

Knox: "The police told me that her throat had been cut .... And from what they had told me I had made a horrible image...

The claim she got it from Altieri in the car came later.

You mean the claim that Altieri and Paola Grande later verified? Oh, but I forgot! They obviously perjured themselves and just made it up because the felt sorry for her! LOL!

Let's not forget the lady-sized digit marks found around Mez' mouth in the attempt to shut her up or strangle her.

Let's not forget that there was no such thing as "lady-sized digit marks". That description is pure speculation. Smaller bruises do not equate to a female making them. Unless you'd care to provide actual evidence of such?

 

[TomG]

One would expect that with the recent final re-conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba, the Italian government would be able to put together very quickly an action plan - or even an action report - for the ECHR case Knox v. Italy, that remains under the supervision of the DEJ/CoM, which is now being sought through "bilateral contacts" by the DEJ/CoM.*

The Florence Court of Appeal MR and the CSC MR seem to make the conviction based upon Knox's Memoriale a sure thing under Italian law, as those courts understand or interpret it.

Does any poster here have an estimate or guess when the Italian government would produce that document for the DEJ/CoM?

Does any poster here wish to guess what such an action plan or action report would state?
One hint on one possibility for the above: Review the responses of the Italian government to the ECHR in the text of the judgment Knox v. Italy.

* https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-52517

I'm not sure if I can be much help, but this argument has been presented on another forum to suggest that the ECHR cannot interfere with the calunnia reconviction.

"What is the European Court of Human Rights not able to do for me?

 The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise their decisions.

 The Court will not intercede directly on your behalf with the authority you are complaining about. In exceptional circumstances the Court may, however, grant interim measures. As a matter of practice it only does so where there is a serious risk of physical harm to the applicant.

 The Court will not help you find or pay a lawyer to draw up your application.

 The Court cannot give you any information on legal provisions in force in the State against which your complaints are directed."

*These points seem to be information for the appellant before application to the ECHR, not for ongoing proceedings.
__________________________

As far as I know, the ECHR can't say that Italy's reasoning in reconvicting Amanda is wrong. However, they can indicate to Italy that their measures have not gone far enough in redressing the violations Amanda suffered without interfering with Italian judicial procedures.

• The first thing I see is that the ECHR deemed the memoriale and prison intercept (phone call) as retractions, with further retractions later.
• The memoriale is tainted with human rights abuses that Amanda was suffering.
• Amanda didn't have access to a lawyer who could have advised her on the content of the memoriale or not to write it at all.
• The memoriale written on the 7th November may be considered an extension of the one written on the 6th November that the courts hadn't addressed.
• The memoriale was ignored by the investigators at the time of the writing. They didn't understand the text message, so it might have needed the intervention of Aida Colantone to make its intended meaning shareable with the investigators.

Maybe the Supreme Court thought that if they used the memoriale as the foundation to reconvict Amanda, then the first ECHR point listed above would come into play, effectively protecting the reconviction from interference from the ECHR.

Despite that, I'm still reasonably confident that this will eventually be resolved in Amanda's favour. I'm also aware that this forum won't go unnoticed by Amanda and her legal team. Vixen's comments are distraction tactics.

 

[Numbers]

I'm not sure if I can be much help, but this argument has been presented on another forum to suggest that the ECHR cannot interfere with the calunnia reconviction.

"What is the European Court of Human Rights not able to do for me?

 The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise their decisions.

 The Court will not intercede directly on your behalf with the authority you are complaining about. In exceptional circumstances the Court may, however, grant interim measures. As a matter of practice it only does so where there is a serious risk of physical harm to the applicant.

 The Court will not help you find or pay a lawyer to draw up your application.

 The Court cannot give you any information on legal provisions in force in the State against which your complaints are directed."

*These points seem to be information for the appellant before application to the ECHR, not for ongoing proceedings.
__________________________

As far as I know, the ECHR can't say that Italy's reasoning in reconvicting Amanda is wrong. However, they can indicate to Italy that their measures have not gone far enough in redressing the violations Amanda suffered without interfering with Italian judicial procedures.

• The first thing I see is that the ECHR deemed the memoriale and prison intercept (phone call) as retractions, with further retractions later.
• The memoriale is tainted with human rights abuses that Amanda was suffering.
• Amanda didn't have access to a lawyer who could have advised her on the content of the memoriale or not to write it at all.
• The memoriale written on the 7th November may be considered an extension of the one written on the 6th November that the courts hadn't addressed.
• The memoriale was ignored by the investigators at the time of the writing. They didn't understand the text message, so it might have needed the intervention of Aida Colantone to make its intended meaning shareable with the investigators.

