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

Closed Thread
Old 28th January 2017, 07:18 AM   #1
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,116
Mod Info Part 23 was getting long and slow to respond, so I have split the thread to this new part 24. As usual the split point was arbitrary, and posters are free to copy and paste from previous iterations of the thread.
Posted By:Agatha


Originally Posted by Ergon View Post
Try to stay on topic, which is the Meredith Kercher case. You responded to my communique from the Court Press Office that the case hadn't been ruled admissible with a claim it 'wasn't accurate'. Would you care to substantiate that, or do you want to open a new thread where you can make all the ad hominems you wish?
I was totally on topic. I was commenting on the credibility of sources for the case. I would never consider the guy who tells everyone he's God as a credible source. This is not where I get my information. It's not that this person might not be right. After all a broken watch is right twice a day. However it's also wrong more than 99 percent of the time. Not exactly a quality track record.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by Agatha; 28th January 2017 at 10:23 AM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 07:27 AM   #2
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,116
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
There is a paper from the forensic science unit at Scotland Yard looking at the best presumptive test for blood (they favour TMB for health and safety reasons, Luminol is a potential carcinogen), the point they made was that the sensitivity of the TMB test was greater than the DNA test. There is so much haemoglobin and so little DNA in a sample of blood that if you tested a blood stain you might find it to be TMB positive but DNA was negative and a negative DNA test should not exclude it being blood in the presence of a positive TMB test. DNA testing is more sensitive now and this may longer be true. There are non DNA tests to help with identity, such as blood grouping, however you would need a sufficiently large sample of blood that it would likely to be positive for DNA anyway.
Thanks. I think you are confirming my thoughts. The presence of DNA in area that reacts to Luminol does little to confirm that the substance is blood. That there are better methods to to confirm the presence of blood.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 07:32 AM   #3
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,807
Originally Posted by Diocletus View Post
You just made this up, didn't you?

Having been assigned a review category and communicated, the case is now at the examination on the merits stage. Soon enough, it will be at the enforcement stage.
To be accurate, the case, as far as known to the public, is at the stage where observations are gathered by the ECHR. These would include observations on admissibility from the respondent State. But such observation on admissibility (such as whether the State agrees that the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies on each complaint) are to be completed based upon the first Communication (29 April 2015). There have been two additional rounds of Communications to the State, according to the Case Details, suggesting that the ECHR is seeking more information on the merits.

In terms of admissibility, it should be understood that the application, or some large part of the claims, have passed the initial review by the ECHR, since the ECHR only Communicates the case to the State after that initial review is completed. There may be comments from the State on admissibility that the ECHR, after seeking a response from the applicant, will consider.

But at any rate, since the ECHR has not to date dismissed the application with adecision stating that it was inadmissible, the next stage known to the public will be the judgment, which will detail ECHR's conclusions on admissibility and merits. The judgment may become available in 2017, but depending on ECHR work load and whether the ECHR decides to obtain more information from the State with further Communications, it may be available in 2018.

Here are two ECHR publications with information on the Knox v. Italy case: 1) State of Proceedings and 2) Case Details.

Quote:
The Court’s State of Proceedings (SOP) search engine enables parties to find out the current procedural state of an application solely for cases that are:

Allocated to a judicial formation
Not anonymous
Pending before the Court or have been disposed of within the last two years
If the application you are looking for does not meet the above criteria the following message will appear: “No information can be given for this application.” Please note that the information relating to the SOP is available two months after a change in the state of proceedings for a case.

Application number
76577/13
Application title
Knox v. Italy
Date of Introduction
24/11/2013
Name of representative
Carlo Dalla Vedova
Current state of proceedings
Application Communicated to Government with request for observations - Rule 54 § 2 (b)
Last major event
29/04/2016* Communicated to the Government for observations
List of major events

Description
Event date
Communicated to the Government for observations
29/04/2016
Application requiring a decision
23/12/2013
______
Case Details

Document Type
Communicated Case
Language(s)
French
Title
KNOX c. ITALIE
App. No(s).
76577/13
Importance Level
3
Represented by
DALLA VEDOVA C.
Respondent State(s)
Italy
Conclusion(s)
Affaire communiquée
Affaire communiquée
Affaire communiquée
Article(s)
3
6
6-1
6-3-a
8
8-1
Keywords
(Art. 3) Prohibition of torture
(Art. 6) Right to a fair trial
(Art. 8) Right to respect for private and family life
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 Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 07:32 AM   #4
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 11,704
Originally Posted by Diocletus View Post
You just made this up, didn't you?

Having been assigned a review category and communicated, the case is now at the examination on the merits stage. Soon enough, it will be at the enforcement stage.
I remain skeptical of the certainty of a positive ECHR outcome. Apparently Vogt has tweeted - I think it's a tweet - that the only two items left from this almost decade-long nightmare is the Sollecito/Gumbel charges and the ECHR decision, as well as RS's compensation.

If I'm reading this right, that means even she concedes the definitive acquittals in 2015 - which she's writen more than once; she concedes that the Curt/Edda prosecution is gone, that the Boninsegna acquittal is all-but definitive and that the "hopes" that PGP put on to Rudy's revision request was fantasy.

What's left is everyone getting on with their lives.....
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 07:58 AM   #5
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 8,849
Blood Count

Robert Kerber wrote an article about hemoglobin for the Journal of Chemical Education in 2007. He quoted two other sources for how much Hb is present:

“Every milliliter of blood has approximately 5 billion erythrocytes…, and each erythrocyte is packed with 280 million molecules of hemoglobin” (4). “The concentration of hemoglobin molecules in red blood cells is so high (340 mgmL, 2.3 mM) that they almost could be said to be on the verge of crystallization…. The α2β2 tetramers, spheroids of axial dimensions 65 by 55 by 50 Å, are only 10 Å apart on the average” (5).

Saladin's Anatomy and Physiology states that neutrophils are about 60-70% of all white blood cells and that lymphocytes are 25-33% of all white blood cells. If we sum the concentrations of the two (4150 + 2185 = 6300 cells per microliter*) and compare to red blood cells (about 5,000,000 per microliter, we obtain a ratio of about 1 to 800. *Saladin give 5,0000-10,000 as the normal range for the number of white blood cells per microliter.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 10:02 AM   #6
Ergon
New Blood
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by Diocletus View Post
You just made this up, didn't you?

Having been assigned a review category and communicated, the case is now at the examination on the merits stage. Soon enough, it will be at the enforcement stage.
Er, no. According to the Court Questions and Answers document (I'm not able to post a link yet)

What are the main stages in the process?
The Court must first examine whether your application is admissible. This means that the case must comply with certain requirements set out in the Convention. If the conditions are not satisfied, your application will be rejected. If you have made several complaints, the Court may declare one or more of them admissible and dismiss the others.

