Amanda Knox....Innocent American on trial in Italy or cold-blooded murderer?

What "farcical reasoning" and "false claims"?

No theory. Amanda IS currently and actively in contact with the ECHR. It's not over.

I am not sure where the hostility or standoffish is coming form, I never said she was guilty or not guilty

I do think that the evidence was mishandled by police so therefore that means the case is a little bit harder to come by. maybe its he case for memohis 3, OJ Simpson maybe? but cases liek these were evidence is a bit more scattered and tougher to see whats real nd whats not real.

my thoughts on WHY she could be guilty are..

1) not having an alibi and having it changed the weeks leadin gup to it is really weird, and if true teh cell phone ringer was off that night and only that night. well... thats a pretty red flag,

if we think adnd syad is now GUITLTY only becuase of hi cell phoen pings and location, well..

2) Rudy guede def did it but I dont think he could have done it alone based on what italian courts said therfore I find it very odd that take away ALL THE BEHAVIOR patterns that peopel said was weird the day of. the bigget thing that was odd to me is that being in the house seeing everytrhing, poop in the toilet, blood on the sink and then calling cops 45 mins later after seeing that.

and also telling the cops sopmething about merideths room that freaked filomena out out.. somethign to do with door being locked and filo saying its never locked and freaign about about why amanda would say that

all of these arent hard evidence tho

reasons toward innocence]

1) murder weap, if anyhting raf was more connected then her, her DNA wasnt even a big amt on the bra/knife and even if it was on there which people say it was, the polcie handled the crime evidence so poorly sadly, the footprints, the tracking, the dna swapping and testing, its all just poorly executed.

2) filomena years after saying she doesnt think amanda did it (if what i read was truue, this was years ago) and I 1000% guede did it or was involved and his testimony about amanda and raf oin that interview he did was lolable, doesnt seem even he can make a good stroy up saying he wasint invoveld and raf and amanda 100% did it tied her up and everyhtng, it just doesnt make sesne when his dna, his fooprints are the only thing thats red flagging the most

I've been assured that Amanda is "taking the steps necessary to go to the ECHR again". In other words, the outrageous reconviction of calunnia will be fought. This doesn't mean that she has to reapply to start the proceedings all over again. The ECHR committee of ministers haven't yet received Italy's mandatory action report or made any judgment on whether the reconviction of Calunnia represents an acceptable resolution of the violations suffered by the injured party, namely Amanda. NGO's such as the Innocence Project can also intervene.

I've a few considerations on why the ECHR committee of ministers will not accept Italy's mandatory action report if it uses the reconviction of calunnia as part of its action report in resolving the human rights abuses suffered by Amanda.

Restitutio ad integrum is a fundamental requirement in ECHR law. In other words, it requires Italy, as the respondents state, to restore the proceedings to a point before the violations took place. It's clear that Italy did not do this when they used the 1st memoriale as a means to reconvict Amanda. The memoriale was written AFTER the violations had already taken place and were arguably ongoing at the time of writing.

The memoriale is tainted by the previous violations. Amanda said in her memoriale "I'm very confused at this time. My head is full of contrasting ideas and I know I can be frustrating to work with for this reason. But I also want to tell the truth as best I can." Well, why was she confused? At that time, she had suffered significant human rights abuses, which were obviously affecting what she was writing might be a reason.

She had no lawyer or interpreter with her at the time of the writing. An interpreter might have advised her to amend the narrative so that it would be more understandable to the investigators, who had already completely misunderstood the text message with Lumumba to mean an imminent meeting. A lawyer might have provided a steadying hand and might have advised her not to write the memoriale at all or make the content more emphatic.

The November 6th memoriale was deemed to be a "retraction" by the ECHR, as was the prison intercept of 10th November 2007. The Supreme Court motivation report regarded the inference of retraction as "not binding"; however, an ECHR judgment is certainly binding and must be complied with by a member state. That means that a contradiction in the interpretation of what is considered "binding" in terms of ECHR law. If Italy is wrong, then their use of the memoriale as a resolution to the case must be thrown out by the ECHR Committee of Ministers.

Did the ECHR deem the 6th November and the 7th November memoriales to be the same document? If that's the case, then Italy has only considered half of the evidence at its disposal.

Amanda wrote the November 6th memoriale when she was legally innocent of any crime, yet she had suffered human rights abuses, and was being detained at the questura for no valid reason. Although she had initially attended the questura voluntarily, the subsequent human rights violations were entirely the responsibility of the investigators, resulting in the expunging of the 1.45 and 5.45 statements from the proceedings. She had also been denied a lawyer and interpreter and was in "shock", according to the ECHR judgment. How could the memoriale in question have been written in a condition of unaffected tranquillity as the Supreme Court claims?

The concept of the memoriale was a response to events and statements that took place previously and are expunged from the record, making the reasoning behind the writing of the memoriale a non-sequitur, since she is attempting to explain the reasoning behind events that have been expunged from the proceedings and no longer exist anyway.

*Having said all that, it's clear that if Italy's action report IS acceptable to the ECHR committee of ministers, then it's curtains for Amanda. My opinion is that the ECHR Committee of Ministers (C.M.) will have no compunction in condemning Italy's use of the 1st memoriale as dysfunctional, perhaps even constituting further human rights abuses in terms of the length of time the respondent state has taken to resolve the violations. Once that has been made public, I would suggest that Amanda's defence team use all means at her disposal to highlight Italy's abysmal track record in resolving human rights abuses, such as Amanda's social media platforms.

