Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Diocletus]

ECHR has updated its statistics for pending cases. The total is now reduced to 78,000 as of 01 Nov 2014; it had been 85,000 as of 30 Sep 2014.

Italy is still in the lead, with 14,900 (19.1%) followed by
Ukraine, with---------------- 14,650 (18.8%)
Russia, ---------------------- 10,250 (13.1%)
Turkey, ---------------------- 10,100 (12.9%)

The next six states in order of decreasing number of applications are:
Romania, Serbia, Georgia, Poland, Hungary, and Slovenia.
The remaining 37 states have 13,950 applications pending (17.9%).
See: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_pending_month_2014_BIL.pdf

So they got rid of 7,000 applications, but as far as we know not Amanda Knox's, which is now a year old. Tick Tock.

 

[Kauffer]

We should have put Italians in charge of the Warren Commission. That would have been friggin' awesome.

LOL. Very good!

 

[Samson]

I'm afraid Mach is off rebooting again since I called him on the trousers being reversed. It's a pity nobody take the time to critique their own scenarios before making themselves look foolish in public.

The way Mach presented his scenario made it seem like Meredith was left in the initial position for hours. But there is so much evidence that this isn't so. There was blood pooling in the initial position but not for hours, only minutes while the perp (Rudy) backs off from the initial shock of what he's done, drops the knife on the bed (note RW how it bounced slightly) and steady's himself by putting his hand out to the wall (Rudy himself admits to writing on the wall). Rudy then fetches the first towel from Meredith's bathroom to wipe the blood off his hands and returns to reposition the body.

Meredith's blue jacket is removed (it's covered in blood and pulled off in a way that reverses the sleeves), her tee shirts are pushed up over her breasts, her bra is grabbed and removed as I have explained earlier leaving Rudy's DNA on the back band and she is laid on her back while she is still alive as evidenced from the blood spray. (This isn't certain, it is possible that the spray was the result of Rudy raping Meredith's corps. But Rudy the lier claims Meredith was alive when he left her.)

Maybe Meredith was still alive when Rudy covered her naked body with the duvet. Meredith's right arm is bent at the elbow and there is no real explanation for this. Rigor mortis would not set in for a couple of hours and Meredith's hand would have fallen to the floor if it were not being held up. I see the possibility that Meredith raised her right hand in front of her face as an automatic reaction to keep from being suffocated when the duvet is tossed over her. The duvet held her arm in that position as she died. Rigor mortis gradually dissipates from approximately 24 hours after death so the arm would have begun to straighten even before the slow Italian police uncovered her body.

Considering Machiavelli is being praised at PMF for heroically shredding analysts here, it is worth pointing out that his lie about the knife perfectly matching the outline on the sheet is a good soundbite, because it is natural to assume this will be completely inarguable, like the imprint of a stencil. However it is a wilfull and fortuitous manipulation of this truth, that the knife bounced. This can be easily seen, It would be helpful at this point for the best picture with the overlay to be reproduced if any one has it on file.
Machiavelli will also have been admired for the following recent lies.
1. That there is absolutely no alibi, electronic or otherwise after 8 40pm, and switching off Amelie and switching on Naruto constitute no alibi despite being written into Nencini and Massei officially.
2. Because Meredith ate before 7 20pm, the autopsy of her stomach by Lalli can tell us absolutely nothing about the time she was killed, since she was alive at 9pm.

Jackie, and others, explain why these lies are heroic.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Kennedy Assassination

We should have put Italians in charge of the Warren Commission. That would have been friggin' awesome.

If they had, the result might have been similar to this.

 

[Kauffer]

Considering Machiavelli is being praised at PMF for heroically shredding analysts here, it is worth pointing out that his lie about the knife perfectly matching the outline on the sheet is a good soundbite, because it is natural to assume this will be completely inarguable, like the imprint of a stencil. However it is a wilfull and fortuitous manipulation of this truth, that the knife bounced. This can be easily seen, It would be helpful at this point for the best picture with the overlay to be reproduced if any one has it on file.
Machiavelli will also have been admired for the following recent lies.
1. That there is absolutely no alibi, electronic or otherwise after 8 40pm, and switching off Amelie and switching on Naruto constitute no alibi despite being written into Nencini and Massei officially.
2. Because Meredith ate before 7 20pm, the autopsy of her stomach by Lalli can tell us absolutely nothing about the time she was killed, since she was alive at 9pm.

Jackie, and others, explain why these lies are heroic.

