The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

[TomG]

You'd be surprised at how many pro-guilt fanatics on YouTube still refer to the washed blood theory in M/B while ignoring the caveat that follows suggesting that the contact with blood, if it existed, was unconnected with the crime. It's origins were in Massei who described the theory as "not necessary, but probable" which rules out any certainty; however, it was when M/B described it as "eloquent confirmation" that people like Harry Rag picked it up and ran with it.

Rag blubbed incessantly about judges encroaching on the territory of science, yet if "no tests were done" to ascertain tissue source how can the theory have any basis in fact? Peter Gill emphatically rules it out in his PDF on the case anyway. M/B describe the theory as an indication of "strong suspicion" but it's nothing short of a reckless judicial lie.

Hoots

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by TomG

You'd be surprised at how many pro-guilt fanatics on YouTube still refer to the washed blood theory in M/B while ignoring the caveat that follows suggesting that the contact with blood, if it existed, was unconnected with the crime. It's origins were in Massei who described the theory as "not necessary, but probable" which rules out any certainty; however, it was when M/B described it as "eloquent confirmation" that people like Harry Rag picked it up and ran with it.

Rag blubbed incessantly about judges encroaching on the territory of science, yet if "no tests were done" to ascertain tissue source how can the theory have any basis in fact? Peter Gill emphatically rules it out in his PDF on the case anyway. M/B describe the theory as an indication of "strong suspicion" but it's nothing short of a reckless judicial lie.

Hoots

Yes, it should be recognized that this statement from the Marasca CSC panel MR is contained in Section 9.4.1, p. 49 of the translation, and is in the sections under Sections 9 through 9.2 which are meant as a collection of hypotheses (and/or "inquisitorial assumptions") from the previous trials, concentrating on the Nencini court, that Marasca and the CSC panel are demonstrating to not be indicative of guilt on the murder/rape charges.

One problem with the Marasca CSC panel presentation in the MR is that it does not explicitly indicate prior to stating each hypothesis that the hypothesis is defective, often because of the way the alleged evidence was gathered, the failure to consider the context of the alleged evidence, or some other failure with respect to the principles of forensic science, which science must include considerations of biology, chemistry, and physics - including common sense. Thus, if two people share a bathroom, their respective DNAs are essentially certain to be found mixed upon the surfaces of the bathroom fixtures, especially if the collection samples entire surfaces.

Instead, Marasca appears to assume there is some truth to the hypothesis, and shows, even if there were this truth, there is no certain inference of guilt of murder/rape that can be derived from the alleged evidence. The problem with this method of presentation is that it allows the careless or biased reader to extract what appear to be a sense of "guiltiness" from out of context excerpts, by ignoring the intent of the Marasca CSC panel as expressed in Sections 9 through 9.2.

Here's the text of Section 9.4.1 discussing the mixed DNAs, interpreted by the convicting judges (Massei, Nencini) as a mixture of blood and DNA, but in Marasca's analysis shown to not allow an inference of guilt of murder/rape. I have inserted comments in braces to place the Marasca CSC panel writing into context:

Quote:

Another element regarding her is represented by traces of mixed DNA, hers and the victim’s, in the "small bathroom", an eloquent confirmation {according to the convicting judges} that she had come into contact with the latter’s blood, which she tried to wash off (it seems we are dealing with washed away blood, while the biological traces belonging to her are a result of epithelial rubbing). {Although, of course, this alleged evidence should not be considered as indicating anything except that Knox and Kercher shared the bathroom and both used the sink and other fixtures.}

The data {if one blindly accepted the wrongful interpretation that the mixed DNAs was indicative of Knox's DNA coming into contact with Kercher's DNA and blood by means of Knox washing her hands of Kercher's blood, rather than the highly probable mixing by sharing the sink and the non-specific method of DNA sampling by swabbing the entire sink bowl surface} leads to strong suspicion, although not decisive, considering the well-known considerations regarding the certain nature and attribution of the traces in question. {That is, the DNA traces were trivial and inconclusive because of the shared sink and manner of DNA collection - thus, this alleged circumstantial evidence is not serious, precise, and consistent- and thus of a nature and attribution not allowed for the inference of a "fact" in accordance with Italian law CPP Article 192.}

Nevertheless, even if attribution is {that is, were to be considered as} certain, the trial element would not be unequivocal as a demonstration of posthumous contact with that blood, as a likely attempt to remove the most blatant traces of what had happened, perhaps to help someone or deflect suspicion from herself, without this entailing her certain direct involvement in the murder. Any further and more meaningful value would be, in fact, resisted by the fact - which is decisive - that no trace leading to her was found at the scene of the crime or on the victim’s body, so that - if all the above is accepted - her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house. {That is, since there was no evidence that Knox had contacted Kercher's blood in the murder room, Knox would have come into contact with the blood after the murder and not in the murder room, if one blindly accepted the wrongful interpretation or hypothesis of the convicting judges.}

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Numbers

Yes, it should be recognized that this statement from the Marasca CSC panel MR is contained in Section 9.4.1, p. 49 of the translation, and is in the sections under Sections 9 through 9.2 which are meant as a collection of hypotheses (and/or "inquisitorial assumptions") from the previous trials, concentrating on the Nencini court, that Marasca and the CSC panel are demonstrating to not be indicative of guilt on the murder/rape charges.

This is exactly what guilters over the years have missed, when trying to quote the 2015 Marasca-Bruno report as if it was really a damning indictment of Knox and or Sollecito. These inquisatorial assumptions don't seem to exist in law systems descended from Westminster, so that might be the problem.

What previous guilters always missed, though - either on purpose or out of ignorance - was that Marasca-Bruno were building towards their conclusion, a conclusion which is unavoidable even if what the prosecution had claimed had been true!

Originally Posted by Numbers

One problem with the Marasca CSC panel presentation in the MR is that it does not explicitly indicate prior to stating each hypothesis that the hypothesis is defective, often because of the way the alleged evidence was gathered, the failure to consider the context of the alleged evidence, or some other failure with respect to the principles of forensic science, which science must include considerations of biology, chemistry, and physics - including common sense. Thus, if two people share a bathroom, their respective DNAs are essentially certain to be found mixed upon the surfaces of the bathroom fixtures, especially if the collection samples entire surfaces.

Once again, it's my view that Marasca-Bruno did not have to "explicitly indicate prior to stating each hypothesis that the hypothesis is defective," because it was the conclusion that they were building towards which was at issue. That conclusion is in Section 10 for all to read. Knox and Sollecito, they didn't do it.

Originally Posted by Numbers

Instead, Marasca appears to assume there is some truth to the hypothesis, and shows, even if there were this truth, there is no certain inference of guilt of murder/rape that can be derived from the alleged evidence. The problem with this method of presentation is that it allows the careless or biased reader to extract what appear to be a sense of "guiltiness" from out of context excerpts, by ignoring the intent of the Marasca CSC panel as expressed in Sections 9 through 9.2.

I disagree. He is only provisionally assuming such things are true, for the sole purpose of concluding that even if they had been true, it still does not put them in the murderroom.

Marasca-Bruno in the report are quite capable of telling the reader what they believe to be true. They believe that any of the 'facts' which undergird the calunnia against Lumumba must be true. Marasca-Bruno have no choice, but also seem to go beyond being handcuffed by a former Supreme Court's judicial fact. M/B more than adequately signal that they believe the calunnia conviction was justified.

Which begs the question - if they were able to do that with regards to calunnia, why did they not with the main murder charges? The answer is easy, they genuinely believed that Knox and Sollecito were innocent of that. Even using inquisatorial assumptions, for them, proved that.

Originally Posted by Numbers

Here's the text of Section 9.4.1 discussing the mixed DNAs, interpreted by the convicting judges (Massei, Nencini) as a mixture of blood and DNA, but in Marasca's analysis shown to not allow an inference of guilt of murder/rape. I have inserted comments in braces to place the Marasca CSC panel writing into context:

That section has been posted here numerous times. It's the section that guilters avoid at all costs, even to the point of claiming it doesn't actually say what it says, or that the translation is bad.

