Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Sollecito's DNA inside Meredith's room is an unusual occurrence. To say the least. It's not something you may expect as a likely finding. Unusual events require an explanation.

Sollecito's DNA on the metal hook of Meredith's bra clasp can be called unusual, but would be an euphemism.

No reasonable judge would assume this finding is a casual result without explanation, just because the scene was dirty.

Machiavelli - I beg you, please keep typing posts like this!

 

[Machiavelli]

<SNIP>

(...)

You are attacking the poster repeatedly. I note you should better argue in a civilized and reasonable manner.

You have a very self-righteous attitude, but I recall that I have already shown you were wrong on a number of your assertions.

Edited by jsfisher: 

Moderated content removed.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, I understand that this is your position which you will take to trial. I duly note that not all 20 have yet had their guilt finalized by Cassazione - but nonetheless you thumb your nose at the Italian judiciary (in Mignini's favour) by declaring them (as if a judge yourself) guilty anyways.

Why di you talk about "20"? I can only count about 5 or 6.

What I want to know is unanswered by you. If Mignini's reputation was a sound one among his peers, why does he need to charge so many to "prove" anything at all? Why would his peer listen to a fictional PR campaign if they knew him so well?

This is complete hypocrisy. Reputation is not just a matter of friends, it's a public matter, and it's like any other good: it needs to be defendend from thieves. Reputation may even not be at trisk in practice, yet still on principle it is good when one shows the will to defend it. Is there a reason why one should abstain from defending something that belongs to him?
No. There is no reason why Mignini should refrain from sueing those who he thinks are particularly vicious liars.

 

[Bill Williams]

Why di you talk about "20"? I can only count about 5 or 6.



This is complete hypocrisy. Reputation is not just a matter of friends, it's a public matter, and it's like any other good: it needs to be defendend from thieves. Reputation may even not be at trisk in practice, yet still on principle it is good when one shows the will to defend it. Is there a reason why one should abstain from defending something that belongs to him?
No. There is no reason why Mignini should refrain from sueing those who he thinks are particularly vicious liars.

Right.

 

[Desert Fox]

Yes, if you have a stockpile of 500 disposable tweezers with you.

Law enforcement agencies in other countries manage it. They come in packs of 100 for about $30.00 USD

Edit: Can get 3000 for $150 USD
http://www.mercymedcare.com/product...wpCmbZLE1dFf-3fKFscJEpN6601fxvBNemRoCOn7w_wcB
Shipped in a single bag so it is not that bulky an item.

Edit-2: pack of 100 for $20 USD
http://www.amazon.com/First-Voice-T...423880204&sr=8-2&keywords=disposable+tweezers
Package weighs 12.8 ounces (lesss than 400 grams)

You can go and kill somebody there, then.

Your previous claim appears to be that a forensic team would find it impractical to carry hundreds of disposable tweezers with them. Now, you could probably carry 500 in a plastic shoe box and weighs around 2 kg for 500. You answer with nothing to do with the previous argument when I showed that your argument is without merit.

Edit: You might have meant that you cannot purchase then in bulk but I have shown that to be false as well.

 

[Dan O.]

You are attacking the poster repeatedly. I note you should better argue in a civilized and reasonable manner.

You have a very self-righteous attitude, but I recall that I have already shown you were wrong on a number of your assertions.

Please draw a moderator into this thread. I can say anything I want about that stupid liar that calls herself a doctor. But when you instruct someone to go kill somebody, that is an instant suspension if not outright banning offense.

ETA: and no, you haven't shown me to be wrong on anything. You have made that claim but nevere backed by evidence. The only poster here that has shown me to be wrong is myself as I freely admit when I am mistaken and post the evidence to prove it.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
Is this to infer that there is a causal relationship between the floor being dirty and the clasp being dirty? There is a common refrain elsewhere on this board that "correlation does not imply causation". Did the floor cause the clasp to become dirty or did the clasp cause the floor to become dirty? We can surmise that the floor being much larger than the clasp, it is probable that more contamination transferred from the floor to the clasp but there would still be some contamination transfering from the clasp to the floor. Can we see the exact spot on the floor where the clasp was found? I seem to recall it being towards the center of the room but everyone examining the clasp have huddled in the corner by the desk for some reason.

I don't see any sense in the discourse above.
The floor is dirty on Dec. 17. The bra clasp is dirty when located on Dec. 17.
These truths have an implication => the glove will get dirty on picking the clasp.

