ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Reply
Old 21st November 2019, 06:08 PM   #401
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,034
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Your usual gross exaggeration. The persons specifically mentioned by Numbers were "..the police and prosecutor, that is, incriminated on false evidence, during and at the conclusion of the interrogations of Nov. 5/6, 2007.
If you have to resort to hyperbolic misrepresentation, then you obviously don't have a solid base for your counter-argument.

"False", or at the very least highly misleading, testimony was presented by Stefanoni when she kept using the term "luminol revealed footprints" without revealing the negative TMB results. This omission heavily implied the footprints were in blood. Indeed, that is exactly what Massei concluded...they were Knox's footprints in blood. I assume you find it plausible that Stefanoni simply forgot to mention these very important tests?


What I find amusing is this coming from the person who has repeatedly accused the mafia, the Masons, and the US State Dept. of orchestrating two acquittals including by the Supreme Court of Italy.
It's an interesting question: Who is responsible for the violations of Knox's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, that is, the violations found in the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights?

One way to answer this it to look at the text of the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular the preamble (introductory part) of the Convention as well as Article 1 of the Convention, as shown below.

Based on those texts, it is clear that the State of Italy was and is responsible, under Italian and international law, for any violations of Knox's rights under the Convention that occurred in Italy (or the violation of the Convention rights of anyone within the territory or control of Italy).

Under ECHR case-law, it is the responsibility of the State in which a violation has occurred to investigate and hold accountable any of its agents, or other persons, who have violated the Convention rights of any person within the territory or control of that State.

1. The preamble* makes clear that the governments, treaty members of the Council of Europe, by signing the Convention, take the responsibility of the collective enforcement of certain rights listed in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Italy was one of the founding members of the Council of Europe and was one of the states active in drafting and enacting the Convention,

2. Text of Article 1:

Obligation to respect Human Rights

The High Contracting Parties {the States who are treaty members of the Council of Europe} shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.


*Text of the preamble:

Quote:
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Rome, 4.XI.1950

The Governments signatory here to, being members of the Council of Europe,

Considering the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10th December 1948;

Considering that this Declaration aims at securing the universal and effective recognition and observance of the Rights therein declared;

Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is the achievement of greater unity between its members and that one of the methods by which that aim is to be pursued is the maintenance and further realisation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Reaffirming their profound belief in those fundamental freedoms which are the foundation of justice and peace in the world and are best maintained on the one hand by an effective political democracy and on the other by a common understanding and observance of the Human Rights upon which they depend;

Being resolved, as the governments of European countries which are like-minded and have a common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law, to take the first steps for [HILITE[the collective enforcement of certain of the rights stated in the Universal Declaration[/hilite],

Have agreed as follows:

Last edited by Numbers; 21st November 2019 at 06:11 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 06:25 PM   #402
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,387
Originally Posted by Vixen
And why would*whole teams of literally hundreds of staff*conspire together to incriminate*your heroeswith false evidence?

Back to the drawing board.
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
What I find amusing is this coming from the person who has repeatedly accused the mafia, the Masons, and the US State Dept. of orchestrating two acquittals including by the Supreme Court of Italy.
It is amusing isn't it. Vixen, et al., advances a conspiracy involving not one, not two, not three, but four great "institutions".....
1) Italian judiciary, including the highest court in the land
2) The Mafia
3) The Masons
4) Big Media in the United States
Maybe the middle two can manage a secretive conspiracy, but most certainly both the Italian judiciary and American Media would have middle level managers who'd have no compunction about blowing the whistle on their bosses if they thought the bosses had been engaged in a conspiracy.

I mean, the 1st Chambers of the ISC (which in 2013 annulled the Hellmann acquittals) has been virtually silent about the 5th Chambers acquittal in 2015. That includes lower level staffers supporting the 300+ judges in the ISC in total, none of whom have griped about the eventual acquittals.

The only people theorizing about a massive conspiracy are the guilter-nutters.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 06:34 PM   #403
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,034
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
It's an interesting question: Who is responsible for the violations of Knox's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, that is, the violations found in the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights?

One way to answer this it to look at the text of the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular the preamble (introductory part) of the Convention as well as Article 1 of the Convention, as shown below.

Based on those texts, it is clear that the State of Italy was and is responsible, under Italian and international law, for any violations of Knox's rights under the Convention that occurred in Italy (or the violation of the Convention rights of anyone within the territory or control of Italy).

Under ECHR case-law, it is the responsibility of the State in which a violation has occurred to investigate and hold accountable any of its agents, or other persons, who have violated the Convention rights of any person within the territory or control of that State.
....
Given the above information, the legal summary of Knox v. Italy, prepared by the Registry of the ECHR, can provide some insight into the areas the Government of Italy will likely address in the Action Plan that the Council of Europe's Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR is awaiting. The actions and failures to act of the state agents (specifically the police and prosecutor involved in the interrogation, and of the relevant courts), are key to understanding some of the official misconduct in the case. (The ECHR did not address the murder/rape case itself, so certain official misconduct directly relating only to that case, such as that of Stefanoni, was not considered).

Here is the legal summary (previously posted on ISF):

Quote:
Knox v. Italy - 76577/13

Judgment 24.1.2019 [Section I]

Article 3

Effective investigation

Lack of an investigation into allegations of ill-treatment by the police during the questioning of a person in a state of shock: violation

Article 6

Article 6-3-c

Defence through legal assistance

Use in evidence of a malicious accusation, made to the police by a person in a state of shock, without access to a lawyer: violation

Article 6-3-e

Free assistance of interpreter


Interpreter having acted as a mediator and with a motherly attitude during the questioning of a person in a state of shock: violation

Facts – At the time of the events Ms Knox, a 20 year-old American student, had been in Italy for about two months. She had found a temporary job in a pub run by D.L. Following the discovery of the body of a girl living in the same flat as the applicant, who was then present on the premises with her boyfriend, they were both interviewed by the police and their telephone conversations were monitored.