And this flow chart

The life of an application

It is still at the "Initial analysis stage", since no "Admissibility decision" has been made yet.
Ergon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 10:26 AM   #7
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 10,987
Mod Info As there has been some unhappiness over moderation throughout the series of threads regarding the murder of Ms Kercher, I have opened a thread in Forum Management Feedback where participants in this thread are welcome to share any constructive ideas for moderation in the future.
Posted By:Agatha
__________________
London, Hamburg, Paris, Rome, Rio, Hong Kong, Tokyo; L.A., New York, Amsterdam, Monte Carlo, Shard End and...

Vodka kills salmonella and all other enemies of freedom for sure - Nationalcosmopolitan
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 10:30 AM   #8
Ergon
New Blood
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 17
And while I see Diocletus point in the previous thread it is being "examined for admissibility and merits" of the case the press office communique is still very clear. No decision of admissibility has been made yet. Which is a requirement before it can be assigned to a court for judgement. As Numbers confirms, it hasn't been assigned to a judicial formation.
Ergon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 10:46 AM   #9
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,363
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Robert Kerber wrote an article about hemoglobin for the Journal of Chemical Education in 2007. He quoted two other sources for how much Hb is present:

“Every milliliter of blood has approximately 5 billion erythrocytes…, and each erythrocyte is packed with 280 million molecules of hemoglobin” (4). “The concentration of hemoglobin molecules in red blood cells is so high (340 mgmL, 2.3 mM) that they almost could be said to be on the verge of crystallization…. The α2β2 tetramers, spheroids of axial dimensions 65 by 55 by 50 Å, are only 10 Å apart on the average” (5).

Saladin's Anatomy and Physiology states that neutrophils are about 60-70% of all white blood cells and that lymphocytes are 25-33% of all white blood cells. If we sum the concentrations of the two (4150 + 2185 = 6300 cells per microliter*) and compare to red blood cells (about 5,000,000 per microliter, we obtain a ratio of about 1 to 800. *Saladin give 5,0000-10,000 as the normal range for the number of white blood cells per microliter.
What about modern LCN DNA techniques? It seems like they are able to amplify extremely minuscule traces of DNA to get a usable profiles these days. Are we at the point where detecting LCN DNA from blood can exceed the detection limits of chemical blood tests?

I know this was an issue raised by Grinder. He wanted to know if there was a single (other) murder case in history where they had an alleged murder weapon with DNA, but no detectable blood. As far as I know, he never got his answer.
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 11:06 AM   #10
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,496
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
What about modern LCN DNA techniques? It seems like they are able to amplify extremely minuscule traces of DNA to get a usable profiles these days. Are we at the point where detecting LCN DNA from blood can exceed the detection limits of chemical blood tests?

I know this was an issue raised by Grinder. He wanted to know if there was a single (other) murder case in history where they had an alleged murder weapon with DNA, but no detectable blood. As far as I know, he never got his answer.
Blood is not the only substance that provides a DNA sample. This is a complete red herring introduced by Pete Gill as a mischievous spanner in the works.

When you pierce skin with a knife, you are very likely to have organic material from skin. Skin contains sebaceous glands which are a rich source of DNA.

You can also obtain DNA from saliva, hair roots, spermatozoa and other bodily fluids.


The knife in question had been thoroughly scrubbed, so you can see, any surplus blood will have been washed away.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 11:07 AM   #11
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,496
Originally Posted by Ergon View Post
Er, no. According to the Court Questions and Answers document (I'm not able to post a link yet)

What are the main stages in the process?
The Court must first examine whether your application is admissible. This means that the case must comply with certain requirements set out in the Convention. If the conditions are not satisfied, your application will be rejected. If you have made several complaints, the Court may declare one or more of them admissible and dismiss the others.

And this flow chart

The life of an application

It is still at the "Initial analysis stage", since no "Admissibility decision" has been made yet.


Ergon is right.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 11:08 AM   #12
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,496
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Thanks. I think you are confirming my thoughts. The presence of DNA in area that reacts to Luminol does little to confirm that the substance is blood. That there are better methods to to confirm the presence of blood.
Luminol remains the best method for detecting blood and the method of choice for CSI forensics.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 11:12 AM   #13
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,496
Deleted.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light

Last edited by Vixen; 28th January 2017 at 11:19 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 11:18 AM   #14
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,116
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Luminol remains the best method for detecting blood and the method of choice for CSI forensics.
You simply don't know what you are talking about. Luminol is good tool for covering large areas, but in of itself is poor since many substances react to it. It REQUIRES confirmatory tests to go beyond mere suspicion.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 11:46 AM   #15
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,363
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Blood is not the only substance that provides a DNA sample. This is a complete red herring introduced by Pete Gill as a mischievous spanner in the works.

When you pierce skin with a knife, you are very likely to have organic material from skin. Skin contains sebaceous glands which are a rich source of DNA.

You can also obtain DNA from saliva, hair roots, spermatozoa and other bodily fluids.


The knife in question had been thoroughly scrubbed, so you can see, any surplus blood will have been washed away.
But then you're creating a rather narrow window here, cleaned enough to remove all traces of blood (difficult) but not cleaned enough to remove all traces of DNA (implausible). And it's in this window where the credibility of this DNA is questioned, and the question of lab contamination from improper or fraudulent LCN procedures is raised.

There is also the bigger picture of the surrounding evidence to consider. Meredith Kercher was stabbed three times, and a bloody knife was placed on the bed sheet leaving an imprint. Two of the stab wounds absolutely could not have been made by the large kitchen knife. The bloody imprint is unlikely to have been made by it either, being significantly more compatible with the same size knife that made the other two wounds. Then the large neck wound was only, at best, "not incompatible" with the kitchen knife (or any sharp edged object) but was just as likely if not moreso to have been made by the same small knife as the other wounds. So what you have here is a crime scene with 4 identifiable forensic knife profiles, allegedly made by two very different knives of two very different sizes and profiles, and yet, surprisingly, all 4 are exactly compatible with a single small knife as if that was the only knife present. This adds to the doubt in the kitchen knife being the murder weapon.

Then we zoom out on the picture even more, and we discover that all the primary evidence was left by a known burglar with a proven history of carrying a knife while committing crime, who had wounds on his hands after the murder he even claimed were from the murder weapon, and no connection was ever created between this burglar and the two students. So we have to imagine that these students happened to spontaneously run into this virtual stranger on the 3 minute walk to cottage on the way to the murder, and decided on a whim to invite him to their murder for no discernible reason, and he accepted and joined in for no discernible reason. This is implausible and thus doubtful.