Samson, what, categorically can be said about Amelie and Naruto? I understood that the computer tech (Trotta) stated to Massei that Amelie could have closed automatically. What do we know for sure about these two events?

I have always felt somewhat unexcited about the question of the alibis since there is nothing, after the destruction of the other computers, that could confirm BOTH Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito were together after 840/45 pm. There would always be the possibility even if you could absolutely confirm TOD and one computer alibi, that they would re-write the narrative and incriminate Ms Knox alone. They would still be able to allege some assistance from Mr Sollecito later on at the alleged clean up stage too.

There is much better evidence for innocence elsewhere in the case, would you not agree?

 

[Samson]

Samson, what, categorically can be said about Amelie and Naruto? I understood that the computer tech (Trotta) stated to Massei that Amelie could have closed automatically. What do we know for sure about these two events?

I have always felt somewhat unexcited about the question of the alibis since there is nothing, after the destruction of the other computers, that could confirm BOTH Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito were together after 840/45 pm. There would always be the possibility even if you could absolutely confirm TOD and one computer alibi, that they would re-write the narrative and incriminate Ms Knox alone. They would still be able to allege some assistance from Mr Sollecito later on at the alleged clean up stage too.

There is much better evidence for innocence elsewhere in the case, would you not agree?

I am no expert on the computer evidence, but I believe Massei specified Amelie was an alibi till 9 11pm, and Nencini said Naruto was manually turned on about 9 20pm.

The best evidence is the combination of the break in, stone cold forensic and photographic proof of a rock thrown at max velocity from the car park because the aim was bad and stupid from inside and the impaled glass shard needed graet velocity, unnecessary and undesirable in a staging. And the autopsy that Machiavelli is manufacturing mathematical and scientific falsehoods to pervert the obvious truth Meredith died as soon as she got home. But the computer alibis are ideal for combining these elements.
In my opinion, the so called PR campagne has stupidly ignored these very simple to explain truths.

 

[Numbers]

What should and should not be admitted is an enormous question demanding an answer so complex I would not dream of attempting to answer it. The English answer is: you'll know when you see it (of course, there's more to it than that) while Italy claims to be able to refer the question to a systematised corpus of principles which can be relied on to spew out the right answer for all occasions. I simply don't believe it. From the ISC down its a bunch of pretentious fools either spouting invalid crap or enunciating perfectly sensible rules (in an excessively complicated way) and then ignoring them.

For evidence that is derived from very technical, science-based methods, the principles of what should be accepted into evidence are, IMO, clear. Establishing the reliability of testing and of test results is actually a scientific or technological pursuit with some well-accepted general procedures.
Lab problems in the US have been associated with failure to follow such procedures, including failures to assess the quality - in terms of following protocols regarding running controls and reporting or preventing contamination - of lab technician efforts.
Assuring the quality of DNA profiles in criminal cases is important in the US for purposes of achieving fair trials and for assuring the soundness of the national DNA database of offenders (CODIS).

 

[Numbers]

So they got rid of 7,000 applications, but as far as we know not Amanda Knox's, which is now a year old. Tick Tock.

While a judgment from the ECHR in the next few months would be very helpful for the case, ECHR timelines can be uncertain; see below.

ECHR in 50 Questions states:

It is impossible to indicate the length of
proceedings before the Court.
The Court endeavours to deal with cases
within three years after they are brought,
but the examination of some cases can take
longer and some can be processed more
rapidly.
The length of the proceedings before the
Court obviously varies depending on the
case, the formation to which it is assigned,
the diligence of the parties in providing the
Court with information and many other
factors, such as the holding of a hearing or
referral to the Grand Chamber.
Some applications may be classified as urgent
and handled on a priority basis, especially in
cases where the applicant is alleged to be
facing an imminent threat of physical harm.

Source: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/50Questions_ENG.pdf

 

[Diocletus]

If they had, the result might have been similar to this.

Perfect. The only thing different would be the date. Instead of 1963, the Italians wouldn't have had it figured out until 1988. Also, the article would have been about 8,700 pages longer.

 

[Diocletus]

While a judgment from the ECHR in the next few months would be very helpful for the case, ECHR timelines can be uncertain; see below.