On 6 November 2007 at 1.45 a.m., the applicant was interviewed by three police officers and A.D., who had been called as an interpreter. She stated, among other things, that D.L. had committed the crimes. The public prosecutor then interviewed the applicant at 5.45 a.m., with A.D. and some police officers being present. The applicant was not assisted by a lawyer during that interview. At 8.30 a.m., the applicant, her boyfriend and D.L. were formally arrested on charges of sexual assault and murder. Having provided an alibi, D.L. was later released.

Around 1 p.m. and throughout the proceedings, the applicant spoke of her state of shock and confusion during her last incriminating interview under police pressure, and she retracted her accusation against D.L. However, on 14 May 2008, she was formally charged with bringing a malicious accusation.

Following a hearing on 13 March 2009, at which the applicant again alleged that she had been ill-treated during the interview of 6 November 2007 and complained about the conduct of the interpreter A.D., her defence requested the transmission of documents to the public prosecutor’s office, but nothing happened. Further proceedings were brought against the applicant for falsely accusing the police officers and prosecutor who had questioned her on 6 November 2007.

In September 2015 the Court of Cassation acquitted the applicant on the charges of murder and sexual assault and observed that her conviction and three-year prison sentence for the malicious accusation against D.L. had already become final. The applicant was also acquitted on the charge of falsely accusing the police officers and the prosecutor.

Law

Article 3 (procedural limb): On 6 November 2007, a few hours after making incriminating statements about D.L. and throughout the proceedings, the applicant had clearly explained that she had been in an extreme state of shock and confusion and that the police had put pressure on her. The Court of Appeal, in its judgment of 3 October 2011, had concluded that the applicant had in fact been subjected to a genuine degree of torment, placing her in an unbearable psychological situation from which she had sought to extract herself by incriminating D.L.

In addition, the interpreter had been acting more as a “mediator”, even though she was not required to go beyond her interpreting duties. One of the police officers had even embraced and caressed the applicant and had clasped her hands, thus clearly behaving inappropriately, especially in a context where she had made accusations subsequently characterised as malicious which had resulted in her conviction.

The above-mentioned behaviour, which shed light on the general conditions in which the applicant had been interviewed, should have alerted the national authorities to the possibility that her dignity and capacity for self-determination had been impaired.

In spite of her repeated complaints, the treatment complained of had not led to any investigation capable of shedding light on the facts and on any responsibilities. In particular, her lawyer’s request of 13 March 2009 for the transmission of documents to the public prosecutor had remained unanswered. Moreover, the criminal proceedings against the applicant for bringing a malicious accusation against the authorities – which had in fact led to her acquittal, as there was no evidence that her account of what had happened was inaccurate – could not constitute an effective investigation into the applicant’s complaints.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c)

(a) Applicability of Article 6The Court reiterated that a “criminal charge” existed from the moment that an individual was officially notified by the competent authority of an allegation that he had committed a criminal offence, or from the point at which his situation had been substantially affected by actions taken by the authorities as a result of a suspicion against him. The applicant could certainly be regarded as a suspect by the time she made her statement to the public prosecutor, at 5.45 a.m. on 6 November 2007. Therefore by 5.45 a.m. at the latest, there had been a criminal charge against her within the meaning of the Convention.

(b) Whether there were any compelling reasons to justify the restriction of her right of access to a lawyer – The Government had relied on the interpretation of domestic case-law to point out that the impugned statements of 6 November 2007, even though no lawyer had been present, could be used in evidence, as they incorporated in themselves a criminal offence. The Court noted, however, that this interpretation was general in scope and the Government had failed to establish that there had been exceptional circumstances in the present case to justify the restrictions on the applicant’s right. Thus there was no compelling reason capable of justifying the restriction on her access to a lawyer.

(c) Overall fairness of the proceedings – [HIILITE]A few hours after the interview of 6 November 2007, the applicant, who was vulnerable as a foreigner and as a young woman of 20, not having been in Italy for long and not being fluent in Italian, had promptly gone back on her statements. Nevertheless, six months later, on 14 May 2008, she was charged with malicious accusation[/hilite].

The impugned statements had been taken in a context of heightened psychological pressure, which had not been investigated. And those statements had constituted in themselves the offence with which she was charged and therefore the real evidence on the basis of which she had been found guilty of bringing a malicious accusation. Lastly, the record of the applicant’s interview at 5.45 a.m. did not indicate that she had been notified of her procedural rights.

Consequently, the restriction of the applicant’s access to legal assistance during her interview of 6 November 2007 at 5.45 a.m. had irretrievably impaired the overall fairness of the proceedings.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously)
.

Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (e): The fact that the interpreter A.D. had played the role of a mediator, adopting a motherly attitude, while the applicant, having been charged with a criminal offence, was formulating her statement, had gone beyond the duties expected of an interpreter. However, the authorities had failed to assess the conduct of A.D., to examine whether her interpreting assistance had been consistent with the safeguards under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (e) of the Convention, or to consider whether that conduct had had an impact on the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. In addition, in the relevant police record there was no mention of the exchanges between the applicant and A.D. during the interview of 6 November 2007.

That initial failure had thus had repercussions for other rights, which were separate but closely related to the right at issue, and had undermined the overall fairness of the proceedings.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously)
.

The Court also found that there had been no violation of Article 3 in its substantive limb, as there was insufficient evidence for it to conclude that the applicant had actually sustained the inhuman or degrading treatment of which she had complained.

Last edited by Numbers; 21st November 2019 at 06:46 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2019, 02:02 PM   #404
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,880
Alfred Chestnut and two other men were just released from prison where they'd been for 36 years for a crime they did not commit.
The sole physical evidence was a sports jacket similar to the one the victim was wearing when he was killed. Despite there being no blood or gun residue on the similar jacket and a receipt for the recent purchase of the jacket, the three men were convicted and sentenced to life. The witnesses who identified the three were all juveniles who were interviewed as a group without their parents and claim they were told to "get their story straight' by the police. They later recanted their testimony. Anonymous calls to the police claimed to have seen another man wearing the victim's jacket and who confessed to the murder. This information was never given to the defense lawyers.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/26/us/ba...ion/index.html

All three men have been issued certificates of innocence.