Which is why when I posted it ad nauseam I made a point of using the guilters' own translation from the fake Wiki. When the guilters' webpages were up and running, I only once read an acknowledgement of that, by one of the guilters who'd been involved in the translation. There was at least one guilter who valued their reputation as a translator over their 'through the looking glass' beliefs about this case.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

I disagree. He is only provisionally assuming such things are true, for the sole purpose of concluding that even if they had been true, it still does not put them in the murderroom.

Just to be clear - "putting them in the murderroom" is something the convicting courts had to demonstrate. They knew they had to. Even if they found it difficult, they at least felt compelled to put a paragraph in their motivations reports outlining why they believed that Knox and/or Sollecito had been in there during the murder.

We've just been discussing how Massei outlined that in his 2010 report his reasons for convicting. For Massei, the key was the claimed exfoliation of Knox's skin cells, found in the bathroom basin and bidet. For him, that proved Knox had been in the murderroom. The whole conviction rests on that assertion.

Massei hypothesized, with no evidence at all to support it, that Knox had cleaned the victim's blood from her hands - in the basin and in the bidet. He claims that on page 409. However hundreds of pages earlier, when summarizing Stefanoni's own testimony on the matter, he says that she admitted that no one could be sure that what had been found in the victim's blood in the bathroom were, in fact, exfoliated skin cells. (Indeed, why it would have been strange to have Knox's DNA presence in her own bathroom is left up to any discerning reader to wonder. Why that escaped Massei is anyone's guess.)

But as far as Massei's attempt to put Knox in the murderroom, that's it. Massei didn't even postulate a cleanup in the murderroom, leaving it unanswered why he'd convict if he'd virtually conceded she'd not been there!

But - point being - he still knew he had to put her in the room. He was not ignorant of that requirement.

So much for the guilters' assertions, "The whole cottage was the crime scene". So much for, "mixed blood". No convicting court believed in the latter, yet that didn't stop some guilters from cutting and pasting the assertion in every comments section of every newspiece on the murder.

And it was wholly irrelevant that "the whole cottage was the crime scene". Every judge, including the convicting ones, knew that the issue was - were either of AK or RS in the murderroom at the time of the murder?

No they weren't. It's that straightforward.

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

This is exactly what guilters over the years have missed, when trying to quote the 2015 Marasca-Bruno report as if it was really a damning indictment of Knox and or Sollecito. These inquisatorial assumptions don't seem to exist in law systems descended from Westminster, so that might be the problem.

What previous guilters always missed, though - either on purpose or out of ignorance - was that Marasca-Bruno were building towards their conclusion, a conclusion which is unavoidable even if what the prosecution had claimed had been true!


Once again, it's my view that Marasca-Bruno did not have to "explicitly indicate prior to stating each hypothesis that the hypothesis is defective," because it was the conclusion that they were building towards which was at issue. That conclusion is in Section 10 for all to read. Knox and Sollecito, they didn't do it.


I disagree. He is only provisionally assuming such things are true, for the sole purpose of concluding that even if they had been true, it still does not put them in the murderroom.[/hilite]

Marasca-Bruno in the report are quite capable of telling the reader what they believe to be true. They believe that any of the 'facts' which undergird the calunnia against Lumumba must be true. Marasca-Bruno have no choice, but also seem to go beyond being handcuffed by a former Supreme Court's judicial fact. M/B more than adequately signal that they believe the calunnia conviction was justified.

Which begs the question - if they were able to do that with regards to calunnia, why did they not with the main murder charges? The answer is easy, they genuinely believed that Knox and Sollecito were innocent of that. Even using inquisatorial assumptions, for them, proved that.


That section has been posted here numerous times. It's the section that guilters avoid at all costs, even to the point of claiming it doesn't actually say what it says, or that the translation is bad.

Which is why when I posted it ad nauseam I made a point of using the guilters' own translation from the fake Wiki. When the guilters' webpages were up and running, I only once read an acknowledgement of that, by one of the guilters who'd been involved in the translation. There was at least one guilter who valued their reputation as a translator over their 'through the looking glass' beliefs about this case.

Bill, I strongly disagree that we disagree. But if you insist, I will agree to claim that we appear to disagree (without really disagreeing).

By "appears to assume" I meant "appears to assume but only for the sake of his argument". But I left out the clarification, the same "error" in clarity made in several parts of the Marasca CSC panel MR.

[Stacyhs]

"The whole cottage was the crime scene".

I heard that one just yesterday along with the claim that there was incriminating evidence in the "break-in room and the hallway". What incriminating evidence? The samples that revealed Kercher's non-blood DNA alone and that of Kercher's non-blood DNA mixed with Knox's non-blood DNA in Romanelli's bedroom and the footprints that also contained no blood in the hallway? That is some "incriminating" evidence all right!

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

"The whole cottage was the crime scene".

I heard that one just yesterday along with the claim that there was incriminating evidence in the "break-in room and the hallway". What incriminating evidence? The samples that revealed Kercher's non-blood DNA alone and that of Kercher's non-blood DNA mixed with Knox's non-blood DNA in Romanelli's bedroom and the footprints that also contained no blood in the hallway? That is some "incriminating" evidence all right!

The whole city of Perugia was the crime scene.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

"The whole cottage was the crime scene".

I heard that one just yesterday along with the claim that there was incriminating evidence in the "break-in room and the hallway".

Originally Posted by Numbers

The whole city of Perugia was the crime scene.

I often wish that the guilter websites were still around. I'm too lazy to look on way-back.

I remember the **one** time that this issue was seriously addressed on one of the PMF's. It must have been after the Sept 2015 release of the M.R. for the final acquittal, because they were making mention of Marasca-Bruno's observation that Knox's exfoliated skin cells found in the victim's blood in the bathroom had an "eloquent proof", with M/B not saying where that proof was found.

One guilter was ridiculing the notion that no evidence of either AK or RS had been found in the murderroom, by claiming that that was not true....

.... but even if it had been true, the whole cottage was a crime scene. The insinuation was that it was not important to put either of them in the murderroom to begin with.

Another guilter then took him on, claiming (quite rightly) that the claim that the whole cottage was a crime scene, while quite true, was not enough to counter missing evidence from the murderroom itself. That particular guilter then repeated all the skin-cell exfoliation nonsense from Massei, as proof that Knox had to have been in the murderroom. The point being, acc. to even one guilter, that without that then the notion of "the whole cottage was a crime scene" was a meaningless statement.

People on that site then agreed to disagree and they moved on. It was bizarre to watch.

Anyway, for what it's worth. At this point, probably not much.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Numbers

The whole city of Perugia was the crime scene.

So was Florence as she went there, too. Hell, let's make it the whole of Italy.

Perugia. Lovely little city. I was there two years ago next month. Sigh. Seems like yesterday.

[TomG]

Originally Posted by Numbers

The whole city of Perugia was the crime scene.

M/B make it quite clear what constitutes the crime scene:

It is indisputably impossible that traces attributable to the appellants would not have been found at the crime scene had they taken part in Kercher’s murder (the room was of small dimensions: 2.91 x 3.36m, as shown in the plan reproduced in f: 76).

Everything else was peripheral to the crime scene.

Hoots

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by TomG

M/B make it quite clear what constitutes the crime scene:

It is indisputably impossible that traces attributable to the appellants would not have been found at the crime scene had they taken part in Kercher’s murder (the room was of small dimensions: 2.91 x 3.36m, as shown in the plan reproduced in f: 76).

Everything else was peripheral to the crime scene.

Hoots

A few comments:

1. It's difficult to convey satire or parody online.

However, Guede's fleeing the cottage and apparently disposing of the murder knife and his blood-stained clothes away from the cottage - including the presumed crimes of hiding or destroying evidence, most likely happened in Perugia, my statement that the entire city was a crime scene was intended as a satirical exaggeration.

2. One should consider defining a term to advance an argument. I have not previously defined "crime scene", nor did the Marasca CSC panel, but note that they use two related terms in the MR: "crime scene" and "murder room".

A definition of crime scene: the place where a crime occurred and forensic evidence is likely to be found.