All of that adds to the doubt in the DNA evidence from the knife being sufficient to overcome the considerable doubt that it was the murder weapon, and helps explain why they were acquitted. I hope this helps.

Last edited by bagels; 28th January 2017 at 12:11 PM.
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 12:18 PM   #16
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 8,849
their claim, their burden

In Chapter 5 of his book, Peter Gill correctly put the onus on the people making the claim that one can clean a knife of blood but not of DNA to demonstrate it via experiments. Moreover it cannot be said too emphatically that proper work in the low template region requires a dedicated facility with appropriate air handling and other precautions. Finally if a knife were cleaned with bleach in such a way as to leave a small amount of DNA, the peak heights would slope down going from left to right in the electropherogram, as a search of the literature has shown.

I imagine that low template DNA analysis might make for more of a horse race in the sensitivity sweepstakes, but I don't believe that this is ultimately a key point.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 12:37 PM   #17
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,496
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
In Chapter 5 of his book, Peter Gill correctly put the onus on the people making the claim that one can clean a knife of blood but not of DNA to demonstrate it via experiments. Moreover it cannot be said too emphatically that proper work in the low template region requires a dedicated facility with appropriate air handling and other precautions. Finally if a knife were cleaned with bleach in such a way as to leave a small amount of DNA, the peak heights would slope down going from left to right in the electropherogram, as a search of the literature has shown.

I imagine that low template DNA analysis might make for more of a horse race in the sensitivity sweepstakes, but I don't believe that this is ultimately a key point.
In his book Pete Gill also says it is the onus of the person claiming contamination to show its path.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 12:48 PM   #18
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 8,849
DNA contamination and Adam Scott

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
In his book Pete Gill also says it is the onus of the person claiming contamination to show its path.
Do you have a page number for that? There have been cases of contamination for which the exact route is not known (Jaidyn Leskie/Ms. P. and Farah Jama, to provide two). Even one case in which the route of contamination is known (Adam Scott) is unhelpful to the PG case for other reasons.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 01:06 PM   #19
js202
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 766
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
In Chapter 5 of his book, Peter Gill correctly put the onus on the people making the claim that one can clean a knife of blood but not of DNA to demonstrate it via experiments. Moreover it cannot be said too emphatically that proper work in the low template region requires a dedicated facility with appropriate air handling and other precautions. Finally if a knife were cleaned with bleach in such a way as to leave a small amount of DNA, the peak heights would slope down going from left to right in the electropherogram, as a search of the literature has shown.

I imagine that low template DNA analysis might make for more of a horse race in the sensitivity sweepstakes, but I don't believe that this is ultimately a key point.
It is good to get these kinds of affirmations from an actual scientist such as yourself from time to time. A valuable reminder that there are online kooks who would make the claim that internationally recognized experts like Peter Gill - and, in the investigative fields, John Douglas - would sell their hard-earned reputations to become paid hacks for Amanda Knox.
js202 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 01:06 PM   #20
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,496
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Do you have a page number for that? There have been cases of contamination for which the exact route is not known (Jaidyn Leskie/Ms. P. and Farah Jama, to provide two). Even one case in which the route of contamination is known (Adam Scott) is unhelpful to the PG case for other reasons.
Misleading DNA Evidence – Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice, Peter Gill, Academic Press.

Quote:

Recommendation 1: The expert should provide the court with an unbiased list of all possible modes of transfer of DNA evidence (pg 20).”


He contradicts himself on the case by saying chances of getting a reportable profile via passive transfer is "very low" >24 hrs after last contact (p76-77)

Dr Naseer Ahmad notes:

Quote:
He argues contamination, but doesn’t prove a path of transmission.
He cites papers on secondary transfer of DNA, but misses the point his suggested routes, RS>door handle>investigator’s latex glove>bra clasp is tertiary transfer.
He argues the low cell count of Meredith’s Kercher’s DNA on the knife suggests contamination without considering that rigorous washing with household bleach might degrade it. (Yet miraculously those cells did provide a full match with Meredith’s DNA)
– The shoe box belonging to Meredith story has been shot down.
– He clearly has not read Inspector Gubbiotti or Finci’s testimonies, which removes all possible paths of ‘innocent transfer’.
– Reading the actual research papers he cites, there is no way that such significant amounts of DNA could actually transfer to the bra clasp.
– He did not review Patrizia Stefanoni’s Scientific Report or any of her notes, instead relying on the IIP translated C&V report and Hellmann decision.
– He refers to the Meredith Kercher wiki, but never even looked at the DNA segments which would have alerted him to problems with the C&V report.
– He may have had indirect input from Sollecito’s first DNA expert, Vincenzo Pascali, and Carla Vecchiotti, but does not seem to know of Vecchiotti’s colorful record of falsifying evidence.

Last, and worst of all, he did not refer to the Supreme Court decision annulling Hellmann even though the translation was widely available almost ten months before his book was published. There is no way he could not have known this, since we had been in contact with him since earlier this year. It is unconscionable that he chose this route to promote his theories. Elsevier under its new ownership and editorial policies seem to have allowed any number of self-published books to be written. If Professor Gill had written a scholarly text book it would have to be reviewed by an editorial board and sent for peer review, which might have led to professional experts critiquing and hopefully pointing out his errors. Instead, he wrote a slim, unreviewed ‘popular’ book to promote his own theories, which, embarrassing perhaps for him, is being critiqued and torn apart by lay persons, ahem.

As Peter Gill did not have first hand sight of the evidence, it is difficult to understand how he has the chutzpah to set out his stall peddling a shabby free pardon like a two-bit whore.
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 01:14 PM   #21
Welshman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 417
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
But then you're creating a rather narrow window here, cleaned enough to remove all traces of blood (difficult) but not cleaned enough to remove all traces of DNA (implausible). And it's in this window where the credibility of this DNA is questioned, and the question of lab contamination from improper or fraudulent LCN procedures is raised.

There is also the bigger picture of the surrounding evidence to consider. Meredith Kercher was stabbed three times, and a bloody knife was placed on the bed sheet leaving an imprint. Two of the stab wounds absolutely could not have been made by the large kitchen knife. The bloody imprint is unlikely to have been made by it either, being significantly more compatible with the same size knife that made the other two wounds. Then the large neck wound was only, at best, "not incompatible" with the kitchen knife (or any sharp edged object) but was just as likely if not moreso to have been made by the same small knife as the other wounds. So what you have here is a crime scene with 4 identifiable forensic knife profiles, allegedly made by two very different knives of two very different sizes and profiles, and yet, surprisingly, all 4 are exactly compatible with a single small knife as if that was the only knife present. This adds to the doubt in the kitchen knife being the murder weapon.