Like the Kercher case, unreliable evidence and witnesses led to wrongful convictions of innocent people.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 26th November 2019 at 02:53 PM.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2019, 04:35 PM   #405
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,292
My God, that's appalling. Further discussion would probably be a derail though.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2019, 06:14 PM   #406
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,880
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
My God, that's appalling. Further discussion would probably be a derail though.
I wanted to point out the incompetent investigation, the failure to reveal evidence by the police/prosecution to the defense and the manipulation by the police of the witnesses which were similar in the Kercher case.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2019, 06:35 PM   #407
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,292
And a good few more we could all mention. It's horrific.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2019, 07:26 AM   #408
TomG
Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 181
Red face Footprint on bath-mat. How did it get there?

This section of the Massei report was quoted in a recent debate:

"As a consequence, the shape of the bare footprint on the sky-blue mat in the little bathroom cannot be attributed to Rudy, who, on leaving Meredith’s room (according to what the shoe prints show), directed himself towards the exit without deviating or stopping in other rooms.” (The Massei report, page 379)."

This at least is interesting. Raffaele is ruled out by M/B since they say "technical analysis did not go beyond a conclusion of “probable identity” to one of certainty (ff. 260/1). (page 51). Since M/B exclude K&S from the murder room it would have been impossible for Raffaele to trail enough blood on his foot into the bathroom to constitute the footprint, but it seems that Rudy didn't either. So what really happened with the footprint on the blue bath-mat?

It could be argued that Rudy lost one of his Nike Outbreak trainers in the struggle, but this is unlikely since Nike outbreaks are chunky and are more like boots:
http://only-sneakers.ru/tag/nike-outbreak/ So it seems that we are looking at reasons why Rudy would remove his shoe. The only reason is that it got soaked in blood which then means he took it off. He couldn't have taken his shoe of in the bathroom or there would have been bloody tracks leading there so he must have taken it off in Merediths bedroom. The photograph showing marker "C" shows the footprint in watery blood so it seems that Rudy has went back into Meredith's room after washing the bloody trainer in the sink. and put in back on in Meredith's room http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/crime-...mber-2-3-2007/

The IA website suggests that the print was made by Rudy transferring the blood onto the mat not directly from his foot but from a bloody towel that he stood on. If that's the case Rudy must have been ferrying towels from the shared bathroom with one shoe on and one shoe off, which I suppose is feasible, however, towels were taken from the bathroom were clean and if the theory is correct at least one bloody towel must have made its way back into the shared bathroom for him to stand on. If you look at the phenolphtheleine pink reaction on the bathroom sink it seems that rinsing of towels might have occurred to be re-used.

I'll play devil's advocate with this and suggest that it could even be argued that the footprint could have been left by Raffaele without him being in the murder room and by standing on a bloody towel in the shared bathroom in effort to help Rudy; however, M/B state that the footprint doesn't extend to "certainty" as to who left it.

Any solutions?

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2019, 08:31 AM   #409
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,387
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
This section of the Massei report was quoted in a recent debate:

"As a consequence, the shape of the bare footprint on the sky-blue mat in the little bathroom cannot be attributed to Rudy, who, on leaving Meredith’s room (according to what the shoe prints show), directed himself towards the exit without deviating or stopping in other rooms.” (The Massei report, page 379)."
This, despite Rudy's own admission that he went from the murder room to the small bathroom to get towels.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2019, 11:57 AM   #410
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,384
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
This section of the Massei report was quoted in a recent debate:

"As a consequence, the shape of the bare footprint on the sky-blue mat in the little bathroom cannot be attributed to Rudy, who, on leaving Meredith’s room (according to what the shoe prints show), directed himself towards the exit without deviating or stopping in other rooms.” (The Massei report, page 379)."

This at least is interesting. Raffaele is ruled out by M/B since they say "technical analysis did not go beyond a conclusion of “probable identity” to one of certainty (ff. 260/1). (page 51). Since M/B exclude K&S from the murder room it would have been impossible for Raffaele to trail enough blood on his foot into the bathroom to constitute the footprint, but it seems that Rudy didn't either. So what really happened with the footprint on the blue bath-mat?

It could be argued that Rudy lost one of his Nike Outbreak trainers in the struggle, but this is unlikely since Nike outbreaks are chunky and are more like boots:
http://only-sneakers.ru/tag/nike-outbreak/ So it seems that we are looking at reasons why Rudy would remove his shoe. The only reason is that it got soaked in blood which then means he took it off. He couldn't have taken his shoe of in the bathroom or there would have been bloody tracks leading there so he must have taken it off in Merediths bedroom. The photograph showing marker "C" shows the footprint in watery blood so it seems that Rudy has went back into Meredith's room after washing the bloody trainer in the sink. and put in back on in Meredith's room http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/crime-...mber-2-3-2007/

The IA website suggests that the print was made by Rudy transferring the blood onto the mat not directly from his foot but from a bloody towel that he stood on. If that's the case Rudy must have been ferrying towels from the shared bathroom with one shoe on and one shoe off, which I suppose is feasible, however, towels were taken from the bathroom were clean and if the theory is correct at least one bloody towel must have made its way back into the shared bathroom for him to stand on. If you look at the phenolphtheleine pink reaction on the bathroom sink it seems that rinsing of towels might have occurred to be re-used.

I'll play devil's advocate with this and suggest that it could even be argued that the footprint could have been left by Raffaele without him being in the murder room and by standing on a bloody towel in the shared bathroom in effort to help Rudy; however, M/B state that the footprint doesn't extend to "certainty" as to who left it.

Any solutions?

Hoots

My theory is;

Guede's pant leg was soaked in blood and he didn't want to risk being seen in public with so much visible blood so he went into the small bathroom to rinse it off. He gets to the bathroom, removes his shoe and sock and rinses his pants leg off in the shower. In the process, some diluted blood settled on the bottom of his foot. He steps on the mat as he reaches for his sock and in the process leaves the print. He puts on his sock and shoe and leaves the bathroom, leaving no trace of his trip except the print on the mat.