So the cottage flat is a crime scene, as well as the murder room. The murder room is especially important because of the forensic evidence it did and did not contain.

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by TomG

M/B make it quite clear what constitutes the crime scene:

It is indisputably impossible that traces attributable to the appellants would not have been found at the crime scene had they taken part in Kercher’s murder (the room was of small dimensions: 2.91 x 3.36m, as shown in the plan reproduced in f: 76).

Everything else was peripheral to the crime scene.

Hoots

Originally Posted by Numbers

A few comments:

1. It's difficult to convey satire or parody online.

However, Guede's fleeing the cottage and apparently disposing of the murder knife and his blood-stained clothes away from the cottage - including the presumed crimes of hiding or destroying evidence, most likely happened in Perugia, my statement that the entire city was a crime scene was intended as a satirical exaggeration.

2. One should consider defining a term to advance an argument. I have not previously defined "crime scene", nor did the Marasca CSC panel, but note that they use two related terms in the MR: "crime scene" and "murder room".

A definition of crime scene: the place where a crime occurred and forensic evidence is likely to be found.

So the cottage flat is a crime scene, as well as the murder room. The murder room is especially important because of the forensic evidence it did and did not contain.

Here are some more extensive quotes from the Marasca CSC panel MR which illustrate how they use the terms "murder room" and "crime scene". It is clear that the "crime scene" includes at least the parts of the flat where forensic evidence was found or alleged to be found, while the actual forensic evidence found in the "murder room", which is part of the crime scene, is most important, exluding a finding of guilt for Knox and Sollecito, which showing that Guede was guilty of the murder/rape of Kecher:

Quote:

8. Then in close succession the points of patent logical inconsistency in the fabric of the reasoning of the challenged ruling are identified.

8.1. An element of evidence of unchallengeable relevance - for the reasons explained hereinafter - is represented by the total absence of biological traces attributable with certainty to the two defendants in the murder room or on the body of the victim, whereas, instead, abundant traces surely attributable to Guede have been found.

This was an insurmountable monolithic barrier on the path taken by the fact-finding judge to arrive at the conviction of the present defendants, already acquitted previously for the murder by the Court of Appeals of Perugia.

To overcome the relevance of such a negative element - undeniably favourable to the defendants - it has been claimed in vain that, after staging the break-in, the authors of the crime performed a “selective” cleaning of the crime scene, in order to remove only those damning traces attributable to them, while leaving behind, instead, those attributable to others.

This hypothesis is patently illogical. To fully understand its degree of inconsistency it is not really necessary to appoint court experts, even if this has been requested by the defences. That such a selective cleaning, moreover capable of escaping detection by luminol, whose use by the investigators (also to find traces of non-haematic origin) is nowadays part of everyday knowledge, is, for sure, impossible, according to the basic laws of ordinary experience.

After all, the assertion itself of a presumed carefulness in the cleaning is factually proven wrong, since in the “small bathroom” traces of blood have been found on the mat, on the bidet, on the tap, on a Q-tips box and on the light switch. And yet, had the defendants been guilty, they surely would not have lacked the time for an accurate cleaning, in the sense that there was no reason for the perpetrators to hurry up for fear of the possible arrival at home of other people. In fact, Knox was perfectly aware that Romanelli and Mezzetti were outside Perugia and would not have come back home that night, hence there would have been all the time necessary for a careful cleaning of the house.

With reference to the alleged bloody traces in the other rooms, mainly in the corridor, there is even an obvious misrepresentation of evidence. Indeed the S.A.L. of the Scientific Police (acronym of “Stato Avanzamento Lavori” [State of Work Progress], stating the progression of the scientific investigations and their results) had excluded, thanks to the use of a specific chemical reagent [TMB], that the traces highlighted by luminol in the concerned rooms were of haematic nature. These papers, even if duly filed into the trial documents, have been completely neglected.

Not only that, but it is also patently illogical, in this context, the reasoning of the fact finding judge, who (on page 186) reckons being able to overcome the defensive objection that the luminescent bluish reaction generated by luminol can be produced also by substances different from blood (for instance, leftovers of cleaning detergents, fruit juices and many others), by arguing that the reasoning, while theoretically correct, has however to be “contextualised”, meaning that if the fluorescence occurs at a place where a murder occurred, the reaction cannot be but connected with haematic traces.

The weakness of the argument is such, already at first sight, that it does not require any confutation, since to reason in that way one should also surmise that the house on via della Pergola was never the object of cleanings nor was a “lived” location [i.e. with people living and doing things in it].

This observation hence allows to categorically exclude that those traces were made of blood and willfully removed in that circumstance.

Quote:

9.4. However, a matter of undoubted significance in favour of the appellants, in the sense that it excludes their material participation in the murder, even if it is hypothesised that they were present in the house on via della Pergola, consists of the absolute lack of biological traces attributable to them (except the clasp which will be dealt with further on) in the murder room or on the victim’s body, where instead numerous traces attributable to Guede were found.

It is indisputably impossible that traces attributable to the appellants would not have been found at the crime scene {meaning here the murder room and/or the whole flat} had they taken part in Kercher’s murder (the room {meaning, where the murder/rape had occurred} was of small dimensions: 2.91 x 3.36m, as shown in the plan reproduced in f: 76).

No trace belonging to them was found in particular on the sweater that the victim was wearing at the time she was attacked nor on her shirt underneath, which would have been the case if they had participated in the murder (instead, traces of Guede were found on a sleeve of the aforementioned sweater: ff, 179-180).

This aforementioned negative circumstance accords with the fact, already highlighted, of the absolute impracticability of the posthumous clean-up hypothesis, removing some biological traces while leaving others.

To claim that the cottage flat was not a "crime scene" is to ignore the (inferred) fact that Guede threw a rock through a bedroom window, entered through that broken window and left evidence of himself elsewhere in the flat besides the murder room. In the reference to "crime scene" in Section 9.4, I firmly believe that Marasca means to include the small bathroom and corridor - places where the Nencini MR had claimed that alleged evidence included culpable traces of Knox's DNA and Kercher's blood. I believe that Marasca understands that Knox's DNA is innocently in the small bathroom because she, as well as Kercher, used it, while the alleged Knox footprints in the corridor allegedly in blood were shown by the scientific police in their work notes not to be blood.

[Numbers]

The ECHR case Knox v. Italy is a pending leading case against Italy before the Committee of Ministers (CoM), the organization which supervises the execution of the final judgments of the ECHR in accordance with international law, that is, the treaty obeyed by the member States of the Council of Europe (CoE). (The ECHR and the CoM are organizations defined by the CoE treaty and are part of the CoE.)

While Italy filed a communication with the CoM on 10 January 2020 acknowledging the final ECHR judgment in Knox v. Italy, it has yet to have filed the required Action Plan (AP). Some may be concerned that Italy's slow response in this case suggests that Italy may never file an Action Plan. While it cannot be shown that Italy will certainly file an Action Plan, it can be shown that Italy has a history of being slow to file Action Plans compared to other western European States of the EoC with large populations.

I have posted some of the following information previously.

Number of Leading Cases

Italy ......... Pending: 49 -- 13 awaiting AP; Closed: 63

UK ................... Pending: 7 -- 0 awaiting AP; Closed: 41
France ............. Pending: 25 -- 2 awaiting AP; Closed: 74
Germany .......... Pending: 10 -- 2 awaiting AP; Closed: 31

Final Judgment Dates for Pending Leading Cases Awaiting AP by Year: Number

Italy

2020: 2; 2019: 6*; 2018: 4; 2017: 1

UK

Not Applicable (all Pending Leading cases have APs filed)

France

2021: 1; 2020: 1

Germany

2020: 2

* Includes the Pending Leading case, Knox v. Italy

Note that the number of critically important human rights cases is not necessarily identical to the number of leading cases. For example, for Italy, 1 leading case, Cestaro v. Italy, about police beating and torture of innocent demonstrators, final judgment of the ECHR given in 2015, and which has received an Action Plan, is associated by the CoM with 5 other similar "repetitive" cases against Italy.