Then we zoom out on the picture even more, and we discover that all the primary evidence was left by a known burglar with a proven history of carrying a knife while committing crime, who had wounds on his hands after the murder he even claimed were from the murder weapon, and no connection was ever created between this burglar and the two students. So we have to imagine that these students happened to spontaneously run into this virtual stranger on the 3 minute walk to cottage on the way to the murder, and decided on a whim to invite him to their murder for no discernible reason, and he accepted and joined in for no discernible reason. This is implausible and thus doubtful.

All of that adds to the doubt in the DNA evidence from the knife being sufficient to overcome the considerable doubt that it was the murder weapon, and helps explain why they were acquitted. I hope this helps.
The notion you can wash blood off a knife but DNA can still remain is ludicrous. If there was a mountain of solid evidence and a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele, why does Vixen have to resort to using ludicrous arguments.
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 01:19 PM   #22
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 8,849
routes of transfer

Recommendation 1: The expert should provide the court with an unbiased list of all possible modes of transfer of DNA evidence (pg 20)

In the case of the knife, this would include secondary or tertiary transfer routes, such as Meredith and Amanda hug, then Amanda transfers Meredith's DNA to the knife during ordinary use. It would also include laboratory contamination, especially given that smaller amounts of DNA are easier to transfer than larger ones. Did Stefanoni provide such a list?

Tertiary DNA transfer has been documented in more than one academic paper. IIRC at least one such paper demonstrated it specifically with gloves.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 28th January 2017 at 01:21 PM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 01:30 PM   #23
Vixen
Philosopher
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8,496
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Recommendation 1: The expert should provide the court with an unbiased list of all possible modes of transfer of DNA evidence (pg 20)

In the case of the knife, this would include secondary or tertiary transfer routes, such as Meredith and Amanda hug, then Amanda transfers Meredith's DNA to the knife during ordinary use. It would also include laboratory contamination, especially given that smaller amounts of DNA are easier to transfer than larger ones. Did Stefanoni provide such a list?

Tertiary DNA transfer has been documented in more than one academic paper. IIRC at least one such paper demonstrated it specifically with gloves.
Counsel: I submit to you m'Lud the victim's DNA is on the defendant's knife because said defendant hugged the victim.

Judge <fx leans forward> Do we have any evidence for this...?

Counsel: Er, no, m'Lud but anything's possible.
Attached Images
File Type: gif animated-laughing-image-0182 (1).gif (26.0 KB, 239 views)
__________________
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till
The night is gone.
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!
~ John Henry Newman 1833 Lead Kindly Light
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 01:58 PM   #24
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 8,849
Professor Kekule's article

In an article in Der Tagesspiegel on 9 December 2009, Professor Alexander S. Kekule wrote, "The DNA traces on the knife blade could have been transmitted through the hands of Amanda Knox, who lived together with the victim and used her boyfriend’s knife for cooking. The evidence would have more weight if in addition blood stains were found." (anonymous translation) The author is Professor of Medical Microbiology and Virology at Halle, Germany, and Director of the Institute for Medical Microbiology.

Professor Kekule is alluding to the fact that the DNA of 36B is sub-source. What I would add is that there is no guarantee that the DNA was ever actually on the knife. IMO the chances of laboratory contamination are quite high in this instance: a tiny amount of DNA was found in a laboratory that was not even competent at all aspects of standard DNA profiling, as Diocletus has discussed. Low template DNA profiling requires precautions that most laboratories simply are not equipped to put into place. There was an article in a New Zealand paper with a title along the lines of 'DNA: Making the invisible visible" that provided an excellent discussion of this subject.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 02:12 PM   #25
Diocletus
Illuminator
 
Diocletus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 3,964
Originally Posted by Ergon View Post
And while I see Diocletus point in the previous thread it is being "examined for admissibility and merits" of the case the press office communique is still very clear. No decision of admissibility has been made yet. Which is a requirement before it can be assigned to a court for judgement. As Numbers confirms, it hasn't been assigned to a judicial formation.
It has been assigned to a panel.

They are considering the merits.

They may still decide that the application is inadmissible or partially inadmissible, but that is way less likely at this late date.
__________________
Forza Italia
Diocletus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 02:19 PM   #26
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,807
To clear up any confusion, I did NOT state whether or not the application for Amanda Knox v. Italy had been assigned to a judicial formation. It has been Communicated by the ECHR to Italy. This has a certain significance, including that the application has been assigned to a specific named Section of the ECHR - meaning, it resides with a group of judges who, if the case is heard on its merits or if there is a friendly settlement, include those judges who will form the Chamber that reviews either of those actions.

Here is some information* from ECHR on the course of an application and its assignment to a judicial formation (I have added the paragraph identification letters in { }):

Quote:
1. Judicial formations

Once the Court is in possession of all the information it needs to
examine your case, your application will be allocated to one of the
Court’s judicial formations, depending on the type of case: a single
judge, a Committee or a Chamber.

{A}If your application is clearly inadmissible because it does not meet
all the required admissibility criteria, it will be dealt with by a single
judge. The inadmissibility decision given by that judge is final.
You will be informed by letter, but you will not receive a copy of
the decision. It is not possible to challenge the inadmissibility
decision or request any further information about it. The Court
will close the case and the file will be destroyed at a later date.

{B}If your case is considered to be a repetitive case, which raises
an issue on which the Court has already ruled in a number of
cases concerning the State in question, it will be handled by
a Committee of 3 judges. In this case, a letter explaining the
procedure will be sent to you. Once again, the Court will contact
you if and when necessary.

{C}If your case is not considered to be a repetitive case, it will be
examined by a Chamber of 7 judges. The Chamber may still
declare the case inadmissible and, if it does, that decision will
be final, but if it considers the case admissible it will examine the
merits of your complaint. Before doing that, however, it will first
communicate the application to the Government concerned, to
inform them of the existence of the complaint and allow them to
submit observations on the matter in dispute. Those observations
are then sent to you, to give you a chance to reply
. Although you
are not obliged to be represented by a lawyer right from the
beginning of the proceedings, the Court will invite you to use
one at this stage. Once again, it is the Court which will contact
you.
Thus, Knox v. Italy is covered by paragraph C because it is not a repetitive one and it has been Communicated. It has been assigned to a Section of the ECHR, namely, the First Section**. There are ten judges assigned to the First Section.

The case will be judged by a Chamber of seven judges selected from the First Section. Potentially, the Chamber could forward the case upon review to the Grand Chamber for judgment, but that happens only in unusually difficult cases and is thus unlikely.