This is, of course, just theory but I think it's reasonable, credible and fits with the evidence.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2019, 12:02 PM   #411
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,384
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
This, despite Rudy's own admission that he went from the murder room to the small bathroom to get towels.
Just one of the many conclusions made by Massei. You have to wonder, did they honestly believe this (a scary thought) or was this the best they could do to minimize Guede's involvement (a troubling thought).
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2019, 01:19 PM   #412
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,880
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
My theory is;

Guede's pant leg was soaked in blood and he didn't want to risk being seen in public with so much visible blood so he went into the small bathroom to rinse it off. He gets to the bathroom, removes his shoe and sock and rinses his pants leg off in the shower. In the process, some diluted blood settled on the bottom of his foot. He steps on the mat as he reaches for his sock and in the process leaves the print. He puts on his sock and shoe and leaves the bathroom, leaving no trace of his trip except the print on the mat.

This is, of course, just theory but I think it's reasonable, credible and fits with the evidence.
In the police video you can see the print is in the lower right corner of the mat at the end farthest from the shower with the toes pointing toward the shower. If he'd stepped out of the shower, the print would be on the opposite end of the mat with the toes pointing away. The print is in front of the bidet which also had diluted blood in it. These indicate he rinsed his pant leg/foot in the bidet.

ETA: On second thought, Amanda says she used the mat to slide from the shower to her bedroom. She could have turned the mat 180 degrees when she put it back. Regardless, there was blood in the bidet indicating it was used to rinse blood from the foot.

I do find it odd that Knox would use the mat in such a way having noticed blood on it, but I can find no motive for her to lie about doing so. There was no need for her to make up such a story.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 27th November 2019 at 01:46 PM.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2019, 01:54 PM   #413
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,384
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
In the police video you can see the print is in the lower right corner of the mat at the end farthest from the shower with the toes pointing toward the shower. If he'd stepped out of the shower, the print would be on the opposite end of the mat with the toes pointing away. The print is in front of the bidet which also had diluted blood in it. These indicate he rinsed his pant leg/foot in the bidet.
I never felt there was enough evidence to accurately determine where he rinsed his pant leg. I assume the shower as it would be much easier than using the bidet. I also didn't envision him fully standing in it, but rather just sticking one leg in to let the water run on it. If he did it this way he would be facing the shower and thus, when he pulls his leg out of the shower his foot would be pointing towards it. If it happened like this, then this would also explain why his heel never touched the floor. That is, his right foot would be behind his left foot, and as such he would naturally be up on the ball of his foot. Perhaps he was holding onto the edge of the sink for balance. Too bad there were no blood drops on the front right corner of the sink, they might have found Guede's touch DNA there.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to theorize all the details, just the basic premise of how it could have played out and why there is just the one print. YMMV.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2019, 02:17 PM   #414
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,880
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
I never felt there was enough evidence to accurately determine where he rinsed his pant leg. I assume the shower as it would be much easier than using the bidet. I also didn't envision him fully standing in it, but rather just sticking one leg in to let the water run on it. If he did it this way he would be facing the shower and thus, when he pulls his leg out of the shower his foot would be pointing towards it. If it happened like this, then this would also explain why his heel never touched the floor. That is, his right foot would be behind his left foot, and as such he would naturally be up on the ball of his foot. Perhaps he was holding onto the edge of the sink for balance. Too bad there were no blood drops on the front right corner of the sink, they might have found Guede's touch DNA there.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to theorize all the details, just the basic premise of how it could have played out and why there is just the one print. YMMV.
To have the end of the mat with the footprint next to the shower, it would require turning it 180 degrees which would then have the footprint facing away from the shower.

That no one can come up with a plausible explanation that explains everything is frustrating. But neither the forensics nor logic support a clean up by either Guede or Knox/Sollecito.

ETA: The only situation that would fit the physical evidence is that Guede did not have blood on the bottom of his shoes when he went into the bathroom thus leaving no tracks in or out. It's possible his pant leg became bloody during the struggle with Meredith or when he knelt in it so he rinsed it off in the bidet thus leaving the footprint. Replacing his shoe on his foot, he then went back into the bedroom where he stepped in blood with his left shoe perhaps while rummaging through Kercher's purse on the bed where he'd laid down the bloody knife.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 27th November 2019 at 02:41 PM.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2019, 03:01 PM   #415
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,384
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
To have the end of the mat with the footprint next to the shower, it would require turning it 180 degrees which would then have the footprint facing away from the shower.

That no one can come up with a plausible explanation that explains everything is frustrating. But neither the forensics nor logic support a clean up by either Guede or Knox/Sollecito.

ETA: The only situation that would fit the physical evidence is that Guede did not have blood on the bottom of his shoes when he went into the bathroom thus leaving no tracks in or out. It's possible his pant leg became bloody during the struggle with Meredith or when he knelt in it so he rinsed it off in the bidet thus leaving the footprint. Replacing his shoe on his foot, he then went back into the bedroom where he stepped in blood with his left shoe perhaps while rummaging through Kercher's purse on the bed where he'd laid down the bloody knife.
Your ETA is exactly the scenario I envisioned only I suggested the shower. I still think it could have been the shower. Imagine the mat in front of the sink as in the photos. Now, envision standing on the mat, holding onto the sink with your left hand, you stick your right leg into the shower to rinse it off. When you pull it back out and step on the mat your right foot is behind you, which would put it towards the back right side of the mat.

The other part of my theory of Guede's movements are he heads for the front door, stepping in Meredith's blood, thus leaving a fading track going towards the door. He gets to the door, realizes he needs the key and then goes back to fetch the key. It might be then that he goes through her handbag, only this time he avoids blood. As he leaves the room it occurs to him he has her keys so he turns to lock the door. Since he didn't step in blood this time there is no indication he did that.

That's my set of theories and I'm sticking to them.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2019, 03:32 PM   #416
TomG
Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 181
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Your ETA is exactly the scenario I envisioned only I suggested the shower. I still think it could have been the shower. Imagine the mat in front of the sink as in the photos. Now, envision standing on the mat, holding onto the sink with your left hand, you stick your right leg into the shower to rinse it off. When you pull it back out and step on the mat your right foot is behind you, which would put it towards the back right side of the mat.

The other part of my theory of Guede's movements are he heads for the front door, stepping in Meredith's blood, thus leaving a fading track going towards the door. He gets to the door, realizes he needs the key and then goes back to fetch the key. It might be then that he goes through her handbag, only this time he avoids blood. As he leaves the room it occurs to him he has her keys so he turns to lock the door. Since he didn't step in blood this time there is no indication he did that.