This is an amazing observation. Others have even made this same observation and there is a solution to this very problem. The forensics kit includes disposable sterile tweezers that can be used to pick up small items and place them into the evidence bag thus avoiding the contamination issue.

This statement has an implication, that isif there was no stockpile of disposable tweezers available, the problem has no solution.
Unless there is a stockpile of disposable tools there's no solution; so if there is no stockpile of tweezers, there is nothing else to do.

However, the "problem" may be very petty, basically non-existent; since in fact the room was already rummaged into and not clean, and thus the reasoning could be reversed to draw the opposite conclusion: the observation that the room was already not clean would make the use of disposable tweezers useless.

The other part of the statement about Stefanoni's glove getting contaminated the exact moment the carpet is lifted from the clasp would be called "spooky action at a distance" but we are not talking quantum here. Stefanoni was not present when the carpet was lifted. It's the man holding the flashlight that lifted the carpet and he doesn't stop to change his gloves before touching the clasp and handling it when it is passed around.

But they didn't use their gloves to pick up other items. By "items" I mean evidentiary items, or items that may have a tight correlation with Raffaele Sollecito.

You will of course claim that this doesn't make any differerence because Raffaele's DNA is not supposed to be in that room.

Correct.

But for several days in Noveember and all morning prior to the clasps rediscovery and possibly even on the 13th of November, people were tramping around the cottage wearing those little bootie DNA magnets. And they were wandering in and out of the rooms and through the common areas in those little booties. And nobody changed their booties before entering any room. And somewhere between the first discovery of the clasp on November 3 and the rediscovery of the clasp on December 18, someone stepped on the little clasp and crushed one of the hooks. Raffaele's DNA which is legitimately in the common room is transported into Meredith's room and deposited with this foot that crushed the clasp hook or deposited on the carpet that the man holding the flashlight moved with his glove that he didn't change.

There are some bit that require correction in this description.
First, the "trampling around the cottage" should not be taken ad litteram, because those who entered Meredith room did not trample into the other rooms, except the corridoor.

But a more relevant factual datum is that it is false that someone stepped on the clasp and crushed one of the hooks. This never happened: the hook was already crooked when it was spotted first on Nov. 3, as the pictures from Nov. 3 show.

However, this still is not all that needs to be said. In fact, the dirty scene, but even an alleged trampling around and stepping on the hook, won't change the basic picture. Even those alleged (never happened) events wouldn't make the presence of Sollecito's DNA on the clasp become likely. Not even in a remote figure.

There was no DNA of Sollecito's on the cottage floor. More than 20 DNA samples were taken from the cottage floor, including the area close to Meredith's door, and no trace of Sollecito's DNA was found.
All those had been trampled upon, since many were picked on Dec. 18, yet there is no DNA of him in none of them.
The alleged forensic should have trampled in a large pool of Sollecito's DNA picked it up on his/her sole and brought it everywhere around, in order to make the finding on the bra clasp become somehow possible, even though in a tiny, remote statistical figure.
Where is the source of Sollecito's fluids, where is the pool where the forensic stepped and picked up the bioogical cells?
Nothing like that was found on the scene. No evidence or clue about the existence of this source of contaminating agent.

(...) This is implying that Stefanoni's glove was tested for DNA. We need to add this to the list of suppressed DNA results.

Chuzpah is not going to take your argument very far.

Of course, everyone that is paying attention knows that the clasp was not specifically contaminated with Sollecito's DNA. It was contaminated by a mixture that included the DNA from at least 3 males and possibly more. It's too bad that the DNA result from Stefanoni's glove was suppressed. That might have cracked the whole case and told us who really murdered that girl.

This is no argument. Ad for what Halkides called the "Axiom N. 1" of DNA analysis, the dating of a DNA trace can never be inferred from the properties of the genetical material itself.
You cannot use the presence of some alleles or some profiles in order to draw inference about the origin of other DNA material.

 

[Machiavelli]

Please draw a moderator into this thread. I can say anything I want about that stupid liar that calls herself a doctor. But when you instruct someone to go kill somebody, that is an instant suspension if not outright banning offense.

Stefanoni is not a liar. And she is a doctor.

ETA: and no, you haven't shown me to be wrong on anything.

Not even the brown panties?

 

[Machiavelli]

Your previous claim appears to be that a forensic team would find it impractical to carry hundreds of disposable tweezers with them. Now, you could probably carry 500 in a plastic shoe box and weighs around 2 kg for 500. You answer with nothing to do with the previous argument when I showed that your argument is without merit.