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Numbers

The ECHR case Knox v. Italy is a pending leading case against Italy before the Committee of Ministers (CoM), the organization which supervises the execution of the final judgments of the ECHR in accordance with international law, that is, the treaty obeyed by the member States of the Council of Europe (CoE). (The ECHR and the CoM are organizations defined by the CoE treaty and are part of the CoE.)

While Italy filed a communication with the CoM on 10 January 2020 acknowledging the final ECHR judgment in Knox v. Italy, it has yet to have filed the required Action Plan (AP). Some may be concerned that Italy's slow response in this case suggests that Italy may never file an Action Plan. While it cannot be shown that Italy will certainly file an Action Plan, it can be shown that Italy has a history of being slow to file Action Plans compared to other western European States of the EoC with large populations.

I have posted some of the following information previously.

Number of Leading Cases

Italy ......... Pending: 49 -- 13 awaiting AP; Closed: 63

UK ................... Pending: 7 -- 0 awaiting AP; Closed: 41
France ............. Pending: 25 -- 2 awaiting AP; Closed: 74
Germany .......... Pending: 10 -- 2 awaiting AP; Closed: 31

Final Judgment Dates for Pending Leading Cases Awaiting AP by Year: Number

Italy

2020: 2; 2019: 6*; 2018: 4; 2017: 1

UK

Not Applicable (all Pending Leading cases have APs filed)

France

2021: 1; 2020: 1

Germany

2020: 2

* Includes the Pending Leading case, Knox v. Italy

Note that the number of critically important human rights cases is not necessarily identical to the number of leading cases. For example, for Italy, 1 leading case, Cestaro v. Italy, about police beating and torture of innocent demonstrators, final judgment of the ECHR given in 2015, and which has received an Action Plan, is associated by the CoM with 5 other similar "repetitive" cases against Italy.

It is also informative to analyze the Final Judgment Dates for Pending Leading Cases with an Action Plan Received by the CoM.

Such cases are not yet closed because the CoM has not yet agreed that the appropriate Individual or General Measures proposed in the State's Action Plan for the redress of the violations against the victim and the prevention of potential future violations of the type declared by the ECHR final judgment have been satisfactorily completed.

As clear from the data in the HUDOC EXEC database, Italy has a greater number of Pending Leading Cases, dating back for a long period, than do the other large western European States. However, the UK has 2 cases and France 1 case dating back farther.

It should be recognized that Italy and the 3 comparison States each have a number of closed Leading Cases, as shown in the quoted post. Italy has 63 closed Leading Cases, while the UK, France and Germany have 41, 74, and 31, respectively. Italy has complied with previous ECHR rulings under CoM supervision including by modifying its Constitution and Code of Criminal Procedure laws, as shown by the CoM in its Country Factsheet for Italy*:

https://rm.coe.int/1680709750


Final Judgment Dates for Pending Leading Cases with AP Received by Year: Number

Italy

2020: 3; 2019: 3; 2018: 3; 2017: 3; 2016: 6; 2015: 3; 2014: 9; 2013: 1; 2012: 2; 2011: 3.

UK

2021: 1; 2020: 2; 2019: 1; 2013: 1; 2008:1; 2001: 1.

France

2020: 7; 2019: 5; 2018: 4; 2017: 2; 2015:1, 2014: 1; 2012: 1; 2011: 1; 2010: 1.

Germany

2018: 2; 2017: 3; 2016: 3.

* From page 6 of the CoM Factsheet on Italy.

The 1999 constitutional reform included significant additions to Article 111 of the Italian Constitution. Without that reform, Knox and Sollecito would not have been guaranteed a fair adversarial trial, with the right to examine the evidence against them, under a neutral judge. Of course, several of the Italian judges (Massei, Chieffi, Nencini) largely ignored these provisions of the Italian Constitution.

The safeguards introduced in 2001 relate to the Knox - Sollecito case by the exclusion by the Marasca CSC panel of Guede's unexamined statements and trial judgment as inadmissible under Italian law, contrary to their inclusion in the Nencini court MR.

Quote:

Constitutional reform in 1999 confers constitutional rank to a number of requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (fair trial, adversarial process, equality of arms...).

Additional safeguards in 2001 for persons who made pre-trial statements and subsequently availed themselves of their right to remain silent; the use of such statements require the consent of all interested parties. Besides, it is no longer possible for someone to be convicted on the sole basis of statements he/she was unable to cross-examine.

Introduction in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the possibility to file appeals against judgments rendered in absentia (without the presence of the accused) at first instance, even if the normal deadlines had expired. Two exceptions: if the accused knew about the proceedings against him or the judgment; if the accused willingly decided not to appear or to appeal.

[Numbers]

The site

http://amandaknoxcase.com/

is back up.

It contains a wealth of valuable information, including the final definitive acquittal - the Marasca CSC panel MR - and the 29 April 2016 ECHR Communication on Knox v. Italy.

However, it doesn't appear to have any reference to the 24 January 2019 ECHR judgment on Knox v. Italy, final 24 June 2019, which found that Knox's defense rights under Convention Article 6 were violated during the interrogation, thereby making her conviction for calunnia unfair, and that her rights against were also violated under Convention Article 3 because Italy repeatedly refused to investigate her complaints of mistreatment by the police during the interrogation.

A legal summary, in English, of the final ECHR judgment is available at:

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=002-12309

One good feature of the amandaknoxcase site is that it provides the original Italian text for documents such as the Marasca CSC panel MR. This allows one to check to the translation in places that are possibly confusing.

One such translation that I have found confusing is in Section 9.4.1, which is given as "... it is now observed that her presence in the house, the scene of the murder, is an acclaimed fact of the trial ...." The phrase "acclaimed fact" is a not-quite correct translation of "dato conclamato", which is more accurately translated as "overt fact" or "proclaimed fact", according to Collins Reverso*. (Note that the "fact" is an inference derived by the Nencini court from Knox's interrogation and her first memorial, neglecting her second memorial and later repudiation of the interrogation statements and the confusion evident in the first memorial).

* https://dictionary.reverso.net/itali...clamato/forced

[TomG]

Originally Posted by Numbers

The site

http://amandaknoxcase.com/

is back up.

It contains a wealth of valuable information, including the final definitive acquittal - the Marasca CSC panel MR - and the 29 April 2016 ECHR Communication on Knox v. Italy.

However, it doesn't appear to have any reference to the 24 January 2019 ECHR judgment on Knox v. Italy, final 24 June 2019, which found that Knox's defense rights under Convention Article 6 were violated during the interrogation, thereby making her conviction for calunnia unfair, and that her rights against were also violated under Convention Article 3 because Italy repeatedly refused to investigate her complaints of mistreatment by the police during the interrogation.

A legal summary, in English, of the final ECHR judgment is available at:

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=002-12309

One good feature of the amandaknoxcase site is that it provides the original Italian text for documents such as the Marasca CSC panel MR. This allows one to check to the translation in places that are possibly confusing.

One such translation that I have found confusing is in Section 9.4.1, which is given as "... it is now observed that her presence in the house, the scene of the murder, is an acclaimed fact of the trial ...." The phrase "acclaimed fact" is a not-quite correct translation of "dato conclamato", which is more accurately translated as "overt fact" or "proclaimed fact", according to Collins Reverso*. (Note that the "fact" is an inference derived by the Nencini court from Knox's interrogation and her first memorial, neglecting her second memorial and later repudiation of the interrogation statements and the confusion evident in the first memorial).

* https://dictionary.reverso.net/itali...clamato/forced

Even worse is the Pro-guilt version of M/B that states that:

"9.4.1 Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial,"

I confronted Harry Rag with the "proven fact" translation on YouTube but he stuck to his guns. The operative word "conclamato" interprets as "established", "acknowledged", or "proclaimed", not "proven" as in the TJMK version of M/B, yet there it stands to this day.

I asked him that if the word "conclamato" translated as "proven" could he then provide a narrative and timeline to prove the "proven fact". That was around 2 years ago. I'm still waiting.

I'm so glad that the wiki is back up. It's been an invaluable resource in the ongoing YouTube rattenkrieg.