According to the Rules of the Court of the ECHR, an application or claim within an application can be found inadmissible at any stage prior to final judgment and publication of the judgment. However, the reasons for finding an application or claim inadmissible are relatively narrow and specific, and applications or claims not found inadmissible are admissible.

*Source: http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=applicants&c=
Link to PDF "Your Application to the ECHR"

**PREMIÈRE SECTION

Requête no 76577/13
Amanda Marie KNOX
contre l’Italie
introduite le 24 novembre 2013

Source: Communication to Italy
KNOX c. ITALIE
76577/13 | Communicated Case | 29/04/2016

ETA:
Quote:
A Section is an administrative entity and a Chamber is a judicial formation of the Court within a given Section.
The Court has 5 Sections in which Chambers are formed. Each Section has a President, a Vice-President and a number of other judges.
Source: http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?...041442_pointer

Last edited by Numbers; 28th January 2017 at 02:52 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 Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 02:41 PM   #27
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,807
Another point about how ECHR handles cases: Some people may believe that there is a public hearing. There is not*, except for certain Grand Chamber cases of special interest. The deliberations of the ECHR are always conducted in private, but the texts of all judgments are published in HUDOC, as are the texts of "significant" decisions and strike-outs (such as friendly settlements).

The ECHR forms a judgment or decision largely on the basis of documents submitted by the parties, including the responses of one party to the the comments of the other. The ECHR is authorized by the Convention to seek other evidence, such as testimony of witnesses or experts, using the facilities of the Council of Europe States or its own resources, such as the Registry, but almost all cases are resolved only by the examination of documents from the parties and other sources.

*Rules of the Court (Rule 63) would appear to allow a public hearing by a Chamber, but in practice, possibly because of the very large number of cases before it, the ECHR has hearings of only a few Grand Chamber cases.

Last edited by Numbers; 28th January 2017 at 03:16 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 Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 02:59 PM   #28
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,363
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Counsel: I submit to you m'Lud the victim's DNA is on the defendant's knife because said defendant hugged the victim.

Judge <fx leans forward> Do we have any evidence for this...?

Counsel: Er, no, m'Lud but anything's possible.
Amanda is more likely to have hugged Meredith than to have invited a random stranger she didn't know and only happened to randomly cross paths with on a 3 minute walk to the murder, and have him end up being the only one who left any identifiable evidence behind, with an apparent break-in that looked exactly like his previous break-in five blocks away.

You're the one with the more preposterous theory, and your inability to see that is why you have to invent a mafia conspiracy rigging the courts.
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 03:04 PM   #29
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,807
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
To clear up any confusion, I did NOT state whether or not the application for Amanda Knox v. Italy had been assigned to a judicial formation. It has been Communicated by the ECHR to Italy. This has a certain significance, including that the application has been assigned to a specific named Section of the ECHR - meaning, it resides with a group of judges who, if the case is heard on its merits or if there is a friendly settlement, include those judges who will form the Chamber that reviews either of those actions.

Here is some information* from ECHR on the course of an application and its assignment to a judicial formation (I have added the paragraph identification letters in { }):



Thus, Knox v. Italy is covered by paragraph C because it is not a repetitive one and it has been Communicated. It has been assigned to a Section of the ECHR, namely, the First Section**. There are ten judges assigned to the First Section.

The case will be judged by a Chamber of seven judges selected from the First Section. Potentially, the Chamber could forward the case upon review to the Grand Chamber for judgment, but that happens only in unusually difficult cases and is thus unlikely.

According to the Rules of the Court of the ECHR, an application or claim within an application can be found inadmissible at any stage prior to final judgment and publication of the judgment. However, the reasons for finding an application or claim inadmissible are relatively narrow and specific, and applications or claims not found inadmissible are admissible.

*Source: http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=applicants&c=
Link to PDF "Your Application to the ECHR"

**PREMIÈRE SECTION

Requête no 76577/13
Amanda Marie KNOX
contre l’Italie
introduite le 24 novembre 2013

Source: Communication to Italy
KNOX c. ITALIE
76577/13 | Communicated Case | 29/04/2016

ETA:

Source: http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?...041442_pointer
In fact, according to the Rules of the Court, it is the Chamber of judges or the President of the Section which originates the Communication to the Respondent State. Thus, it is clear that the Chamber of judges to hear Knox v. Italy may have already been formed within the First Section.

Current state of proceedings
Application Communicated to Government with request for observations - Rule 54 § 2 (b)


Rule 54 – Procedure before a Chamber

1. The Chamber may at once declare the application inadmissible or strike it out of the Court’s list of cases. The decision of the Chamber may relate to all or part of the application.

2. Alternatively, the Chamber or the President of the Section may decide to

(a) request the parties to submit any factual information, documents or other material considered by the Chamber or its President to be relevant;

(b) give notice of the application or part of the application to the respondent Contracting Party and invite that Party to submit written observations thereon and, upon receipt thereof, invite the applicant to submit observations in reply;

c) invite the parties to submit further observations in writing.

3. In the exercise of the competences under paragraph 2 (b) of this Rule, the President of the Section, acting as a single judge, may at once declare part of the application inadmissible or strike part of the application out of the Court’s list of cases. The decision shall be final. The applicant shall be informed of the decision by letter.

4. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Rule shall also apply to Vice-Presidents of Sections appointed as duty judges in accordance with Rule 39 § 4 to decide on requests for interim measures.

5. Before taking a decision on admissibility, the Chamber may decide, either at the request of a party or of its own motion, to hold a hearing if it considers that the discharge of its functions under the Convention so requires. In that event, unless the Chamber shall exceptionally decide otherwise, the parties shall also be invited to address the issues arising in relation to the merits of the application.

Source: http://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?...693676_pointer
PDF "Rules of Court"

Last edited by Numbers; 28th January 2017 at 03:06 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 Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 03:06 PM   #30
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,116
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
Amanda is more likely to have hugged Meredith than to have invited a random stranger she didn't know and only happened to randomly cross paths with on a 3 minute walk to the murder, and have him end up being the only one who left any identifiable evidence behind, with an apparent break-in that looked exactly like his previous break-in five blocks away.

You're the one with the more preposterous theory, and your inability to see that is why you have to invent a mafia conspiracy rigging the courts.
Meredith sent kisses to Amanda the night before.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 03:53 PM   #31
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,125
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Blood is not the only substance that provides a DNA sample. This is a complete red herring introduced by Pete Gill as a mischievous spanner in the works.

When you pierce skin with a knife, you are very likely to have organic material from skin. Skin contains sebaceous glands which are a rich source of DNA.

You can also obtain DNA from saliva, hair roots, spermatozoa and other bodily fluids.