Edit: You might have meant that you cannot purchase then in bulk but I have shown that to be false as well.

Maybe you can, but what happens if you don't have them?

And if you have them, what happens if the scene is already dirty? Would that change something?

 

[Strozzi]

Sollecito's DNA profile is the piece of evidence. This is what needs to be explained and discussed.
Not the rest of it.

I repeat: this is the point of evidence they wish to dispute. Sollecito's DNA on the metal hook, nothing else. The origin of this (itself non-dateable) finding, not the origin of other (themselves non-dateable) findings.

To make a point, the defence needs to explain why this contaminating agent, this profile was on the bra in a circumstance not related to the murder. How it came there for innocent causes, and show why this event is probable.
Was there a large splatter of Sollecito's DNA nearby? The same glove was used to touch something wet with Sollecito's fluids, some close belonging of Sollecito? Is there an identifies source for Sollecito's DNA? Is there a table of probabilities or some equivalent?

However the innocentisti here really seem unable to come to grips with the concept of circumstantial evidence. They believe there is no evidence except DNA in this case, they think pieces of evidence are scientific proof of something, their mental world is too far apart so I have no hope they can understand.

OK, Machiavelli, i'll play your game that the defense must show the specific route and act of innocent transfer. Here goes -

Rafael was in the cottage the afternoon of Nov 1 as Amanda's guest. Meredith woke up fairly late in the afternoon that day, having been out partying until late the previous night. She chats a bit with Amanda and Raffaele about the activities of the previous night. She gets something from the kitchen, if only a juice. Meredith casually gets ready in the late afternoon to meet her English friends for dinner. In getting dressed or adjusting her clothing, she fastens or re-fastens (adjusts) her bra. She has Raffaele's DNA on the fingers of one hand from drying them on a coarse kitchen or bathroom towel or turning a light switch or drawer handle or doorknob or faucet handle or magazine touched that afternoon by Raffaele. There is the answer - the route of contamination.

Now, how would you ask one to prove that? The police and Stefanoni were responsible for collecting evidence, sampling the environment, using a documentable-sterile machine designed to process LCN DNA, etc. Stefanoni was responsible for properly testing evidence (she did not do a very good job, either, to put it politely. We will pretend any shortcoming was solely due to budget issues - not a matter of incompetence. We can pretend this to help her save face.)

Tell Stefanoni to produce the tests - you know, the ones of the towel, the light switches, the door knobs, the juice container, the refrigerator door handle, the faucet handles. Just produce the tests, Dr. Stefanoni - the tests you certainly as top crime scene investigator performed as expected of a professional forensic scientist.

Your turn, Machiavelli.

By the way, Mach. This could have been you on trial after visiting a friend in a group house. Suppose that young Canadian woman - the one who smelled of Maple Syrup - had been found dead. You could have been arrested, You had motive!

 

[Machiavelli]

The US is not one entity. . . . .The liberal states (which Washington is one) likely have a better track with human rights than Italy. I would argue that even compared to Virginia, it is a mixed bag not including the death penalty.
While Washington state also has the death penalty, it has only been used five times since 1976 and is under a moratorium currently. I would not be surprised if the death penalty is repealed in the next few years in Washington state.

I doubt even the State of Washington would have such a good track compared to Italy. I recall Seattle students' demonstrations in 1999 where police used chemical weapons against peaceful demonstrators.
This happened in Italy, but in Italy it was illegal.
I know about police using normally teaser guns in Seattle, even against pregnant women; as for other progressive states now I recall a very recent case of police beating to death an unarmed man in California, with the Police Dept claiming no faul play and no one investigated.

 

[Strozzi]

I doubt even the State of Washington would have such a good track compared to Italy. I recall Seattle students' demonstrations in 1999 where police used chemical weapons against peaceful demonstrators.
This happened in Italy, but in Italy it was illegal.
I know about police using normally teaser guns in Seattle, even against pregnant women; as for other progressive states now I recall a very recent case of police beating to death an unarmed man in California, with the Police Dept claiming no faul play and no one investigated.

I agree there are many cases of police brutality in the US that are not thoroughly and honestly investigated. Most of us here probably agree on that.