Hoots

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by TomG

Even worse is the Pro-guilt version of M/B that states that:

"9.4.1 Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial,"

I confronted Harry Rag with the "proven fact" translation on YouTube but he stuck to his guns. The operative word "conclamato" interprets as "established", "acknowledged", or "proclaimed", not "proven" as in the TJMK version of M/B, yet there it stands to this day.

I asked him that if the word "conclamato" translated as "proven" could he then provide a narrative and timeline to prove the "proven fact". That was around 2 years ago. I'm still waiting.

Who is Harry Reg talking to these days?

Not to anyone who has read the rest of the Marasca-Bruno report. It concludes that thought, that Knox had been proven to have been inside the house, with the observation that......

...... even if that had been true, a lack of evidence for either Sollecito or Knox in the murder room itself, means that this 'presence' must have been after the murder, and her alleged contact with blood must have come from another part of the house.

Meaning, according to M-B, that even if that 'proven fact' had been true, she didn't do the killing. Wasn't even in the room at the time of the horrible deed.

Then there's this:

Quote:

then provide a narrative and timeline to prove the "proven fact"

Guilters have NEVER done that. The convicting Nencini court left the 'window of opportunity' large, mainly because Nencini couldn't provide a timeline, not really.

Indeed, one of the more lucid guilters in this very forum once outright refused to provide a timeline. Why? For him this was a war, and he wasn't going to provide an advantage to innocentisi by arming them with such a thing. (I'm not making that up!)

The long and the short of it is - the unassailable evidence fits no guilt narrative. That's the whole point of most of M-B's 9.4.1 where they summarize the case as according to the prosecution combined with the case according to the defence. Nothing adds up.

And nothing puts AK and/or RS in the murderroom at the time of the murder. No wonder guilters - even the ones which remain - don't even try a timeline, lest they too become convinced in innocence.

[TomG]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Who is Harry Reg talking to these days?

I haven't seen Rag on YouTube this year. He sometimes spars with Francisco so you might want to ask him. He's not made any of his "machine" posts on TJMK since his Dec 10th exercise in association fallacy and self-parody. He might be active on Twitter, I don't know, I don't use social media.

Hoots

[Stacyhs]

TomG's mention of TJMK made me curious as to what was going on over at TJMK as it had been awhile since I'd been over to La La Land. Not surprisingly, I found this speculation in the comment section beneath yet another irrelevant and delusional article by PQ:

Quote:

One thing I thought was interesting, which I hadn’t seen pointed out anywhere before and may be useful to add to any case against Knox, was that when you listen to Knox’s first prison meeting with her mum several days after the murder and initial arrest, she says that a few items were confiscated off of her which she had on her. One of which was 200 Euros….which is the exact amount which Fillemena testified that Meredith said she had withdrawn In advance for the rent (the rent being 300) and which went missing after the murder. I appreciate Knox would just say it was her own rent money, but given we have Knox being told of the money beforehand; Rudy suggesting an argument over rent money being stolen followed by a search of Knoxs room (which is supported by Merediths fingerprints on Knoxs Wardrobe door); and then Knox herself saying she had the same amount in her wallet when arrested, there’s a consistent thread here, just in case it adds anything to your master document.

The poster, HotAir, might "appreciate" Knox saying it was her own rent money (which would be logical), but has it occurred to her that Guede would make up the fight over Knox stealing the 200 euros rent money story because that's what he did? Did it occur to her that he would claim they had gone into Knox's room because he had been in Knox's room and had to cover for any evidence of himself there? Liars stick as close to the truth as possible because it means the less they have to remember and in the case of a crime, the more any forensic evidence found can be explained.

But why consider such an obvious explanation when she can have a much more emotionally satisfying, scintillating and entertaining soap opera drama about an evil woman who can manipulate two men into killing her roommate of 6 weeks in a drug fueled, sexual frenzy with suggested mafia-satanic- overtones?


Then we have this brilliant response:

Quote:

@HotAir, yes. The theft of Meredith’s rent money might have kickstarted the fatal fight. Maybe that’s why Knox broke the window, to suggest to Meredith that the cottage had been burgled, to explain Meredith’s missing 200euros cash?

Money was a real issue for Knox, much more than she ever wanted to admit. She was spending $$ prolifically, maybe on drugs, and at same time losing some of her income from Le Chic.

She might have easily tried to pinch Meredith’s cash to cover her rent and planned to pin the theft on an intruder, possibly Guede.

Then Guede might have verbally defended himself against the false claim.

At that point the argument could easily have heated up and everyone lost their heads.

You have to just shake your head at the speculation based on nothing. What drugs? You mean the narcotics that the hair test proved she wasn't taking? The phone calls to her drug dealer "Frederico" that her phone record proved were never made? You mean the money troubles that her bank account with over $4000 in it prove she had? Yes, she really need that 200 euros so badly she needed to stage a burglary and blame a guy she'd barely knew. Jesus Christ on a pogo stick. What will these whackos come up with next to feed their sick needs? Maybe they should consider therapy.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

You have to just shake your head at the speculation based on nothing. What drugs? You mean the narcotics that the hair test proved she wasn't taking? The phone calls to her drug dealer "Frederico" that her phone record proved were never made? You mean the money troubles that her bank account with over $4000 in it prove she had? Yes, she really need that 200 euros so badly she needed to stage a burglary and blame a guy she'd barely knew. Jesus Christ on a pogo stick. What will these whackos come up with next to feed their sick needs? Maybe they should consider therapy.

Consider the highlighted parts, the mark of someone who admits he/her has not proven anything and that this is all pure speculation!

Quote:

One thing I thought was interesting, which I hadn’t seen pointed out anywhere before and may be useful to add to any case against Knox, was that when you listen to Knox’s first prison meeting with her mum several days after the murder and initial arrest, she says that a few items were confiscated off of her which she had on her. One of which was 200 Euros….which is the exact amount which Fillemena testified that Meredith said she had withdrawn In advance for the rent (the rent being 300) and which went missing after the murder. I appreciate Knox would just say it was her own rent money, but given we have Knox being told of the money beforehand; Rudy suggesting an argument over rent money being stolen followed by a search of Knoxs room (which is supported by Merediths fingerprints on Knoxs Wardrobe door); and then Knox herself saying she had the same amount in her wallet when arrested, there’s a consistent thread here, just in case it adds anything to your master document.

@HotAir, yes. The theft of Meredith’s rent money might have kickstarted the fatal fight. Maybe that’s why Knox broke the window, to suggest to Meredith that the cottage had been burgled, to explain Meredith’s missing 200euros cash?

Money was a real issue for Knox, much more than she ever wanted to admit. She was spending $$ prolifically, maybe on drugs, and at same time losing some of her income from Le Chic.

She might have easily tried to pinch Meredith’s cash to cover her rent and planned to pin the theft on an intruder, possibly Guede.

Then Guede might have verbally defended himself against the false claim.

At that point the argument could easily have heated up and everyone lost their heads.

[Stacyhs]

Quote:

Several of us at the Wiki and TJMK have been waiting for over a year to get back in Italy for a few days to command all of the high ground in our pending final push

We need a final batch of documents, and the answers to myriad open question, and we need to hear how things are breaking with Dr Mignini’s book - apparently pretty well.

(Pete Quennell, Front Page TJMK, March 27, 2021)

"....and may be useful to add to any case against Knox...there’s a consistent thread here, just in case it adds anything to your master document."

What case against Knox? I've got news for her: there is no case against Knox. Does she think Quennell is going to come up with some new evidence and break the case wide open convincing everyone of Knox's guilt? And she, HotAir, is going to be the one to discover it in the heretofore hidden depths of the prison conversation between Knox and her mother?

[schmidt61]

TomG's mention of TJMK made me curious as to what was going on over at TJMK as it had been awhile since I'd been over to La La Land. Not surprisingly, I found this speculation in the comment section beneath yet another irrelevant and delusional article by PQ:
Quote:
One thing I thought was interesting, which I hadn’t seen pointed out anywhere before and may be useful to add to any case against Knox, was that when you listen to Knox’s first prison meeting with her mum several days after the murder and initial arrest, she says that a few items were confiscated off of her which she had on her. One of which was 200 Euros….which is the exact amount which Fillemena testified that Meredith said she had withdrawn In advance for the rent (the rent being 300) and which went missing after the murder. I appreciate Knox would just say it was her own rent money, but given we have Knox being told of the money beforehand; Rudy suggesting an argument over rent money being stolen followed by a search of Knoxs room (which is supported by Merediths fingerprints on Knoxs Wardrobe door); and then Knox herself saying she had the same amount in her wallet when arrested, there’s a consistent thread here, just in case it adds anything to your master document.