The knife in question had been thoroughly scrubbed, so you can see, any surplus blood will have been washed away.
What is also important is that most cells are quite big with only one nucleus, so DNA density is not that great. Blood cells are relatively small so DNA density is relatively high. Blood also clots so it sticks which is not true for other tissues. The very small size of blood cells in particular the red cells and the liquid nature of blood means it gets into cracks that other tissue will not.

So you posit that some sort of cleaning process was undertaken that removed all the blood, the blood associated DNA even from the junction of the hilt and blade, but left a lump of skin in place? Even more extraordinarily in the prosecution case and an example of the bias by the forensic scientist involved is the suggestion that the victims DNA can be removed except for the very slightest trace whereas the DNA of the wielder is left intact. An honest interpretation would have said that Knox's DNA on the handle cannot be from the murder as any DNA of the person who used the knife would be present in much smaller amounts than the victims and no known cleaning method would remove selectively the DNA of the victim but not the murderer.

One of the issues is not just that the science needs to be done correctly. but that it needs to be interpreted correctly and in a neutral fashion to the courts.Unfortunately Steffanoni failed on both these issues.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 04:10 PM   #32
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,116
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
What is also important is that most cells are quite big with only one nucleus, so DNA density is not that great. Blood cells are relatively small so DNA density is relatively high. Blood also clots so it sticks which is not true for other tissues. The very small size of blood cells in particular the red cells and the liquid nature of blood means it gets into cracks that other tissue will not.

So you posit that some sort of cleaning process was undertaken that removed all the blood, the blood associated DNA even from the junction of the hilt and blade, but left a lump of skin in place? Even more extraordinarily in the prosecution case and an example of the bias by the forensic scientist involved is the suggestion that the victims DNA can be removed except for the very slightest trace whereas the DNA of the wielder is left intact. An honest interpretation would have said that Knox's DNA on the handle cannot be from the murder as any DNA of the person who used the knife would be present in much smaller amounts than the victims and no known cleaning method would remove selectively the DNA of the victim but not the murderer.

One of the issues is not just that the science needs to be done correctly. but that it needs to be interpreted correctly and in a neutral fashion to the courts.Unfortunately Steffanoni failed on both these issues.
Vixen continues to make the classic mistake of using her bias to manipulate the evidence as opposed to following the evidence.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 05:36 PM   #33
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,807
Some information about admissibility - and inadmissibility - of applications, as provided by the ECHR on its website. The following is copied from a list on that website; I have added the clause identification letters shown in { }:

1. ... 81% of all applications ({36740 out of} a total of 45,576) decided by the Court in 2015 were declared inadmissible.

2. The principal reasons why applications were declared inadmissible in 2015 were as follows:

{A} 57% were rejected as manifestly ill-founded
{B} In 14% of applications, the applicants did not exhaust domestic remedies
{C} 11% were lodged more than 6 months after the final decision taken by a domestic court
{D} 11% were rejected because the applicants wanted the Court to quash, rehear or revise decisions taken by domestic courts ("fourth instance")
{E} 8% of applications were found to be incompatible with the provisions of the Convention or its Protocols

Source: http://appform.echr.coe.int/echrappc...okieCheck=true
________
Commentary - Relevance to Knox v. Italy

In its initial review of admissibility, the ECHR can easily detect certain factors that of make an application inadmissible. These include the factors under C, D, E in the list above.

C. Knox lodged her application with the ECHR on Nov. 24, 2013. This was within 6 months of the delivery (on or about June 18, 2013) of the Chieffi CSC panel's motivation report which explained her final conviction for calunnia against Lumumba. Thus her application was not inadmissible due to not being on time, and is, therefore, admissible in that respect.

D. Based on the list of Complaints in the Communication to Italy, each is an allegation of a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights, and not a request for the ECHR to act as an appeal court. Therefore, the application is admissible on that aspect.

E. Any incompatibility of the application with the provisions of the Convention would have been determined by the ECHR in its first review, so the application is admissible on that aspect as well.

This leaves A and B as potential areas of inadmissibility. For A, an application or claim that is unfounded will typically have some readily apparent contradiction with established facts, while for B, an application or claim was not exhaustively pursued through a readily available domestic remedy.

While I do not doubt, based on what I know about the case, that the application and each claim is admissible under headings A and B, these aspects are ones that the ECHR will look at carefully. In fact, in the Questions to the Parties in the Communication to Italy, the ECHR poses, as it typically does in a Communication, a question about whether or not domestic remedies have been exhausted:

Quote:
1. Has the applicant exhausted the domestic remedies available to her to complain about the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, concerning the slaps (scappellotti) allegedly suffered, and Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 a), c) and e) and 8 of the Convention?

Last edited by Numbers; 28th January 2017 at 05:49 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 Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 05:49 PM   #34
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,807
Regarding whether or not the ECHR has assigned Knox v. Italy to a judicial formation, I must make a correction. I missed some very obvious information that I had actually posted earlier, in post #3 of this Thread, Continuation 24.

I will repeat the relevant information, obtained from the ECHR website:

The Court’s State of Proceedings (SOP) search engine enables parties to find out the current procedural state of an application solely for cases that are:

Allocated to a judicial formation
Not anonymous
Pending before the Court or have been disposed of within the last two years
If the application you are looking for does not meet the above criteria the following message will appear: “No information can be given for this application.” Please note that the information relating to the SOP is available two months after a change in the state of proceedings for a case.

Application number
76577/13
Application title
Knox v. Italy
Date of Introduction
24/11/2013
Name of representative
Carlo Dalla Vedova
Current state of proceedings
Application Communicated to Government with request for observations - Rule 54 § 2 (b)
Last major event
29/04/2016* Communicated to the Government for observations
List of major events

Description
Event date
Communicated to the Government for observations
29/04/2016
Application requiring a decision
23/12/2013
_____

So according to an official ECHR notice on its website, Knox v. Italy has been been assigned to a judicial formation, and from other ECHR information it is known that the formation must be a Chamber of 7 judges from the First Section of the ECHR.

I suggest anyone who maintains otherwise at this point is incorrect either by mistake or intent.
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 Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 06:23 PM   #35
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,116
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Regarding whether or not the ECHR has assigned Knox v. Italy to a judicial formation, I must make a correction. I missed some very obvious information that I had actually posted earlier, in post #3 of this Thread, Continuation 24.

I will repeat the relevant information, obtained from the ECHR website:

The Court’s State of Proceedings (SOP) search engine enables parties to find out the current procedural state of an application solely for cases that are:

Allocated to a judicial formation
Not anonymous
Pending before the Court or have been disposed of within the last two years
If the application you are looking for does not meet the above criteria the following message will appear: “No information can be given for this application.” Please note that the information relating to the SOP is available two months after a change in the state of proceedings for a case.