 

[Machiavelli]

OK, Machiavelli, i'll play your game that the defense must show the specific route and act of innocent transfer. Here goes -

Rafael was in the cottage the afternoon of Nov 1 as Amanda's guest. Meredith woke up fairly late in the afternoon that day, having been out partying until late the previous night. She chats a bit with Amanda and Raffaele about the activities of the previous night. She gets something from the kitchen, if only a juice. Meredith casually gets ready in the late afternoon to meet her English friends for dinner. In getting dressed or adjusting her clothing, she fastens or re-fastens (adjusts) her bra. She has Raffaele's DNA on the fingers of one hand from drying them on a coarse kitchen or bathroom towel or turning a light switch or drawer handle or doorknob or faucet handle or magazine touched that afternoon by Raffaele. There is the answer - the route of contamination.

Now, the probabilities.

Now, how would you ask one to prove that?

No, it's not a matter of proving it. It's a matter of proving that it's probable.

What is the probability of tertiary transfer of skin cells through drying hands on a towel and then touching an item, and transfer the DNA there, and specifically there.

You know because, if we argue about what's in rerum natura, we should know it is possible to buy a lottery ticket and win. But it is not reasonable to expect this will happen. What's just possible is not exactly what you need to dismiss a piece of evidence. You need much more than that.

Based on the same logic - probable as winning a lottery ticket - a defence lawyer could argue that each finding of Rudy Guede's DNA in the murder room was due to innocent reasons, a tertiary transfer of the same kind or another innocent reason. And there are only four instances of Guede's DNA in the room, some of them even only yielding a compatible Y-chromosome and no X profile.

Based on a reasoning in rerum natura, a defence lawyer may also argue that bruises on the victim's vagina had innocent reasons not related to sexual violence.

Obviously, no judge would consider such arguments.

The arguments above mean just failure to understanding anything about how evidence works.

The police and Stefanoni were responsible for collecting evidence, sampling the environment, using a documentable-sterile machine designed to process LCN DNA, etc. Stefanoni was responsible for properly testing evidence (she did not do a very good job, either, to put it politely. We will pretend any shortcoming was solely due to budget issues - not a matter of incompetence. We can pretend this to help her save face.)

It doesn't matter at all what you think of Stefanoni. There is simply no evidence of the contamination claimed by the defence.

Tell Stefanoni to produce the tests - you know, the ones of the towel, the light switches, the door knobs, the juice container, the refrigerator door handle, the faucet handles. Just produce the tests, Dr. Stefanini - you know, the tests you as top crime scene investigator should have done!

Not me, but the defence should tell her, and they should tell her during the incidente probatorio. Or they should explain the judge clearly what they need to do with the data, what their theory of contamination is. Something the defence did not do. We all know the defence did not submit such requests of seeing raw data of DNA tests, there is no trace of such instance in the preliminary hearing, in the defence appeals reasons nor in requests to the supreme court.

 

[Desert Fox]

Maybe you can, but what happens if you don't have them?

And if you have them, what happens if the scene is already dirty? Would that change something?

There are certain tools of the trade you need to have in order to do your job. One of these things is disposable tweezers. It is just the same if you asked about nitrile gloves.

That the crime scene is dirty, effectively it means it is contaminated. Effectively, the second collection is theater and not really good for anything. It should have never been done.

Still, even in a contaminated crime scene, you do everything possible not to further contaminate the crime scene.

 

[Bill Williams]

It doesn't matter at all what you think of Stefanoni. There is simply no evidence of the contamination claimed by the defence.

This is your double standard right here. Nencini (on page 243) outlines probably extra-male contributors to the bra-clasp with NO evidence to back-up his conclusion, even as probabilities.

It is amazing you still claim this.

 

[Desert Fox]

This is your double standard right here. Nencini (on page 243) outlines probably extra-male contributors to the bra-clasp with NO evidence to back-up his conclusion, even as probabilities.

It is amazing you still claim this.

This is contamination which a fourth grader would understand

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Now, the probabilities.

No, it's not a matter of proving it. It's a matter of proving that it's probable.

What is the probability of tertiary transfer of skin cells through drying hands on a towel and then touching an item, and transfer the DNA there, and specifically there.

You know because, if we argue about what's in rerum natura, we should know it is possible to buy a lottery ticket and win. But it is not reasonable to expect this will happen. What's just possible is not exactly what you need to dismiss a piece of evidence. You need much more than that.

Based on the same logic - probable as winning a lottery ticket - a defence lawyer could argue that each finding of Rudy Guede's DNA in the murder room was due to innocent reasons, a tertiary transfer of the same kind or another innocent reason. And there are only four instances of Guede's DNA in the room, some of them even only yielding a compatible Y-chromosome and no X profile.