That's my set of theories and I'm sticking to them.
OK. Based on other opinions:

Rudy stabs Meredith fatally and drops to her knees Rudy crouches down beside her. His jeans (lower leg) and shoe become drenched in blood. Rudy panics and takes his shoe off in Meredith's room. Rudy goes into the shared bathroom and puts his shoe in the sink, he takes his sock off and rinses the leg of his jeans in the shower/bidet (still wearing them) and leaves the print on the mat, he then puts his sock back on.

Rudy grabs all the towels from the bathroom although he might have made two trips to the bathroom to get towels. Rudy is desperate to confine the mess to Meredith's bedroom, he is freaked out that Meredith's blood-flow will reach the hallway so he moves her body to minimise the risk. Once he realises it's a lost cause and Meredith is dying he goes back to the bathroom to get the shoe he left in the sink, and rinses it out, then puts it back on in Meredith's room where he leaves blood/water footprints in Meredith's bedroom.

Rudy then adjusts Meredith further preparing her for a sexual assault, which he then carries out. He then goes directly out from Meredith's bedroom to exit VDP from the front door leaving a faint trail of bloody footprints as he went.

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2019, 04:15 PM   #417
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,880
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Your ETA is exactly the scenario I envisioned only I suggested the shower. I still think it could have been the shower. Imagine the mat in front of the sink as in the photos. Now, envision standing on the mat, holding onto the sink with your left hand, you stick your right leg into the shower to rinse it off. When you pull it back out and step on the mat your right foot is behind you, which would put it towards the back right side of the mat.
Definitely plausible. I'd never considered he'd rinsed off like that as I'd thought it was the bidet he'd used. Amanda had also used the shower the next morning which would have rinsed away any small amounts of blood possibly left by Guede. However....there is still the blood found in the bidet. Was this ever tested by Stefanoni to see if it could have been menstrual and left before the murder?

Quote:
The other part of my theory of Guede's movements are he heads for the front door, stepping in Meredith's blood, thus leaving a fading track going towards the door. He gets to the door, realizes he needs the key and then goes back to fetch the key. It might be then that he goes through her handbag, only this time he avoids blood. As he leaves the room it occurs to him he has her keys so he turns to lock the door. Since he didn't step in blood this time there is no indication he did that.

That's my set of theories and I'm sticking to them
.

The shoe prints fade as he gets closer to the door and end before he actually gets to the door. By this point, there is no blood on the bottom of the shoes to leave a print even detectable with luminol. If this is when he turns around to walk back to the bedroom, he leaves no evidence. It's more plausible than the PGP version which says Knox had to lock the door since it's her bloody footprint facing the door...even though that footprint had no DNA and wasn't in blood. It could have been left by Knox or even Meredith before the murder. If this were, indeed, Knox's footprint in blood, where are her other bloody footprints in Kercher's bedroom?
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2019, 04:19 PM   #418
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,880
TomG, do we even know for certain that Rudy was wearing socks?
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2019, 05:07 AM   #419
TomG
Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 181
No, I've went with TruthCalls version in that respect since it seemed plausible. It was late Autumn so it's reasonable to wear socks. I think what TruthCalls is a good version of events but even if he wasn't wearing socks he could have put his foot down on the mat leaving the bloody footprint and then dried his foot on a towel leaving no further footprints. You can tell in the photograph showing marker "C" that the footprint is a mixture of water and blood indicating that Rudy washed his shoe in the sink or bidet.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-con...3/dsc_0131.jpg

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 05:50 AM   #420
Wilson85
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 51
Will the ECHR release the action plan from Italy? The 6 month response time is almost over.
Wilson85 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 08:29 AM   #421
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,034
Originally Posted by Wilson85 View Post
Will the ECHR release the action plan from Italy? The 6 month response time is almost over.
Yes, the action plan, when it is provided by Italy, in due time will be published on the Committee of Ministers - Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR web site for case*. However, before the text of the action plan is published, the site will note that an action plan has been received and the date of receipt, and indicate that it is under assessment. Publication will follow the assessment.

Resolution of the case, even after the action plan is received by the Department for Execution of Judgments, may take some time. Not only individual measures, such as a revision hearing dealing with Knox's wrongful conviction, but other, general measures, such as law enforcement, judicial, or legal reforms may be involved.

As an example of the summary information that will potentially be available, see the summary of the action plan and CoE Committee of Ministers responses in a different case, Cestaro v. Italy 6884/11:

http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-28298

or

https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22E...004-28298%22]}

Submissions from Italy to the Department for Execution of Judgments may be found at:

https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution/submissions-italy

* That is, the site is under the management of a Council of Europe agency related to but not the ECHR itself.

Last edited by Numbers; 5th December 2019 at 08:44 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 09:36 AM   #422
Wilson85
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Yes, the action plan, when it is provided by Italy, in due time will be published on the Committee of Ministers - Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECHR web site for case*. However, before the text of the action plan is published, the site will note that an action plan has been received and the date of receipt, and indicate that it is under assessment. Publication will follow the assessment.

Resolution of the case, even after the action plan is received by the Department for Execution of Judgments, may take some time. Not only individual measures, such as a revision hearing dealing with Knox's wrongful conviction, but other, general measures, such as law enforcement, judicial, or legal reforms may be involved.

As an example of the summary information that will potentially be available, see the summary of the action plan and CoE Committee of Ministers responses in a different case, Cestaro v. Italy 6884/11:

http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-28298

or

https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22E...004-28298%22]}

Submissions from Italy to the Department for Execution of Judgments may be found at:

https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution/submissions-italy

* That is, the site is under the management of a Council of Europe agency related to but not the ECHR itself.
Thank you for the clarification and links.
Wilson85 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 10:41 AM   #423
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,034
Originally Posted by Wilson85 View Post
Thank you for the clarification and links.
Of additional interest is the submission of an NGO, the Italian Coalition for Civil Liberties and Rights (CILD) to the Committee of Ministers - Department of Execution of Judgments, for the Cestaro case. This submission alleges several serious deficiencies in the proposed or enacted general measures in that case.