Application number
76577/13
Application title
Knox v. Italy
Date of Introduction
24/11/2013
Name of representative
Carlo Dalla Vedova
Current state of proceedings
Application Communicated to Government with request for observations - Rule 54 § 2 (b)
Last major event
29/04/2016* Communicated to the Government for observations
List of major events

Description
Event date
Communicated to the Government for observations
29/04/2016
Application requiring a decision
23/12/2013
_____

So according to an official ECHR notice on its website, Knox v. Italy has been been assigned to a judicial formation, and from other ECHR information it is known that the formation must be a Chamber of 7 judges from the First Section of the ECHR.

I suggest anyone who maintains otherwise at this point is incorrect either by mistake or intent.
This seems so cut and dried based on the other cases you have cited. Knox wasn't provided legal representation when she should have. There is obviously the issues with language and it's clear that the interpreter did more than she should have.There doesnt seem to be any questions of fact. That Italy itself has acknowledged that Amanda's statements weren't admissible. The ECHR is going to decide what it is going to decide but the precedence leaves me thinking this will be a slam-dunk. But then I thought Hillary was going to win.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 06:24 PM   #36
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,474
I entirely agree with the Numbers' post above.

Essentially, in simple terms, the process goes as follows:

1) The applicant (here, Knox - via her lawyers) deposits the application with the ECHR

2) The application is registered, and is then examined by a team of lawyers

3) These lawyers decide whether the application meets the key basic criteria for admissibility

4) If these lawyers decided that the application is inadmissible on its face, the application is passed to a single judge who formally makes - and communicates - a decision of inadmissibility

5) If, however, the lawyers decide that there is merit to the application, it is then passed to either a Committee of 3 judges (if the lawyers consider the application to be a so-called "repetitive case" where very similar judgements have been made previously), or to a Chamber of 7 judges (if the lawyers consider it a "non-repetitive case")

6) AIUI, only the Chamber of 7 judges has the power to communicate the case to the national government concerned and to request observations.

7) Once either the Committee (3 judges) or the Chamber (7 judges) has fully gathered the required information, it will decide whether it considers the application admissible

8) If the application is deemed admissible by the judges, they will then go forward to examine the merits of the application

9) In almost all cases, the merits are considered in camera, based on the applicant's submission, the ECHR's own examination of original trial documentation and other evidence, and (in the case of a Chamber) the observations of the national government concerned - in only a very small number of cases are there hearings involving personal representation

10) On each claim within the application, the judges will decide whether or not a violation of the ECHR has occurred; if it's a Committee of 3 judges examining the application, their decision (whether for or against violation) will be final, but if it's a Chamber of 7 judges, there is a possibility for either the applicant or the national government to request a referral to the Grand Chamber (17 judges)


So, given that the ECHR has requested observations from the Italian government in respect of Knox's application, I think it's possible to draw the following inferences:

a) Knox's application has passed the initial "vetting" by the screening lawyers

b) As such, Knox's application has been assigned to a panel of judges in preparation for an examination of its merits

c) The fact that the request for observation has been issued means (IMO) that the application has been assigned to a Chamber of 7 judges (rather than to a committee of 3 judges)

d) Also, the fact that the request for observation has been issued confirms that Knox's application has not "fallen at the first hurdle" of serious examination - had the lawyers deemed the application fundamentally inadmissible, they would have passed the case to a single judge who would simply have communicated a final decision of inadmissibility

e) The only barrier to full, formal admissibility of Knox's application at this stage is the formal communication from the Chamber that they are now going to move on to consider the merits of the case; as Numbers points out, this is actually a near-certainty once a case has been assigned to a Chamber of judges (the only thing that could, in practice, result in an inadmissibility ruling at this stage would be a mistake on the part of the assessing/assigning lawyers)

So to all intents, Knox's application has almost certainly passed the admissibility criteria - though this is subject to a formal declaration of such by the Chamber examining the application. Once that declaration is made (which itself will be contingent on the judges conducting their own examination, including an examination of responses from Italy), the Chamber will move on to examine the merits, after which they will issue an adjudication.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 06:46 PM   #37
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,807
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
I entirely agree with the Numbers' post above.

Essentially, in simple terms, the process goes as follows:

1) The applicant (here, Knox - via her lawyers) deposits the application with the ECHR

2) The application is registered, and is then examined by a team of lawyers

3) These lawyers decide whether the application meets the key basic criteria for admissibility

4) If these lawyers decided that the application is inadmissible on its face, the application is passed to a single judge who formally makes - and communicates - a decision of inadmissibility

5) If, however, the lawyers decide that there is merit to the application, it is then passed to either a Committee of 3 judges (if the lawyers consider the application to be a so-called "repetitive case" where very similar judgements have been made previously), or to a Chamber of 7 judges (if the lawyers consider it a "non-repetitive case")

6) AIUI, only the Chamber of 7 judges has the power to communicate the case to the national government concerned and to request observations.

7) Once either the Committee (3 judges) or the Chamber (7 judges) has fully gathered the required information, it will decide whether it considers the application admissible

8) If the application is deemed admissible by the judges, they will then go forward to examine the merits of the application

9) In almost all cases, the merits are considered in camera, based on the applicant's submission, the ECHR's own examination of original trial documentation and other evidence, and (in the case of a Chamber) the observations of the national government concerned - in only a very small number of cases are there hearings involving personal representation

10) On each claim within the application, the judges will decide whether or not a violation of the ECHR has occurred; if it's a Committee of 3 judges examining the application, their decision (whether for or against violation) will be final, but if it's a Chamber of 7 judges, there is a possibility for either the applicant or the national government to request a referral to the Grand Chamber (17 judges)


So, given that the ECHR has requested observations from the Italian government in respect of Knox's application, I think it's possible to draw the following inferences:

a) Knox's application has passed the initial "vetting" by the screening lawyers

b) As such, Knox's application has been assigned to a panel of judges in preparation for an examination of its merits

c) The fact that the request for observation has been issued means (IMO) that the application has been assigned to a Chamber of 7 judges (rather than to a committee of 3 judges)

d) Also, the fact that the request for observation has been issued confirms that Knox's application has not "fallen at the first hurdle" of serious examination - had the lawyers deemed the application fundamentally inadmissible, they would have passed the case to a single judge who would simply have communicated a final decision of inadmissibility

e) The only barrier to full, formal admissibility of Knox's application at this stage is the formal communication from the Chamber that they are now going to move on to consider the merits of the case; as Numbers points out, this is actually a near-certainty once a case has been assigned to a Chamber of judges (the only thing that could, in practice, result in an inadmissibility ruling at this stage would be a mistake on the part of the assessing/assigning lawyers)