Based on a reasoning in rerum natura, a defence lawyer may also argue that bruises on the victim's vagina had innocent reasons not related to sexual violence.

Obviously, no judge would consider such arguments.

The arguments above mean just failure to understanding anything about how evidence works.

It doesn't matter at all what you think of Stefanoni. There is simply no evidence of the contamination claimed by the defence.

Not me, but the defence should tell her, and they should tell her during the incidente probatorio. Or they should explain the judge clearly what they need to do with the data, what their theory of contamination is. Something the defence did not do. We all know the defence did not submit such requests of seeing raw data of DNA tests, there is no trace of such instance in the preliminary hearing, in the defence appeals reasons nor in requests to the supreme court.

-

Interesting Mach, because you've also made the opposite arguement before when you explained that the improbabilities of the stomach beginning to empty into the duodenum later than three hours were as probable as the more probable time of three hours.

It's also interesting that you don't see the conflict here,

d

-

 

[Dan O.]

I don't see any sense in the discourse above.
The floor is dirty on Dec. 17. The bra clasp is dirty when located on Dec. 17.
These truths have an implication => the glove will get dirty on picking the clasp.[

So now we learn that someone was in the cottage on December 17 too. Is that when they rescaled the cottage with all that packing tape so it would look sealed for the cameras on the 18th?

I thought it was bad enough that they leaked to the press that they would be in the cottage on November 13 to test with Luminol and the cottage door was discovered open on the morning of the 14th but then they went to court and swore that the cottage remained sealed from November 6 through December 18. But now you say they were also back there on the 17th

This statement has an implication, that isif there was no stockpile of disposable tweezers available, the problem has no solution.
Unless there is a stockpile of disposable tools there's no solution; so if there is no stockpile of tweezers, there is nothing else to do.

Don't lie to us, they used disposable tweezers to sample Rudy's **** from the toilet in the large bath. They used disposable tweezers to pick up lint and hair from under the drying rack in the hall. Of course they have a stockpile of disposable tweezers, it's standard equipment for a forensic kit.

However, the "problem" may be very petty, basically non-existent; since in fact the room was already rummaged into and not clean, and thus the reasoning could be reversed to draw the opposite conclusion: the observation that the room was already not clean would make the use of disposable tweezers useless.

Now you are catching on. Contamination is present. Unless you can show the route by which the DNA got on to the clasp, its presence is meaningless.

But they didn't use their gloves to pick up other items. By "items" I mean evidentiary items, or items that may have a tight correlation with Raffaele Sollecito.

It doesn't matter, they didn't find a tight correlation to Raffaelle in the DNA profile extracted from the clasp. They found a low level mixture of DNA form several individuals and no identified biological material. That result has no scientifically valid meaning. for the results to be valid, there needs to be sufficient data to calculate the mathematical confidence that the result was created by the presumed action. There is no model that produces this low level multiple DNA profile except one of a contaminating event.

There are some bit that require correction in this description.
First, the "trampling around the cottage" should not be taken ad litteram, because those who entered Meredith room did not trample into the other rooms, except the corridoor.

And what difference does that make? Raffaele walked, talked and may even have sneezed in the common areas. Is there even testimony that places him in any of the rooms except briefly during the inspection on the 2nd?

Who was in the cottage on November 5 and 6 and what rooms did they enter?

But a more relevant factual datum is that it is false that someone stepped on the clasp and crushed one of the hooks. This never happened: the hook was already crooked when it was spotted first on Nov. 3, as the pictures from Nov. 3 show.

You are as ignorant about this as you at about so much of this case. Look closely at the photos of the clasp from when it was found on November 3 and compare that to the clasp on December 18. One hook is bent open to 90° and nearley pulled from the fabric. This dammage is consistent with what would happen when Rudy tries to lift Meredith by the band of the bra and ends up ripping the bra apart. The other hook on the 3rd is virtually unscathed. But on December 18 this lower hook of the clasp is crushed closed. There is no longer a gap in the hook to accept the eye. This is barely visible in 053.jpg but is clear in subsequent views.

However, this still is not all that needs to be said. In fact, the dirty scene, but even an alleged trampling around and stepping on the hook, won't change the basic picture. Even those alleged (never happened) events wouldn't make the presence of Sollecito's DNA on the clasp become likely. Not even in a remote figure.