The CoM accepts comments from NGOs and applicants relating to execution of judgments. Thus, human rights organizations such as CILD may (or may not) comment on any measures proposed in the Knox case action plan.

The link for the CILD comments (in English) in the Cestaro case is:

https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/resu...00001680989906
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 06:59 PM   #424
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,034
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Of additional interest is the submission of an NGO, the Italian Coalition for Civil Liberties and Rights (CILD) to the Committee of Ministers - Department of Execution of Judgments, for the Cestaro case. This submission alleges several serious deficiencies in the proposed or enacted general measures in that case.

The CoM accepts comments from NGOs and applicants relating to execution of judgments. Thus, human rights organizations such as CILD may (or may not) comment on any measures proposed in the Knox case action plan.

The link for the CILD comments (in English) in the Cestaro case is:

https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/resu...00001680989906
While no action plan from Italy for the case Knox v. Italy has been published to date, it may be informative to see the latest update provided by Italy to the Committee of Ministers for the case Cestaro v. Italy. This document discusses the law enacted against torture, including torture committed by public officers, by Italy in 2017, as now listed in CP Articles 613 bis and 613 ter, as well as some associated newly proposed practices, such as a requirement for police officers to wear body-mounted micro-cameras.

The update document, in French, dated 21 October 2019 and distributed in conjunction with the 3 - 5 December 2019 meeting of the CoM, may be seen at:

https://rm.coe.int/native/0900001680986824

The original action plan for Cestaro v. Italy, submitted by Italy 11 April 2016, in French, may be seen at:

http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=DH-DD(2016)481F

Last edited by Numbers; 5th December 2019 at 07:10 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 08:13 AM   #425
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,034
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
While no action plan from Italy for the case Knox v. Italy has been published to date, it may be informative to see the latest update provided by Italy to the Committee of Ministers for the case Cestaro v. Italy. This document discusses the law enacted against torture, including torture committed by public officers, by Italy in 2017, as now listed in CP Articles 613 bis and 613 ter, as well as some associated newly proposed practices, such as a requirement for police officers to wear body-mounted micro-cameras.

The update document, in French, dated 21 October 2019 and distributed in conjunction with the 3 - 5 December 2019 meeting of the CoM, may be seen at:

https://rm.coe.int/native/0900001680986824

The original action plan for Cestaro v. Italy, submitted by Italy 11 April 2016, in French, may be seen at:

http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=DH-DD(2016)481F
For those seeking a summary of the supervision process of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for the final judgments of ECHR cases - the stage applicable to Knox v. Italy - see:

https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution...657%22:[]}
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2019, 02:45 PM   #426
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,034
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
For those seeking a summary of the supervision process of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for the final judgments of ECHR cases - the stage applicable to Knox v. Italy - see:

https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution...657%22:[]}
It should be pointed out that while there is a due date for the Respondent State's action plan (AP, or first action report, AR) of six months following the final ECHR judgment, this is a "soft" due date that may be exceeded by a State.

As a first measure of how well Italy follows through on supplying AP/RPs, here is a comparison of its performance compared to that of the UK, France, and Germany (all west European democracies of populations equal to or greater than that of Italy).

To simply the following, here are some definitions for the table:

Total Cases: Total ECHR final judgment cases, including concluded ones, before the CoM

Leading Cases: The subset of Total Cases cases before the CoM that required an AP/AR; important cases, although some important cases are not "Leading" because their resolution is considered dependent on an earlier Leading Case.

The case Knox v. Italy is currently a Leading Case awaiting an AP/AR.

UK
Total Cases: 443
Leading Cases: 202
Leading Cases awaiting an AP/AR: 1

France
Total Cases: 1024
Leading Cases: 285
Leading Cases awaiting an AP/AR: 3

Germany
Total Cases: 228
Leading Cases: 79
Leading Cases awaiting an AP/AR: 0

Italy
Total Cases: 4217*
Leading Cases: 207
Leading Cases awaiting an AP/AR: 14**


*No State currently has more Total Cases.
** Including Knox v. Italy.

Source: https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22E...91;%22CEC%22]}

Last edited by Numbers; 6th December 2019 at 02:47 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2019, 04:26 AM   #427
TomG
Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 181
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
It should be pointed out that while there is a due date for the Respondent State's action plan (AP, or first action report, AR) of six months following the final ECHR judgment, this is a "soft" due date that may be exceeded by a State.
Is there any real reason why it should be more than 6 months? The calunnia isn't exactly a complex case. We have Amanda's human rights being violated by Donnino before any alleged slandering of Lumumba took place. If the proceedings have to be redressed to a point before the violations took place it leaves Italy with nothing to hold on to. According to the ECHR judgement Donnino's actions had "compromised the fairness of the proceedings as a whole" What leeway does Italy have that would justify a time extention beyond 6 months?

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2019, 08:04 AM   #428
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,387
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Is there any real reason why it should be more than 6 months? The calunnia isn't exactly a complex case. We have Amanda's human rights being violated by Donnino before any alleged slandering of Lumumba took place. If the proceedings have to be redressed to a point before the violations took place it leaves Italy with nothing to hold on to. According to the ECHR judgement Donnino's actions had "compromised the fairness of the proceedings as a whole" What leeway does Italy have that would justify a time extention beyond 6 months?

Hoots
The issue may be as simple as the lack of meaningful sanction if Italy violates the time limit.

Does the Council of Europe have access to a standing army to invade Italy if Italy defies the ECHR? Can they arrest Italian bureaucrats who drag their feet?
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2019, 10:13 AM   #429
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,034
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
Is there any real reason why it should be more than 6 months? The calunnia isn't exactly a complex case. We have Amanda's human rights being violated by Donnino before any alleged slandering of Lumumba took place. If the proceedings have to be redressed to a point before the violations took place it leaves Italy with nothing to hold on to. According to the ECHR judgement Donnino's actions had "compromised the fairness of the proceedings as a whole" What leeway does Italy have that would justify a time extention beyond 6 months?

Hoots
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
The issue may be as simple as the lack of meaningful sanction if Italy violates the time limit.