How could the prosecution or Judge Massei use anything Guede said Meredith told him when they were alone in the house. When Mignini says the three of them arrive after Meredith while Massei says Guede arrived after Knox and Sollecito arrived. With Knox letting him in.

Don't forget no was convicted of stealing the money. Guede stated Meredith told him the money was taken from her night stand. Which he could have search after killing Meredith and not finding money in her purse. Which had her blood on it and his DNA on the zipper of her purse.

[Numbers]

Those following the ECHR aspects of this case, including the delay in Italy providing the Committee of Ministers, which supervises the execution of ECHR final judgments by the states, an Action Plan for the resolution of Knox v. Italy, may find it interesting that Italy was the last State of the 47 Council of Europe member States to ratify, on 21 April 2021, Protocol* 15 to the European Convention on Human Rights . Therefore, Protocol 15 will go into effect on 1 August 2021.

The Council of Europe opened Protocol 15 to the signatures of the CoE Member States on 24 June 2013. Thus, it took Italy more that 7 years** to sign this protocol, even though in part it can be considered to favor the interests of the States over those of the applicants.

For example, Protocol 15 re-affirms the ECHR case-law that the States have a "margin of appreciation" (a reasonable choice of means) in executing ECHR final judgments and the principle of subsidiarity (the ECHR issues a judgment of a case only when the State's final actions have not corrected a violation of the Convention). Furthermore, potentially depriving some future applicants of the time needed to bring an application before the ECHR, the time limit to file an application has been shortened to 4 months following a State's final action, replacing the previous time limit of 6 months.

The inference, I suggest, is that Italy is "slow but sure" in its response to its ECHR obligations under the Convention.


* A "protocol" to the Convention is equivalent to an "amendment" of a law or constitution.

** nearly 7 years and 10 months

Sources:

https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rig...-16-convention

https://www.asil.org/ILIB/italy-rati...across-all-coe

[Numbers]

Here's more interesting news regarding ECHR cases against Italy that are under CoM supervision, and relevant to the ECHR case Knox v. Italy.

Knox v. Italy is a pending leading ECHR case under the supervision of the CoM.

Recently, there were 56 pending leading ECHR cases, including Knox v. Italy, against Italy under the supervision of the CoM.

However, as of 28 April 2021, there are now 55 pending leading ECHR cases, including Knox v. Italy, against Italy under the supervision of the CoM.

The ECHR case Huzuneanu v. Italy 36043/08,

lodged before the ECHR 17 July 2008,

with ECHR judgment 1 September 2016, final 1 December 2016,

of a violation of Convention Article 6* by Italy,

with an Action Plan provided 12 July 2017 by Italy to the CoM,

and an Action Report (claiming that all relevant Individual and General Measures had been resolved; no Just Satisfaction sought or required) provided 25 June 2020 by Italy to the CoM,

was declared by the CoM finally resolved on 28 April 2021.

Thus, there were about 12 years and 9 months from the lodging of the case before the ECHR to the publicly announced final resolution by the CoM.


* Huzuneanu, a Romanian national resident in Romania, was convicted of murder in absentia by Italy - there was no evidence that the Italian authorities had ever "effectively" contacted him in Romania prior to the conviction to inform him that he was being sought on charges - and when he was informed of the conviction and extradited to Italy, he was not allowed a new trial on the merits. The final resolution included quashing his absentia conviction and granting him a new trial on the merits.

Sources:

http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=DH-DD(2020)587E
http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-45705
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-165752

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=003-5470197-6864500
(PDF, Press Release in English. Huzuneanu v. Italy is the 2nd judgment in the document.)

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Numbers

Here's more interesting news regarding ECHR cases against Italy that are under CoM supervision, and relevant to the ECHR case Knox v. Italy.

Knox v. Italy is a pending leading ECHR case under the supervision of the CoM.

Recently, there were 56 pending leading ECHR cases, including Knox v. Italy, against Italy under the supervision of the CoM.

However, as of 28 April 2021, there are now 55 pending leading ECHR cases, including Knox v. Italy, against Italy under the supervision of the CoM.

The ECHR case Huzuneanu v. Italy 36043/08,

lodged before the ECHR 17 July 2008,

with ECHR judgment 1 September 2016, final 1 December 2016,

of a violation of Convention Article 6* by Italy,

with an Action Plan provided 12 July 2017 by Italy to the CoM,

and an Action Report (claiming that all relevant Individual and General Measures had been resolved; no Just Satisfaction sought or required) provided 25 June 2020 by Italy to the CoM,

was declared by the CoM finally resolved on 28 April 2021.

Thus, there were about 12 years and 9 months from the lodging of the case before the ECHR to the publicly announced final resolution by the CoM.


* Huzuneanu, a Romanian national resident in Romania, was convicted of murder in absentia by Italy - there was no evidence that the Italian authorities had ever "effectively" contacted him in Romania prior to the conviction to inform him that he was being sought on charges - and when he was informed of the conviction and extradited to Italy, he was not allowed a new trial on the merits. The final resolution included quashing his absentia conviction and granting him a new trial on the merits.

Sources:

http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=DH-DD(2020)587E
http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-45705
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-165752

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=003-5470197-6864500
(PDF, Press Release in English. Huzuneanu v. Italy is the 2nd judgment in the document.)

From the 29 June 2017 Action Plan:

Quote:

Individual Measures

The [European] Court [of Human Rights] considered that there was no need to award the applicant any Just Satisfaction, as the applicant had not requested [any award].

For the European Court, it is established that the applicant did not have effective knowledge of the trial. There is also nothing in the file to conclude that he had evaded justice or that he unequivocally waived the right to participate in the trial.

Under Italian domestic law, the Italian authorities recall that following [Italian] Constitutional Court judgment no. 113 of 7 April 2011 it is now possible to submit a request for revision of a trial based on a judgment of the [European] Court which found the trial unfair.

The authorities wish to clarify that in a request dated 29 December 2016, the applicant requested the criminal section of the Perugia Court of Appeal, on the basis of the European Court judgment and in accordance with CPP Article 630, revision of the 15 March 2004 decision {conviction for murder, in absentia [by contumacy*], with a sentence of 28 years} issued by the Court of Assizes of Rome, confirmed by the 17 January 2005 decision of the Assize Court of Appeal of Rome.

By an order dated 31 December 2016, the Perugia Court of Appeal granted this request {for revision} and decided the immediate release {from detention} of the applicant during the revision proceedings, with the immediate communication of its order to the Public Prosecutor's Office at the Court of Appeal of Rome.

The Government will provide final information in this regard shortly.

* Contumacy is the intentional defiance of legal authority such as intentionally disobeying a court summons. The Italian authorities treated the case as though Huzuneanu had been informed of the charges and the trial but had chosen not to attend nor to provide a lawyer. The defense was conducted by a court-appointed lawyer who was not instructed by the defendant.

Google translation, with my help, of part of the 19 June 2017 Action Plan provided by Italy to the CoM.

[Stacyhs]

So Huzuneanu was unaware of the trial, had not been able to tell his side of the story to his lawyer, thus his lawyer "defended" his client completely ignorant of any defense information that might clear him. Is that correct?

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

So Huzuneanu was unaware of the trial, had not been able to tell his side of the story to his lawyer, thus his lawyer "defended" his client completely ignorant of any defense information that might clear him. Is that correct?

It's not clear if the defense lawyer was totally unaware of all defense information. It's not clear what information the lawyer may have had. Under Italian law valid in 2014, a defense lawyer is entitled to conduct investigations and also to have access to the official investigation or case file. I don't know if this law applied at the relevant time since the conviction was in 2004.