Maybe the Supreme Court thought that if they used the memoriale as the foundation to reconvict Amanda, then the first ECHR point listed above would come into play, effectively protecting the reconviction from interference from the ECHR.

Despite that, I'm still reasonably confident that this will eventually be resolved in Amanda's favour. I'm also aware that this forum won't go unnoticed by Amanda and her legal team. Vixen's comments are distraction tactics.

TomG, there's a lot that can be said about the concerns and issues you've presented.

First, regarding the comments you reproduced from another forum, those need to be considered in a larger context. Those comments suffer from their lack of completeness regarding the organizational structure of the Council of Europe and other institutions. It's as though someone points out that the police department won't help you if you are confronted by an uncontrolled fire in a structure. That's largely true. If you have an uncontrolled fire in a structure, it's the fire department that must come to help, because they have the authority, training, and equipment to do the required tasks in putting out that uncontrolled fire in a structure.

1. The Council of Europe is a treaty organization linking its current 46 sovereign states in an agreement to follow certain principles of human rights defined as international law by its Convention (the European Convention on Human RIghts) and the case law of the ECHR (the European Court of Human Rights). The ECHR is established by the Convention treaty, as is the Committee of Ministers, which has the task of supervising the execution of the final judgments of the ECHR by the individual states. Neither the CoM nor the ECHR "enforces" the ECHR judgments. The enforcement is by the individual states, who have a good-faith responsibility (obligation) to abide by the binding force of ECHR final judgments.

The CoE states can withdraw from the CoE treaty or be kicked out of the CoE by processes specified in the CoE treaty. A recent example is Russia: it was kicked out following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and in response, it withdrew from the treaty. An earlier example is Greece, which was kicked out during the period it was ruled by a military junta (board) that had overthrown its democratically elected government.

2. The ECHR is not a court of appeal or 4th instance court. It acts as a civil court hearing human rights complaints that must be argued as alleged violations of the Convention (including the ECHR case law that interprets the Convention).

3. The ECHR generally provides declaratory judgments, meaning judgments that say "there was [or, was not] a violation of the Convention Article X" in this case. The ECHR is allowed to be more directive in certain cases, for example, where human life or prevention of an injury is a more immediate concern. For example, in cases where there is a risk of extradition of an applicant to a country where the person's life or well-being may be endangered by actions contrary to the Convention, the ECHR may order interim measures to delay or cancel the extradition. For example, extraditions from a CoE state to the US may be subject to an interim measure that remains in place until the relevant US state or federal government formally agrees that the person will not be subject to the death penalty; a specific example was the Ira Einhorn case.

4. There is financial help that the CoE can provide in paying for a lawyer to take one's case to the ECHR, for those who require such help according to CoE rules. Other national or international organizations may help one find a suitable lawyer. In ECHR judgments, the applicant or applicant's lawyer may receive some compensation for legal expenses paid in bringing the case before the ECHR; there are strict requirements that the expenses be documented and reasonable in the view of the ECHR.

5. One's lawyer or the CoE member state itself should be able to provide information on the state's laws.

 

[Numbers]

I'm not sure if I can be much help, but this argument has been presented on another forum to suggest that the ECHR cannot interfere with the calunnia reconviction.

"What is the European Court of Human Rights not able to do for me?

 The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise their decisions.

 The Court will not intercede directly on your behalf with the authority you are complaining about. In exceptional circumstances the Court may, however, grant interim measures. As a matter of practice it only does so where there is a serious risk of physical harm to the applicant.

 The Court will not help you find or pay a lawyer to draw up your application.

 The Court cannot give you any information on legal provisions in force in the State against which your complaints are directed."

*These points seem to be information for the appellant before application to the ECHR, not for ongoing proceedings.
__________________________

As far as I know, the ECHR can't say that Italy's reasoning in reconvicting Amanda is wrong. However, they can indicate to Italy that their measures have not gone far enough in redressing the violations Amanda suffered without interfering with Italian judicial procedures.

• The first thing I see is that the ECHR deemed the memoriale and prison intercept (phone call) as retractions, with further retractions later.
• The memoriale is tainted with human rights abuses that Amanda was suffering.
• Amanda didn't have access to a lawyer who could have advised her on the content of the memoriale or not to write it at all.
• The memoriale written on the 7th November may be considered an extension of the one written on the 6th November that the courts hadn't addressed.
• The memoriale was ignored by the investigators at the time of the writing. They didn't understand the text message, so it might have needed the intervention of Aida Colantone to make its intended meaning shareable with the investigators.