Does the Council of Europe have access to a standing army to invade Italy if Italy defies the ECHR? Can they arrest Italian bureaucrats who drag their feet?
There certainly can be an issue of a Council of Europe country, such as Italy, not responding in timely fashion to the Committee of Ministers procedures following a final judgment of the ECHR.

The first remedy that the Committee of Ministers (as carried out by their Deputies) has if there is an excessive delay in a country providing an action plan or action report is to place the case on "Enhanced Procedure" review, rather than "Standard Procedure" review.

There have been a few countries that have not apparently followed the CoE - CoM procedures in good faith. This has been a difficult issue for the CoE. For one country (Azerbaijan, not Italy), the CoM brought a case against the country before the ECHR for systematically failing to carry out the final judgments of the ECHR.

Italy has, to my knowledge, consistently attempted to follow the final judgments of the ECHR. It has not apparently consistently done so as promptly as may be ideal. Part of the reason for that may be the imperfect efficiency of the Italian government.

Thus, one should consider the time required for Italy to close an ECHR case after a final judgment, as well as the time required for Italy to produce a required initial action plan following a final judgment.

I have looked at the time required for 16 recent final judgment ECHR leading cases to be closed by the CoM. The shortest time was 1 year and 3 months; the longest was 14 years and 0 months. Ten of the cases took less than 6 years to be closed, and 5 of those cases took 3 years or less to be closed.

In order to close a case, the CoM requires not only individual measures, but also any required general measures, such as new or reformed laws, law enforcement practices, or administrative measures to be instituted.

I have looked at all 56 pending leading cases against Italy in an attempt to learn how long Italy usually takes to provide the CoM with an action plan.

I found that there is a first group of 12 cases, the oldest with final judgment date of 01 May 2018, that have yet to have action plans. The case Knox v. Italy (final judgment 24 June 2019) is among those cases.

Thus, it may take Italy 1 year 7 months or more to generate an action plan following a final judgment.

Among the remaining 44 cases, all have had adequate action plans submitted, except apparently for two cases.

The most recent pending leading case to have an action plan is Cipolleta v. Italy 38259/09, with final judgment 11 April 2018.

The two older cases still apparently awaiting action plans are Lorefice v. Italy 63446/13, final judgment 29 September 2017, and De Tommaso v. Italy 433951/09, final judgment 23 February 2017. However, there were communications to the CoM from Italy for both of these cases, on 20 December 2017 and 31 October 2017, respectively. Either one or both of these communications were not considered adequate action plans by the CoM, or one or both were erroneously recorded in the HUDOC EXEC database as awaiting an action plan.

Last edited by Numbers; 8th December 2019 at 10:25 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2019, 10:33 AM   #430
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,387
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
There certainly can be an issue of a Council of Europe country, such as Italy, not responding in timely fashion to the Committee of Ministers procedures following a final judgment of the ECHR.

The first remedy that the Committee of Ministers (as carried out by their Deputies) has if there is an excessive delay in a country providing an action plan or action report is to place the case on "Enhanced Procedure" review, rather than "Standard Procedure" review.
Italy must be shaking in its boots hearing this..... <... sarcastic mode off ...>

Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Italy has, to my knowledge, consistently attempted to follow the final judgments of the ECHR. It has not apparently consistently done so as promptly as may be ideal. Part of the reason for that may be the imperfect efficiency of the Italian government.

Thus, one should consider the time required for Italy to close an ECHR case after a final judgment, as well as the time required for Italy to produce a required initial action plan following a final judgment.

I have looked at the time required for 16 recent final judgment ECHR leading cases to be closed by the CoM. The shortest time was 1 year and 3 months; the longest was 14 years and 0 months. Ten of the cases took less than 6 years to be closed, and 5 of those cases took 3 years or less to be closed.
Dude, you've made my point!!!
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2019, 10:59 AM   #431
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,034
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Italy must be shaking in its boots hearing this..... <... sarcastic mode off ...>


Dude, you've made my point!!!
The government is inefficient, the police incompetent, the courts unfair, but the food is divine!
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2019, 12:30 PM   #432
TomG
Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 181
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The government is inefficient, the police incompetent, the courts unfair, but the food is divine!
They've never tasted my "Tomelettes"! Sigh, I still don't get it. Nothing had happened before the arrival of Donnino. It was only after her arrival and her "good cop" softening up of Amanda that the situation changed. Her actions "undermined the fairness of the proceedings as a whole"! What options do Italy have but to just vacate the charge and let everyone get on with their lives?

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2019, 06:24 PM   #433
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 9,880
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The government is inefficient, the police incompetent, the courts unfair, but the food is divine!
And the wine! Montepulciano Nobile...yummmmmmmmmm....
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2019, 08:57 PM   #434
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,034
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
They've never tasted my "Tomelettes"! Sigh, I still don't get it. Nothing had happened before the arrival of Donnino. It was only after her arrival and her "good cop" softening up of Amanda that the situation changed. Her actions "undermined the fairness of the proceedings as a whole"! What options do Italy have but to just vacate the charge and let everyone get on with their lives?

Hoots
TomG, you've identified one part of the State actions, the individual measures, that will apply for the case. But there is another part, the general measures, that will also apply. The general measures will potentially include changes in law, law enforcement practices, or judicial practices intended to prevent a recurrence of the violations found by the ECHR in this case.

Here's some relevant summary information:

Quote:
Member states have undertaken to comply with final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) finding violations of the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention), as well as with Court decisions taking note of friendly settlements (see Articles 46 and 39.4 of the Convention).

The adoption of the necessary execution measures is supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, made up of representatives of the governments of the 47 Member States, assisted by the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the Court (Directorate General I of Human Rights and Rule of Law).

The states have a legal obligation to remedy the violations found but enjoy a margin of appreciation as regards the means to be used. The measures to be taken are, in principle, identified by the state concerned, under supervision of the Committee of Ministers. ....

Measures to be taken may relate to the individual applicant or be of a general nature.
....

When mere monetary compensation cannot adequately erase the consequences of a violation, the Committee of Ministers makes sure that the authorities take any other individual measures which may be required to remedy the violation. The judgments themselves contain on occasion additional recommendations.