So to all intents, Knox's application has almost certainly passed the admissibility criteria - though this is subject to a formal declaration of such by the Chamber examining the application. Once that declaration is made (which itself will be contingent on the judges conducting their own examination, including an examination of responses from Italy), the Chamber will move on to examine the merits, after which they will issue an adjudication.
I agree with your post with the exception of this. According to Rule 54.2(b) of the ECHR, either a Chamber of 7 judges or a Section President has the authority to issue a Communication to a State. What clarified which applied for Knox v. Italy was the State of Proceedings information, which indicates that only those cases that have been assigned to a judicial formation (and meet some other criteria) are accessible with the SOP search engine. Therefore, Knox v. Italy is before a Chamber of 7 judges (its's not a repetitive case such as would appear before a Committee of 3 judges). Here's the wording from the SOP search engine instructions:

The Court’s State of Proceedings (SOP) search engine enables parties to find out the current procedural state of an application solely for cases that are:

Allocated to a judicial formation
Not anonymous
Pending before the Court or have been disposed of within the last two years

If the application you are looking for does not meet the above criteria the following message will appear: “No information can be given for this application.” Please note that the information relating to the SOP is available two months after a change in the state of proceedings for a case.

Source: http://app.echr.coe.int/SOP/index.aspx?lg=en

ETA: I also have a quibble with this. Your statement seems to suggest that the ECHR will provide prior to judging the merits a separate publication declaring admissibility. From my reading, it seems that their practice is to discuss the admissibility and merits in one judgment document. And each claim is examined on its own for admissibility, although, again, I believe the claims as listed in the Knox v. Italy Communication to Italy will all be admissible.

Last edited by Numbers; 28th January 2017 at 06:54 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 Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 08:11 PM   #38
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 12,116
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Regarding whether or not the ECHR has assigned Knox v. Italy to a judicial formation, I must make a correction. I missed some very obvious information that I had actually posted earlier, in post #3 of this Thread, Continuation 24.

I will repeat the relevant information, obtained from the ECHR website:

The Court’s State of Proceedings (SOP) search engine enables parties to find out the current procedural state of an application solely for cases that are:

Allocated to a judicial formation
Not anonymous
Pending before the Court or have been disposed of within the last two years
If the application you are looking for does not meet the above criteria the following message will appear: “No information can be given for this application.” Please note that the information relating to the SOP is available two months after a change in the state of proceedings for a case.

Application number
76577/13
Application title
Knox v. Italy
Date of Introduction
24/11/2013
Name of representative
Carlo Dalla Vedova
Current state of proceedings
Application Communicated to Government with request for observations - Rule 54 § 2 (b)
Last major event
29/04/2016* Communicated to the Government for observations

List of major events

Description
Event date
Communicated to the Government for observations
29/04/2016
Application requiring a decision
23/12/2013
_____

So according to an official ECHR notice on its website, Knox v. Italy has been been assigned to a judicial formation, and from other ECHR information it is known that the formation must be a Chamber of 7 judges from the First Section of the ECHR.

I suggest anyone who maintains otherwise at this point is incorrect either by mistake or intent.
The highlighted part is interesting to me. The last major event took place 8 months ago.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 09:51 PM   #39
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,807
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
The highlighted part is interesting to me. The last major event took place 8 months ago.
There have been 2 additional Communications to Italy since then. The exact dates and the questions or requests raised are unknown to me and are not in the HUDOC database.

Also, according to the SOP instructions, there is considerable lag in posting a new status in the SOP: "Please note that the information relating to the SOP is available two months after a change in the state of proceedings for a case."

I checked some cases that had just been judged in the past few days by a Chamber, and this indeed was not indicated in the SOP, so there is a lag. The SOP latest on these cases listed: "Application pending possible transfer to Grand Chamber" (true if the outcome is "appealed" - that is, the losing side asks for a referral to the Grand Chamber after the Chamber judgment is delivered but before it is final) and the last major event before that is "Communicated to the Government for observations".

The ECHR just is not that forthcoming to the public about the details of its Communications (after the first) and the comments from the State and responses by the applicant. I speculate that these may be considered part of the private deliberations of the ECHR.

On Thread 23, I posted about how many Communications there have been for all the applications against Italy that could be tracked on HUDOC.

12 of 85 applications (including Knox v. Italy) had been Communicated 3 times. There were 3 with 4 Communications and 1 with 5. So things are happening with Knox v. Italy, but I couldn't tell you how quickly. Many ECHR cases take years to reach judgment even after the first Communication.

After Communication, there is usually no "major event" before there is a decision, striking out (for example, for a friendly settlement), or a judgment.

Sometimes - very rarely - a Chamber of 7 judges relinquishes a case to a Grand Chamber of 17 judges when a case requires some potentially highly controversial or difficult issue with respect to the Convention or the variation in laws among the Council of Europe States.

ETA: Here is a case that was just revised because of the death of two of the applicants; it had been judged in February, 2016 and became final in May, 2016. Note the sparsity of the information on "major events", and the significant lengths of time between the events. For example, about 8.5 years passed between the first Communication and the Judgment. Not all the ECHR cases take that long, but....


Application number: 582/05
Application title: Hayati Celebi and Others v. Turkey
Date of Introduction: 12/10/2004
Name of representative: Sukru Evrim Inal
Current state of proceedings: Application pending possible transfer to Grand Chamber
Last major event: 09/05/2016 Judgment on merits and just satisfaction final: case is finished
List of major events
Description Event date
Judgment on merits and just satisfaction final: case is finished 09/05/2016
Judgment on merits and just satisfaction 09/02/2016
Communicated to the Government for observations 14/09/2007
Application requiring a decision 07/01/2005

Last edited by Numbers; 28th January 2017 at 10:12 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 Back to Top
Old 28th January 2017, 10:07 PM   #40
Ergon
New Blood
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by Diocletus View Post
It has been assigned to a panel.

They are considering the merits.

They may still decide that the application is inadmissible or partially inadmissible, but that is way less likely at this late date.
It still is quite a leap of faith to assume that after the examination of the merits a court will then find her rights were violated since the answer to whether she exhausted she exhausted the domestic remedies available to her to complain about the violation of Article 3, and Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 a), c) and e) and 8 of the Convention might well be no?

In short, did her lawyer file a complaint before the relevant judicial authority, and how and when was it finally resolved?

Last edited by Ergon; 28th January 2017 at 10:08 PM. Reason: typos
Ergon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 12:19 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.