ECHR in 50 Questions states:

It is impossible to indicate the length of
proceedings before the Court.
The Court endeavours to deal with cases
within three years after they are brought,
but the examination of some cases can take
longer and some can be processed more
rapidly.
The length of the proceedings before the
Court obviously varies depending on the
case, the formation to which it is assigned,
the diligence of the parties in providing the
Court with information and many other
factors, such as the holding of a hearing or
referral to the Grand Chamber.
Some applications may be classified as urgent
and handled on a priority basis, especially in
cases where the applicant is alleged to be
facing an imminent threat of physical harm.

Source: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/50Questions_ENG.pdf

We don't care about a judgment, we just care about the application being accepted. If it's accepted, three things will happen: i) it will scare the crap out of the ISC panel that meets early next year, ii) Knox will win, and iii) it will prevent any attempt to extradite assuming no. (i) doesn't put and end to the whole thing.

 

[Numbers]

Samson, what, categorically can be said about Amelie and Naruto? I understood that the computer tech (Trotta) stated to Massei that Amelie could have closed automatically. What do we know for sure about these two events?

I have always felt somewhat unexcited about the question of the alibis since there is nothing, after the destruction of the other computers, that could confirm BOTH Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito were together after 840/45 pm. There would always be the possibility even if you could absolutely confirm TOD and one computer alibi, that they would re-write the narrative and incriminate Ms Knox alone. They would still be able to allege some assistance from Mr Sollecito later on at the alleged clean up stage too.

There is much better evidence for innocence elsewhere in the case, would you not agree?

There is no credible evidence of Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito being in Meredith Kercher's bedroom, and especially not when she was raped and murdered.

The kitchen knife alleged evidence is junk science: Meredith's DNA reported by lab tech Stefanoni was at the level of contamination she (unintentionally) reported as present in her lab.

The bra clasp alleged evidence is junk science: The clasp shows the DNA of several males, one of which could be Raffaele. Thus, the clasp is contaminated with respect to DNA. The clasp was improperly collected, as shown in the police video - the clasp was handled by the police with their gloves, and the gloves appeared to have residue ("dirt") on the fingers. The chain of custody for the clasp is uncertain; it was collected 46 days after discovery of the body.

 

[carbonjam72]

I agree with all that. What I disagree with is the idea (not necessarily yours) that each item of evidence in a criminal case must cross some preliminary threshold of reliability before it gains admission. What it must not do is encounter refutation, like a dishonestly suppressed negative TMB test, but assuming it's relevant and admissible then it goes in, even if it's weak. IOW Italy is wrong if its jurisprudence has systemised such a preliminary test.

By the way, I speak from some experience here. If I want to prove something I'll generally lob in everything I can find, weak or not. In practise you never know what will swing it. That does not mean using obviously bad or flawed evidence. Weak is OK but bad is just bad.

I might be a little late on this one, but I wanted to add a word about a luminol hit without a follow up confirmatory test being allowed in as evidence.

I don't think it should b allowed.

A luminol hit is evidence only of a chemical reaction. It is not evidence of blood, until the confirmatory tests confirm that the substance is blood.

It's not a crime to use bleach cleaner, or spill fruit juice. It is a crime to commit a bloody murder, or clean-up after one to conceal the crime.

The idiot British virgins believed they had "possible information" useful to the court. They didn't. I don't know whether their testimony as to Amanda and Meredith's relationship or stress should have been allowed in as evidence.

But the luminol, because it is purely a physical chemical reaction has an absolute quality as to its state of being, but its probative value is based on our interpretation of an ambiguous fact.

I don't think a bare luminol hit would be allowable as evidence in a US court, though I may be wrong.

I served on a jury, and the fact that a prior offense of a very similar type had been committed by the defendant was specifically excluded from the jury, precisely because of its prejudicial effect The fact that a prior similar crime had been committed, did not mean the defendant had committed this crime in this case - was how the judge explained it to us after we delivered a verdict.

So a luminol hit, without confirmatory test, is not "evidence" of blood, its evidence only of a luminol hit. It's not "possible" evidence of blood either. Until its confirmed as blood, to the full limits of the analysis, it should be excluded from jury consideration, imo.

Allowing a bare luminol hit to be counted as evidence lowers the standard of proof. That's what Mach and Nencini want to do, because they can't meet a rational standard of proof.

If a defendant has the right to cross examine a witness against them, how do they "cross-examine" i.e. "test" something presented as "possible evidence".

The prosecution has to prove its case, not by possibility or probability, but beyond reasonable doubt. Allowing such evidence into a conviction is inherently unfair.