But that's not really the point.

Under the Convention, a defendant is entitled to defend himself with the assistance of a lawyer. Italy deprived Huzuneanu of this right because it never informed him that he was charged or being placed on trial. Huzuneanu did not refuse to attend the trial; he was not given the opportunity, because somehow Italy had not informed him of the charges or the trial, to attend the trial or to communicate with the defense lawyer. Thus his trial was unfair under the Convention.

Article 6 section 3 and subsections (a), (b), and (c) of the Convention state:

Quote:

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

Here's the relevant part of the Action Report (written in English) from the Government of Italy to the CoM summarizing the case.

Quote:

Rappresentanza permanente d’Italia presso il Consiglio d’Europa

Action Report

Huzuneanu v. Italy (Application n. 36043/08),

Judgment of 1 September 2016 - final on 1 December 2016

I - Case Summary

The case concerned Mr Huzuneanu’s inability to obtain the reopening of criminal proceedings against him, which had led to his conviction in absentia. (violation of Article 6 of the Convention).

In a judgment delivered on 15 March 2004 by the Rome Assize Court, the applicant, a national Romanian, was found guilty of murder in absentia and sentenced to 28 years' imprisonment. His lawyer, who was appointed by the Court, took part in the proceedings. The pleadings were notified only to the latter.

In a judgment of 17 January 2005, the Assize Court of Appeal of Rome dismissed the lawyer's appeal and upheld the trial judgment.

By a judgment of 22 June 2005, the Court of Cassation dismissed as inadmissible the cassation appeal filed by a court-appointed attorney, on the ground that the complaints raised were essentially concerning with the assessment of facts and evidence.

In October 2006, the applicant was arrested in Romania in execution of the international arrest warrant issued by the Italian authorities and extradited to Italy.

On 15 February 2007 the applicant, relying on Article 175 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, submitted that his appeal against his conviction should not be time-barred. He argued that he had not absconded from justice and had not waived his right to appear, stating that because he had not been notified of the procedural developments at his place of residence in Romania, he had not been duly informed of the criminal proceedings against him.

By a decision of 12 April 2007, the Rome Assize Court of Appeal found that the applicant had no “effective” knowledge of the proceedings; therefore, he could not to be considered as having absconded from justice and as having waived his right to appear.

As a result, the claimant was entitled to be exempted from the time-bar but to appeal only against the second-instance judgment, since the sole appeal that his court-appointed attorney didn’t file was the appeal in cassation. Moreover, the Assize Court of Appeal ordered the release of the applicant.

The applicant appealed on points of law, alleging that he should have a fresh trial on the merits, not only a decision on points of law. In a judgment of 13 January 2008, deposited at the Registry on 7 February 2008, the Court of Cassation in Plenary Session specified that a person convicted in absentia forfeited his right to the re-opening of the period for appeal if the assigned counsel had, independently and without the client’s knowledge, appealed against the decision in question and if the Court of competent jurisdiction had then ruled on that appeal. Consequently, the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's appeal.

In another set of proceedings concerning a different person convicted in absentia, the Constitutional Court, by the judgment no. 317 of 4 December 2009, declared the Article 175 § 2 c.p.p. to be in breach of the Constitution, insofar as this provision did not allow a defendant not having effective knowledge of the proceedings to reopen the period for an appeal against a decision given in absentia where the same appeal had previously been lodged by counsel.

On the basis of the judgment of the Constitutional Court on 14 December 2009, the applicant lodged a request for a new time-limit for appeal. This request was rejected on 11 February 2010 by the Assize Court of Rome, on the ground that the applicant had taken awareness of his conviction on 25 January 2007, so that the thirty-day period had expired and that the applicant himself could have raise a complaint based on the unconstitutionality of the disputed provision.

The applicant appealed in cassation. By a decision of 9 February 2011, the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's complaint.

In its judgment of 1 September 2016, the European Court of Human Rights stated that the applicant had no “effective” knowledge of the proceedings and found that the rights of defense of an accused -
not having absconded from justice and not unequivocally renouncing its procedural safeguards -
cannot be reduced to the point of rendering them inoperative under the pretext of guaranteeing other fundamental rights of the proceedings, such as the right to "reasonable time" or "ne bis in idem", or, a fortiori, for issues related to the workload of the courts.

The Court found that the applicant did not have the possibility of a new decision on the merits, despite the fact that his absence from the proceedings was not attributable to him (violation of Article 6 of the Convention).

Source:
http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=DH-DD(2020)587E

[Stacyhs]

That is ridiculous even for Italy. No wonder the ECHR ruled in his favor. At least he'll be given a new trial with him in attendance.

Quote:

Under Italian law valid in 2014, a defense lawyer is entitled to conduct investigations and also to have access to the official investigation or case file.

If the official investigation and case file were as crappy as Knox's and Sollecito's, the guy could be completely innocent and not have stood a chance.

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

That is ridiculous even for Italy. No wonder the ECHR ruled in his favor. At least he'll be given a new trial with him in attendance.



If the official investigation and case file were as crappy as Knox's and Sollecito's, the guy could be completely innocent and not have stood a chance.

It's easy to understand how such travesties occur in Italy, if one accepts the proposition that many judges in Italy simply do not choose to recognize the principles of the Italian Constitution or the Convention regarding defense rights.

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

That is ridiculous even for Italy. No wonder the ECHR ruled in his favor. At least he'll be given a new trial with him in attendance.



If the official investigation and case file were as crappy as Knox's and Sollecito's, the guy could be completely innocent and not have stood a chance.

Originally Posted by Numbers

It's easy to understand how such travesties occur in Italy, if one accepts the proposition that many judges in Italy simply do not choose to recognize the principles of the Italian Constitution or the Convention regarding defense rights.

The Knox - Sollecito case and the Huzuneanu case provide evidence for this proposition.

For example, in the summary of the Huzuneanu case provided by the Italian Government, the Italian courts refused to follow a pertinent ruling of the Italian Constitutional Court, the only court in Italy which is allowed to interpret and determine the constitutionality of Italian laws:

Quote:

In another set of proceedings concerning a different person convicted in absentia, the Constitutional Court, by the judgment no. 317 of 4 December 2009, declared the Article 175 § 2 c.p.p. to be in breach of the Constitution, insofar as this provision did not allow a defendant not having effective knowledge of the proceedings to reopen the period for an appeal against a decision given in absentia where the same appeal had previously been lodged by counsel.

On the basis of the judgment of the Constitutional Court on 14 December 2009, the applicant lodged a request for a new time-limit for appeal. This request was rejected on 11 February 2010 by the Assize Court of Rome, on the ground that the applicant had taken awareness of his conviction on 25 January 2007, so that the thirty-day period had expired and that the applicant himself could have raise a complaint based on the unconstitutionality of the disputed provision.

The applicant appealed in cassation. By a decision of 9 February 2011, the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's complaint.

A somewhat similar approach was taken by the convicting courts and the Chieffi CSC panel. As pointed out in the Marasca CSC panel MR, those courts ignored the provision of Article 111 of the Italian Constitution* and the related laws in the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) that make use of Guede's unexamined statements as evidence for guilt, by using the subterfuge of introducing them through the MR of Guede's conviction.

The Italian courts, including the CSC and the Constitutional Court, are also obligated to follow the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, including interpreting Italian law so as to not contradict those provisions.

There's an interesting difference between the Italian Constitutional Court system and that of the US Supreme Court and of the supreme courts of the states.

In the US, an individual, such as a defendant in a criminal case, may appeal, following lower and appeal court judgments to the appropriate US (Federal or State) Supreme Court on the grounds that a government action had violated his or her rights.