There was no DNA of Sollecito's on the cottage floor. More than 20 DNA samples were taken from the cottage floor, including the area close to Meredith's door, and no trace of Sollecito's DNA was found.
All those had been trampled upon, since many were picked on Dec. 18, yet there is no DNA of him in none of them.
The alleged forensic should have trampled in a large pool of Sollecito's DNA picked it up on his/her sole and brought it everywhere around, in order to make the finding on the bra clasp become somehow possible, even though in a tiny, remote statistical figure.
Where is the source of Sollecito's fluids, where is the pool where the forensic stepped and picked up the bioogical cells?*
Nothing like that was found on the scene. No evidence or clue about the existence of this source of contaminating agent.

How many possible ways were there for a low level contamination DNA event to be detected that could equally be claimed to tie Raffaele to Meredith's murder? These things happen and if you take enough samples and push the analysis beyond where it is forensically valid, one or more are bound to show up. Of course, if your DNA tech is going to do this they will have to hide the raw data files as the truth will be there for all to see.

Of course, trampling and dirty gloves are not the only paths for DNA to have gotten on the clasp. There are also the deliberate planting of the evidence which was brought up recently and my personal favorite where Meredith herself is the vector that acquires DNA from several acquaintances and transfers it to the clasp the morning before her murder.

What you don't have is a path for Raffaele's DNA along with the other profiles to have gotten on that clasp relevant to a guilty scenario.

This is no argument. Ad for what Halkides called the "Axiom N. 1" of DNA analysis, the dating of a DNA trace can never be inferred from the properties of the genetical material itself.
You cannot use the presence of some alleles or some profiles in order to draw inference about the origin of other DNA material.

Not directly. But I can require that ALL of the evidence be consistent with a single scenario.

 

[Desert Fox]

I plan to post this elsewhere to see what kind of reactions I get. I have tried to change the details to make it not obviously the Kercher case but still keep the spirits. Thoughts if it works and anything I should change?

I am not posting this on a pro guilt site.

We have a small house in North Carolina, John and Charles live in the small house. Just best friends, not lovers, they have shared the house for several years.

One day Charles with his girlfriend Lea come home and find John murdered. They find John in his bedroom. It is a bloody crime scene where John appears to have been stabbed. Lea does not live in the home but has visted a number of times.

They call the police. It is a small town North Carolina and the police do not do a good job at the crime scene. They do find shoe prints and finger prints in blood in the bedroom. They initially try to link the shoe prints with Charles or Lea but they do not own the shoes. The finger prints also do not match either one. There is some DNA on John wallet but it also does not seem to match anybody.

The cops still think that Charles and Lea are reponsible. If John is dead, the house goes to Charles and he and Lea can move in there together. There is a broken door in the back but the police think it was faked.

The police go back into the house over a month later. When they get there, the back door which was broken is found wide open. Still, they search in the hopes of finding additional evidence.

In John's room, they collect a button which is off of John's shirt. They are not especially careful, handling it with gloves that have handled other objects. They hand it between each other as well. The also place it back on the floor.


The button is DNA tested in the State crime lab and it is found to have the victims, Lea's (but not Charles) at a very low level, and three unknown DNA patterns at a very low level as well.

Is this evidence of guilt or contamination?

 

[Kauffer]

Err, what is it I haven't got precisely?

....an understanding that just because they haven't told you and your buddies that the calunnia application has jumped the "admissibility hurdle", as you describe it, doesn't mean that a decision has not already been made confirming what we already know - that Ms Knox's application is an admissible one.

You seem to be under the impression that nobody at the court has looked at the application. If so, that's not true. The file was sent to the Registry and you would do well to acquaint yourself with the function of this body.

Additionally, but non-exhaustively, you should also look at Rule 54A.

Furthermore, you also seem to be under the impression that in considering this matter we start from a position of blind ignorance - that there is some arbitrary, secret process known only to to the court. If so, (linking with my first paragraph), then again, this is not true. As a number of us have previously discussed, the court tries to be as transparent as possible with regard to its rules and processes and so, the admissibility criteria are published:

1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies
2) App within six month deadline
3) Complaint Compatible with Convention and not manifestly ill founded
4) Applicant has suffered significant disadvantage.

In a "post -Salduz world", as one commentator has described it, not only is Ms Knox's application admissible, it must and will succeed on the merits. We can say this confidently even without having seen it. But it may follow a different route to the one you might be expecting.

We can also say that any subsequent applications to the ECHR by Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito, should they prove necessary, will also succeed. The final outcomes of these cases in Italy are knowable - exonerations all round for both. What is not knowable is how we will arrive there and how much time it will take.