I realize its an adversarial process and any lawyer would want as much admissable as possible. But I don't think this type of leniency is evidence in fair to a defendant.

 

[Numbers]

We don't care about a judgment, we just care about the application being accepted. If it's accepted, three things will happen: i) it will scare the crap out of the ISC panel that meets early next year, ii) Knox will win, and iii) it will prevent any attempt to extradite assuming no. (i) doesn't put and end to the whole thing.

I agree with your statements.

For some cases, ECHR combines the admissibility opinion and judgment and issues them at the same time. I'm not clear how it decides which cases to treat in such fashion. The fact that no decision of inadmissibility has come out for Amanda Knox's application is significant and should be taken as a sign by the CSC that the actions of the Italian judiciary will be judged by the ECHR.

 

[Kauffer]

In a nutshell

There is no credible evidence of Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito being in Meredith Kercher's bedroom, and especially not when she was raped and murdered.

The kitchen knife alleged evidence is junk science: Meredith's DNA reported by lab tech Stefanoni was at the level of contamination she (unintentionally) reported as present in her lab.

The bra clasp alleged evidence is junk science: The clasp shows the DNA of several males, one of which could be Raffaele. Thus, the clasp is contaminated with respect to DNA. The clasp was improperly collected, as shown in the police video - the clasp was handled by the police with their gloves, and the gloves appeared to have residue ("dirt") on the fingers. The chain of custody for the clasp is uncertain; it was collected 46 days after discovery of the body.

Yes, I think your three paragraphs just about deal with it. Three paragraphs and three minutes. It should trouble us no more. And yet, exactly seven years later, here we all are and Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito's lives are still disrupted.

I feel very sorry for them. Let's hope the ECHR supplies some good news shortly.

 

[Numbers]

I agree with your statements.

For some cases, ECHR combines the admissibility opinion and judgment and issues them at the same time. I'm not clear how it decides which cases to treat in such fashion. The fact that no decision of inadmissibility has come out for Amanda Knox's application is significant and should be taken as a sign by the CSC that the actions of the Italian judiciary will be judged by the ECHR.

Here is some information from The ECHR in 50 Questions relating to the stages an application goes through and how it may be reviewed:

There are two main stages in the consideration of cases brought before the Court: the admissibility stage and the merits stage (i.e. the examination of the complaints).

The processing of an application also goes through different phases.

A single-judge formation will declare an application inadmissible where inadmissibility is clear from the outset; its decisions cannot be appealed against.

A Committee will give a final decision or judgment in a case which is covered by well-established case-law of the Court.

A Chamber will give notice of the case to the respondent Government for their observations. Written observations are submitted by both parties. The Court then decides if it is appropriate to hold a public hearing in the case, but this remains exceptional in relation to the number of applications examined. Ultimately, the Chamber delivers a judgment that will become final only after the expiry of a three-month period during which the applicant or Government may request the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber for fresh consideration.

If the request for referral is accepted by the panel of the Grand Chamber, the case will be reconsidered and a public hearing will be held if necessary. The Grand Chamber judgment will be final.

 

[carbonjam72]

Yes, I think your three paragraphs just about deal with it. Three paragraphs and three minutes. It should trouble us no more. And yet, exactly seven years later, here we all are and Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito's lives are still disrupted.

I feel very sorry for them. Let's hope the ECHR supplies some good news shortly.

Kauffer,

I'm impressed with your comments, and I admit I'm curious. Is there nay reason in particular you feel drawn to this case in particular?

I've never put this much time and energy into a miscarriage of justice before. I'm curios for any perspective anyone can offer on why this case seems so compelling, when there seem so many other injustices and tragedies in the world.

 

[Numbers]

From: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=999329
{Excerpts}

Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision
of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 May 2006
at the 964th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Rule 4

1. The Committee of Ministers shall give priority to supervision of the execution of judgments in which the Court has identified what it considers a systemic problem in accordance with Resolution Res(2004)3 of the Committee of Ministers on judgments revealing an underlying systemic problem.

2. The priority given to cases under the first paragraph of this Rule shall not be to the detriment of the priority to be given to other important cases, notably cases where the violation established has caused grave consequences for the injured party.