However, in Italy, no non-governmental person may seek a judgment from the Constitutional Court. For a criminal case, only the judge trying the case, who considers that there may be a conflict between a law and the Constitution in the circumstances of that case, can seek a judgment. The prosecutor or the defendant may raise the issue of constitutionality to the judge, or judge may consider the issue on his own cognizance. The Italian Constitutional Court has published a pamphlet (in English) which explains its role and operations, including this relevant information:

Quote:

Above all, the Constituent Assembly made a fundamental choice as regards the general system of the judicial review of the constitutionality of laws; it stipulated that a law could not be directly challenged before the Court by any party, but that questions of a law’s constitutionality could only be raised by judges in the course of applying that law. Thus, any judicial authority – from the justice of the peace of a small town, to the tax commission of a Province, up to the Supreme Court, or even an official arbitrator – who must resolve a dispute that requires the application of a legal provision, where there is a doubt as to that provision’s constitutionality, has both the power and the duty to certify that question to the Constitutional Court.

The judge cannot simply decide the case as if the law did not exist, that is, by ignoring it, even if he is convinced of its unconstitutionality, but neither is he required to apply that law “mechanically”: if he is unable to confer upon the law an interpretation that enables it to conform to the Constitution, he must instead put the question of constitutionality to the only organ with authority to resolve it–that is, the Constitutional Court.

In the Huzuneanu case, the refusal of the appeal court and the CSC to follow the Constitutional Court decision number 317 of 4 December 2009 is clear evidence of the dysfunction of the Italian judicial system.


* The guilt of the defendant cannot be established on the basis of statements by persons who, out of their own free choice, have always voluntarily avoided undergoing cross-examination by the defendant or the defence counsel.

Sources:

https://www.senato.it/documenti/repo...ne_inglese.pdf

https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/d...onal_Court.pdf

Pages 27 - 28

[Stacyhs]

Very interesting, Numbers.

[schmidt61]

https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_Meredith_Kercher

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by schmidt61

https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_Meredith_Kercher

And your point is?

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

And your point is?

That he doesn't know how to post links properly?

(There's a ":" missing so it goes nowhere.)

[schmidt61]

Its mean I'm out of practice since I struggle at my best putting links in. Or deleting them after screwing up the attempt.

The lower level of the house was occupied by four Italian young men with whom both Kercher and Knox were friendly. Late one night in mid-October, Kercher and Knox met Rudy Guede when they returned home at 2:00 a.m. Guede had been invited into the lower level flat by some of the Italian tenants, to whom he had attached himself. At 4:30 a.m., Kercher and Knox left.[8][9]

Also in mid-October, Kercher and Knox attended the EuroChocolate festival. On 25 October 2007, Kercher and Knox attended a classical music concert where Knox met Raffaele Sollecito, a 23-year-old computer science student,[10] at the University of Perugia.[11][12] from Murder Meredith Kercher wiki.

I found it interesting that know no one could pinpoint the day they meet. The time 2:00 a.m. would be the time Amanda got off work. Why was she with Meredith when she runs into Giacomo and Marco talking with Rudy?

In his deposition (March 26, 2008 Rudy version is Amanda is alone after they talk he learns her was name is Amanda from Seattle he thinks he remembers her. He said she than said yes we met at the pub Le Chic. In his deposition March 26, 2008 he places the date of the Le Chic meeting Sept 4. He places this meeting as the 12th or 14th of October. The break-in of the lawyers was October 13th a bit late to create a alibi for a event he claims he had nothing to do with.

Since Amanda was in Germany and didn't spend her first night in the cottage until September 20th so this a lie.

So this the first time he meets both Meredith and Amanda is important. Since he claims in his deposition he saw Amanda in the streets many times but it was just a hi and bye. Since he claims to find out about Le Chic from a flyer, flyers Amanda handed out.

He claims he saw Meredith around town many times in October. He in company of his friends Alex and Phillip saw Meredith at the pub Shamrock watching the rugby final England vs South Africa October 20th. Which was second time he claims he saw her.

October 20th is also the night Meredith, Amanda, Amy Frost (Meredith friend) were invited to the disco the Red Zone by the boys Giacomo and Marco. Page 48 Waiting to be Heard. Amanda had hooked up with Daniel from Rome that night and Meredith spent that night in Giacomo bed. Amanda describes a wild night at wild night at No. 7 Via della Pergola. It was a one time event.

Rudy other visit to boy's apartment was October 21st. When they watched the last Formula 1 race taking place in Brazil. At around 5 pm.

Page 15 of Rudy Prison diary: Rudy claims he had been invited to dinner by the boys but showed up late and missed them no one was at the cottage. He claims to have gone to Le Chic looking for Amanda hoping she knew where they went. She wasn't there. It was until he saw them on the 21st he found out Amanda and boys had gone to the Red Zone. He leaves Meredith out. Just like the first time they meet he doesn't she Meredith until she comes down from the girls apartment. The boys talk about all the events that happen at the Red Zone. He then says "What happens to the guys at the Red Zone this is their own business that has to do with them."

The real point would be boys being boys did they talk about what happen at the cottage later that night?

Did he know about Giacomo and Meredith relationship?

[schmidt61]

It emerges from the court documents that of the three personal meetings that the defendant claimed to have had with the victim prior to the homicide, only one has been proven: the one a week before the homicide, in the basement of 7 Via della Pergola in the apartment of the boys from the Marche region in which Amanda and Meredith were also present, where Guede showed an interest in Amanda, which he spoke of, without however showing any interest towards Meredith (witness Stefano Bonassi). With regards to the meeting at “Domus” [discotheque] on the night of Halloween, in which he claimed to have exchanged a few words and a kiss (he clarified it was on the cheek when testifying; furthermore the meeting was organized a few days before the homicide, in the house of some Spanish friends, with whom the English girl had no connection), none of his friends and none of Meredith’s friends (in particular Amy Frost who was with her all night) saw the two speaking together or even being anywhere near each other. Regarding the meeting at the local [bar] the “Shamrock”, on the day of the rugby World Cup final between England and South Africa, played in Paris on 20 October 2007 and won by South Africa, which was transmitted in TV in the aforementioned local [bar], she met during the course of it the defendant who apparently made fun of Meredith for the defeat of her team, none of the friends who he frequented most at that time, Alex Crudo and Philip Michael Maly, also present at the transmission of the match, had noted Guede talking with Kercher, who they did not even know, indeed it was the defendant himself that reminded them, after the homicide, that that girl was present that day in that bar.

This from Borini-Belardi Motivations Report at Injustice in Perugia cases file/Transcripts.

Spot the error he has Rudy's first visit at the cottage as a week before the murder which is October 25th the night Amanda met Raffaele and spent the night at his apartment.

[Stacyhs]

Quote:

I found it interesting that know no one could pinpoint the day they meet. The time 2:00 a.m. would be the time Amanda got off work. Why was she with Meredith when she runs into Giacomo and Marco talking with Rudy?

I don't know what night it was but AK says in her book that Patrick closed the bar early that night due to it being slow and and she texted MK who said she'd meet her at Piazza Nov IV which was close by and walk her home.* AK saw the boys downstairs there and that's when they met up.

* Does that sound like something a person who couldn't stand the other would do?

[TomG]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I don't know what night it was but AK says in her book that Patrick closed the bar early that night due to it being slow and and she texted MK who said she'd meet her at Piazza Nov IV which was close by and walk her home.* AK saw the boys downstairs there and that's when they met up.

* Does that sound like something a person who couldn't stand the other would do?

I noticed from Amanda's cell phone log that there had been 24 phone calls between Amanda and Meredith between 1st October 2007 and 2nd November 2007. The last being on 1st October. Half of them were originated by Meredith. To me that sounds like normal phone traffic between friends. Meredith would have had the good sense to give Amanda and Raffaele more leeway after they met anyway, giving Meredith more time with Giacomo and her English friends.

Hoots

[TomG]

In the above post 478 I should have said that the last phone call from Meredith to Amanda was on the 31st October not the 1st. Apologies.

Hoots

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by TomG

I noticed from Amanda's cell phone log that there had been 24 phone calls between Amanda and Meredith between 1st October 2007 and 2nd November 2007. The last being on 1st October. Half of them were originated by Meredith. To me that sounds like normal phone traffic between friends. Meredith would have had the good sense to give Amanda and Raffaele more leeway after they met anyway, giving Meredith more time with Giacomo and her English friends.

Hoots

Agreed. That hardly sounds like someone who was trying to avoid someone she didn't like which. Once again, the facts just don't back up the PGP's claims.