Execution of judgments also requires general measures to prevent violations similar to those found by the Court (whether through changes of legislation, case law or through other kinds of measures). Ensuring the effectiveness of domestic remedies is an important concern.
Source: https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution...92%22:[1]}

Last edited by Numbers; 8th December 2019 at 08:58 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2019, 09:46 PM   #435
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,034
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
There certainly can be an issue of a Council of Europe country, such as Italy, not responding in timely fashion to the Committee of Ministers procedures following a final judgment of the ECHR.

....
I have looked at the time required for 16 recent final judgment ECHR leading cases {against Italy} to be closed by the CoM. The shortest time was 1 year and 3 months; the longest was 14 years and 0 months. Ten of the cases took less than 6 years to be closed, and 5 of those cases took 3 years or less to be closed.

In order to close a case, the CoM requires not only individual measures, but also any required general measures, such as new or reformed laws, law enforcement practices, or administrative measures to be instituted.

I have looked at all 56 pending leading cases against Italy in an attempt to learn how long Italy usually takes to provide the CoM with an action plan.

I found that there is a first group of 12 cases, the oldest with final judgment date of 01 May 2018, that have yet to have action plans. The case Knox v. Italy (final judgment 24 June 2019) is among those cases.

Thus, it may take Italy 1 year 7 months or more to generate an action plan following a final judgment.


Among the remaining 44 cases, all have had adequate action plans submitted, except apparently for two cases.

The most recent pending leading case to have an action plan is Cipolleta v. Italy 38259/09, with final judgment 11 April 2018.

....
For comparison, I have now completed a similar analysis of cases against France.

For the 16 most recent closed leading cases against France, the shortest time between the final ECHR judgment and CoM final resolution was 0 years and 10 months; the longest time was 5 years and 5 months.

Overall, 16 cases were closed in less than 6 years, and of these, 8 were closed in 3 years or less.

There are currently 17 pending leading cases against France, with 3 awaiting an action plan and 14 having received an action plan.

The oldest case (in terms of final judgment) awaiting an action plan had a final judgment date of 14 June 2019.

The youngest cases with an action plan received had final judgment dates of 28 May 2019 and and 24 August 2018. The former case showed that an action plan was anticipated in November, 2019, while the latter case showed an action plan received in February, 2019.

It appears that France has forwarded action plans to the CoM 6 months after the final judgment, at least in these two cases, in accordance with CoM guidelines or regulations.

Thus, there appears to be some contrast in the timeliness of Italian compared to French activity in responding to final judgments of the ECHR.

Last edited by Numbers; 8th December 2019 at 09:47 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:48 AM   #436
TomG
Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 181
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post

In order to close a case, the CoM requires not only individual measures, but also any required general measures, such as new or reformed laws, law enforcement practices, or administrative measures to be instituted.
I still don't see any reason for a delay. The fact is that Donnino didn't act within any grey area as far as I can see during the investigation that would need a legal remedy. Existing laws were violated as far as I understand it, though it would need further clarification of how a "detained person" is defined.


CPP Article 141-bis Methods for documentation of the questioning of the detained person

Paragraph 1

Methods or techniques which may influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the capacity to recall and evaluate facts shall not be used, not even with the consent of the person concerned.

__________________________________________________ ___________

CPP Article 350 Investigative questioning of the suspect

Paragraphs 2, 3, and 7

Prior to the investigative questioning, the criminal police shall require the suspect to appoint a retained lawyer; if he does not have one, the police shall follow the procedures of Article 97 para. 3 to provide a lawyer for him.

Investigative questioning shall be performed with the necessary assistance of the lawyer who shall be promptly informed by the criminal police. The lawyer must be present during questioning.

The police may also receive spontaneous statements from the suspected person, but their use is not allowed at trial, except to challenge statements made by the suspect at trial according to Article 503 paragraph 3

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/italia...rogation-laws/

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:41 AM   #437
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,034
Originally Posted by TomG View Post
I still don't see any reason for a delay. The fact is that Donnino didn't act within any grey area as far as I can see during the investigation that would need a legal remedy. Existing laws were violated as far as I understand it, though it would need further clarification of how a "detained person" is defined.


CPP Article 141-bis Methods for documentation of the questioning of the detained person

Paragraph 1

Methods or techniques which may influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the capacity to recall and evaluate facts shall not be used, not even with the consent of the person concerned.

__________________________________________________ ___________

CPP Article 350 Investigative questioning of the suspect

Paragraphs 2, 3, and 7

Prior to the investigative questioning, the criminal police shall require the suspect to appoint a retained lawyer; if he does not have one, the police shall follow the procedures of Article 97 para. 3 to provide a lawyer for him.

Investigative questioning shall be performed with the necessary assistance of the lawyer who shall be promptly informed by the criminal police. The lawyer must be present during questioning.

The police may also receive spontaneous statements from the suspected person, but their use is not allowed at trial, except to challenge statements made by the suspect at trial according to Article 503 paragraph 3

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/italia...rogation-laws/

Hoots
1. In my opinion, there is no acceptable reason for any delay by Italy in providing an action plan to the CoM in the case Knox v. Italy. As I have pointed out in my posts, Italy appears to be running late in the timeliness of providing action plans for all the recent cases against it. Italy appears to be taking about 18 months after a final judgment of the ECHR to provide an action plan, while the CoM rules request that the action plan be provided within 6 months of a final judgment.

2. Italy remains under a treaty obligation to take general measures to prevent future violations of the provisions of the Convention that occurred in the Knox case, as found in the ECHR final judgment.

For example, in its responses to the ECHR, Italy claimed that Donnino's appointment as interpreter during the interrogation was in accordance with Italian law, even though she was a police officer. However, in its judgment, the ECHR objected that her job as a police officer was in conflict with her role as a neutral interpreter. This suggests a change is required in the relevant Italian law.

Other general measures may be required, such as training of the police, prosecutors, and judges to ensure that they follow Italian laws in a manner consistent with the Convention. There may be a need to make the meanings of the laws more explicit, such as by listing examples of specific prohibited police behaviors during interviews and interrogations. A law requiring the independent and effective investigation of any credible allegation of police mistreatment, including such allegations lodged in a trial, may also be necessary.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:56 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.