Rule 6
Information to the Committee of Ministers on the execution of the judgment

1. When, in a judgment transmitted to the Committee of Ministers in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Court has decided that there has been a violation of the Convention or its protocols and/or has awarded just satisfaction to the injured party under Article 41 of the Convention, the Committee shall invite the High Contracting Party concerned to inform it of the measures which the High Contracting Party has taken or intends to take in consequence of the judgment, having regard to its obligation to abide by it under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

2. When supervising the execution of a judgment by the High Contracting Party concerned, pursuant to Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers shall examine:

a. whether any just satisfaction awarded by the Court has been paid, including as the case may be, default interest; and

b. if required, and taking into account the discretion of the High Contracting Party concerned to choose the means necessary to comply with the judgment, whether:

i. individual measures[1] have been taken to ensure that the violation has ceased and that the injured party is put, as far as possible, in the same situation as that party enjoyed prior to the violation of the Convention;

ii. general measures[2] have been adopted, preventing new violations similar to that or those found or putting an end to continuing violations.

Note 1 For instance, the striking out of an unjustified criminal conviction from the criminal records, the granting of a residence permit or the re-opening of impugned domestic proceedings (see on this latter point Recommendation Rec(2000)2 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the re-examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, adopted on 19 January 2000 at the 694th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies).
Note 2 For instance, legislative or regulatory amendments, changes of case law or administrative practice or publication of the Court’s judgment in the language of the respondent state and its dissemination to the authorities concerned.
Note 3 In particular where the terms of the friendly settlement include undertakings which, by their nature, cannot be fulfilled within a short time span, such as the adoption of new legislation.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I feel like wrongful convictions in the United States seem to have a different flavor than they do in Italy. Trying to actually explain the specifics however is difficult.

Different flavor, maybe, but the same basic ingredients everywhere... prideful, stupid authorities backed by a credulous public that is eager to assume guilt, and also to assume "the police know what they're doing."

Here's how Kirk Makin expressed the problem in Redrum the Innocent, a book about Guy Paul Morin and the Christine Jessop case:

From office gossip to the floor of any legislature, there is a salacious drive to believe the worst of people. In the case of the police, it is not just a drive; it's an occupational imperative. Once they have made the decision to arrest someone, they cannot afford to seriously consider the possibility of their being wrong. Their careers, their psychological well-being and the reputation of the department are all bound up in being right.

This explains most of the wrongful convictions I know about throughout the world, from Dreyfus to the WM3 to Amanda Knox.

 

[Dan O.]

What should and should not be admitted is an enormous question demanding an answer so complex I would not dream of attempting to answer it. The English answer is: you'll know when you see it (of course, there's more to it than that) while Italy claims to be able to refer the question to a systematised corpus of principles which can be relied on to spew out the right answer for all occasions. I simply don't believe it. From the ISC down its a bunch of pretentious fools either spouting invalid crap or enunciating perfectly sensible rules (in an excessively complicated way) and then ignoring them.

The rules for what can be accepted as evidence are merely a simplification of the rules of science for those of lesser skills like judges and lawyers.

To support the science, there is a whole branch of math (which I shall not name because you have already rejected it out of hand) that can tell you when given the conditions that prompt a measurement to be made how the results of that measurement affect the probability of your theory being true or false. And the math goes beyond making that judgment but also gives you the uncertainty of that judgement.

If you don't follow the protocols which are the basis for the expected results of the test or if you don't perform sufficient measurements such as ignoring negative substrate controls or you perform tests at random without a prior basis for performing that test, you aren't going to achieve any certainty for the result. The math will effectively ignore this unreliable data. If you aren't using the math such as in front of a jury in a courtroom you need some other way of excluding this evidence so it doesn't inappropriately influence the decision making.

 

[Numbers]

In case of a friendly settlement, confidentiality requirements permit little disclosure from the ECHR and Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. Copied below, as an example, is a formal notice from the CoM of the CoE that several friendly settlements with the Slovak Republic were completed.

Source: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref...ckColorIntranet=EDB021&BackColorLogged=F5D383


Resolution CM/ResDH(2014)3
Execution of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights
in seven cases against Slovak Republic {only 2 shown for brevity}

Application No.___________________Case____________________Date of the decision
14454/09_______________________GERSCHDORF_____________14/05/2013
6301/11________________________CHYLÝ AND OTHERS________19/02/2013

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 January 2014
at the 1188th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of friendly settlements as they appear in the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Considering that in these cases the Court, having taken formal note of the friendly settlements reached by the government of the respondent State and the applicants, and having been satisfied that the settlements were based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided to strike these cases from its list;

Having satisfied itself that the terms of the friendly settlements were executed by the government of the respondent State,

DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention and

DECIDES to close their examination.