Maybe the Supreme Court thought that if they used the memoriale as the foundation to reconvict Amanda, then the first ECHR point listed above would come into play, effectively protecting the reconviction from interference from the ECHR.

Despite that, I'm still reasonably confident that this will eventually be resolved in Amanda's favour. I'm also aware that this forum won't go unnoticed by Amanda and her legal team. Vixen's comments are distraction tactics.

TomG, here are some comments on the second section of your post. The comments can't be all-inclusive because we don't know what the Italian government's future actions in the case will be. But we can be fairly confident that Italy will respond to the DEJ/CoM in some document - an action plan laying out some future actions or an action report claiming that the case has now been finally settled and the CoM should issue a resolution declaring the case closed.

There are two nonexclusive paths forward: 1. Review of the Italian government's action to resolve the original ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy and 2. Initiation of a new application by Knox and her lawyers in response to the CSC final judgment re-convicting her of calunnia but supposedly on evidence not used in the original conviction.

For the first path, I believe that any claim by Italy using the re-conviction as justification for closing the case will be rejected by the DEJ/CoM as not meeting the conclusion and spirit of the original final ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy. Italy maintaining that position could lead to it being brought before the ECHR in an infringement of Convention Article 46 case.

The DEJ/CoM, presented with an AP or AR, will tell the Italian government to think of some new way forward, and perhaps offer help. One possibility is that the Italian government could initiate a case with the Constitutional Court of Italy to declare CPP Article 628 bis unconstitutional, because it does not contain a requirement that the ordinary Italian courts treat the final judgments of the ECHR to be treated by those courts as binding in both conclusion and spirit as required by the Convention and ECHR case law. The Constitutional Court would then, pending an act of the Italian parliament, provide the required change on a "temporary" basis. Something of that nature happened in 2011 when the Constitutional Court ruled that CPP Article 630, the law specifying the grounds for revision, was declared unconstitutional because it lacked a provision for revision in the case of an ECHR judgment of an unfair trial (Constitutional Court judgment 113/2011). Revision then became the mechanism for Italy's correction of unfair trials (that were "final") until the parliament passed the law that became CPP Article 628 bis.

The other path, which can proceed in parallel with the first path, is for Knox and her lawyers to file a new application with the ECHR alleging a violation of Convention Article 6.1, unfair trial (along with other relevant Convention articles, such as perhaps 6.2, presumption of innocence). Since the re-conviction is a "new" trial using "new" evidence in a "new" reasoning by the Italian courts, it would be eligible for consideration by the ECHR. The ECHR can very certainly in the new ECHR case declare that the "new" reasoning by the Italian courts is a distortion of its findings in the first Knox v. Italy, and therefore a violation of Convention Article 46. That's a close approximation to stating that it's wrong.

 

[Pacal]

I can't even count the number of times I seen PGP claim they can see guilt/evil in Knox's eyes. I've never seen anyone claim they can see innocence in someone's eyes. It's always guilt/evil/sociopathy, etc.

The number of people who claim that from analysis of how and what people speak, how they behave they can determine guilt or innocence is large.

Thus we get highly dubious stuff like Statement Analysis and other supposedly "scientific" techniques for finding out if someone is lying. Youtube has all sorts of channels with such "Experts" analyzing people and determining if some is lying, hiding something.

It's all based a pseudo highly dubious crap. My favorite is example is from Statement analysis in which if you say three people attacked etc., you that is a sign of deception. Aside from what if three people were in fact involved what is this based on? Apparently little more than than a pull out of the ass assumption by a creator of Statement Analysis.

Amanda as, of course, been a victim of this so-called "scientific" analysis it bluntly sheer garbage.

 

[Numbers]

I can't even count the number of times I seen PGP claim they can see guilt/evil in Knox's eyes. I've never seen anyone claim they can see innocence in someone's eyes. It's always guilt/evil/sociopathy, etc.

If it were at all scientifically valid that guilt or evil can be seen in someone's eyes, then there would be forensic optometrists and ophthalmologists testifying in criminal trials. What is scientifically valid is that when we look into someone's eye we see a (miniature) reflection of ourselves. That's why the black disk in the middle of our eyes is called the "pupil". And, I suggest, we may metaphorically see a reflection of our own personality.

In a surprising number of unrelated languages, the etymological meaning of the term for pupil is "little person". This is true, for example, of the word pupil itself: this comes into English from Latin pūpilla, which means "doll, girl", and is a diminutive form of pupa, "girl". (The double meaning in Latin is preserved in English, where pupil means both "schoolchild" and "dark central portion of the eye within the iris".) This may be because the reflection of one's image in the pupil is a minuscule version of one's self.

Pupil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org