Ex-FBI Steve Moore, who has also been involved in the protection of Italian students abroad, could also be proactive in advising students worldwide not to study abroad until Italy improves its track record in human rights issues. NGO's such as the Innocence Project could also get involved if Italy's action report is not acceptable to the ECHR C.M. This could rebound badly on Italy if they get it wrong. It's not over yet, not by a long shot. As long as the opportunity is there, Amanda should fight this injustice.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://rm.coe.int/4-guide-for-the-drafting-of-action-plans-and-reports/1680ab2bb7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UybuIA5...
https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22execidentifier%22:[%22004-52517%22]}

Not being hostile or standoffish, I'm accurately pointing out that lots have been convicted in US courts on far less evidence than Knox, so your opinion is wrong. I then invited you to think what you like, as everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if said opinion is wrong, the way Tom groupie's opinion is wrong re the ECHR and yours is re it wouldn't be proven BARD in a US court.
Evidence was already linked a bazillion ties over itt and indeed in my last reply to you.
Doesn't matter if the dna on the knife was a small amount, it was still Knox's dna. One of the false claims the MB SC made was that the knife should't have been allowed as Italian law didn't allow for dna that couldn't be amplified. This is completely untrue, Italian law allows for LCN DNA. MB also claimed the cops damaged the hard drives, another untrue claim, as this was never submitted as evidence, nor was any objection raised by Sollecito's defence, during examination and indeed an independent court appointed expert, Dr Fausto Greco testified the hard drives were already damaged when given to investigators for examination. MB simply made this up outa thin air.
MB also claimed it was inexplicable that Knox left no traces in one part pf the crime scene (Meredith's room) and that's ridiculous reasoning as lots of defendants were convicted who left no dna at the actual full crime scene, including defendants up for murder. That's the type of reasoning and false claims it took to very dubiously acquit both and both would be still be rotting away in prison to this day, had this have been in the US.

No, there was also Sollecito's dna on the bra clasp his lies in his dary, the murder weapon being found in his flat, as well as his lies in general, which he was denied compensation for.

So no I'm not being hostile or stand offish, I'm just tired of the endless rehashing and revisionism. I just checked that tom groupie's post- who btw came over from reddit and came to reddit from that loopy International skeptic's forum, which is basically full of racists and quasi sociopathic murderer groupies who seem to get some sick vicarious thrill outa Knox's crimes- and there's no indication that Knox has gone to the ECHR again, or that she would be in any way successful, for reasons already covered. and he actually uses Steve effin Moore as some sort of valid authority, and Moore's been discussed and debunked years ago itt, and here he is, rehashing the same old tired crap. So again, I'm tired of the endless revisionism, rehashing and falsehoods re Moore, ECHR et al.
So again think what you like, I really don't care at this stage and we'll agree to disagree. I very confidently stand by my opinion that all three are guilty af and two got away with it. The mods should lock this thread up, everything that can be discussed has been discussed already. Now don't engage with me again itt please, thanks. It's done and there's nothing more to be discussed and again the mods should simply close it imo as it's just rinse repeat rehash at this stage with absolutely nothing new to discuss.

I did follow this thread and the case for a while. I think there is definitely something weird about this.

Gun to my head I would say she was involved.

My main reason for posting now was though that I couldnt help but think Corpus Vile was a bit weird.

But after reading the recent post in this thread TGcomments you blow him out of the water in that regard.

You are one weird person. Are you related to Amanda or whats up with you?

Sorry but who are you responding to, me or TG? Did you mean to say here:

? (My emphasis)

Are you asking if I, or TG is related to Knox? I can absolutely assure you I'm not anyway.
Who blows who outa the water? If it's TG blowing me outa the water, then I'll respectfully disagree as I just checked his ECHR post and it's basically akin to wishful thinking. Afaik, an applicant needs to apply to the ECHR six months after the judgement, so Knox's team better get their skates on as her conviction was finalised on January 23rd and tomorrow is six months to the day.
Italy still indeed has a duty to report what remedial actions it has taken in light of the 2019 ECHR ruling (such as adopting 628-bis).

This is indeed supervised by the Committee of Ministers under the ECHR’s execution process.

But that process does not prevent or replace Knox’s personal obligation to apply if she wants her new conviction reviewed. So again this is at best wishful thinking on TG's part, or most likely- based on extensive discussions I've had with him in the past on another forum- more of his patented dishonesty.

If you think I'm weird that's absolutely your prerogative, but with respect, thinking I'm weird doesn't nullify my argument and I fail to see how TG's argument wrt the ECHR or indeed Knox's so-called innocence holds up in any respect.
My apologies in advance if I inferred wrongly from your post but again with respect it didn't come across as clear to me, no offence intended and if you could clarify, I'd appreciate it thanks.

To Corpus Vile

As I've already said, I've been informed that Amanda is currently taking legal steps to go back to the ECHR. I'm not sure how that constitutes a reapplication since the current proceedings are ongoing and "bilateral contacts are ongoing to obtain the submission of an action plan or report," according to the database. We both know that Italy's final action report must be ratified by the ECHR/CM and be shown to have remedied the violations to a point where they are redressed as far as possible. The seven points I made above are available to anyone who wants to discuss the integrity of the use of the first memoriale as a foundation for an action report.

Again, I can only reiterate that Amanda IS currently pursuing the matter with the ECHR. I absolutely agree that she must make such a contact with the C.M. to raise her concerns, so we are not disagreeing about anything in terms of procedure, just the terminology used in such contacts with the ECHR. What I am looking for is reasoned debate on whether the use of the memoriale is valid or not. I would argue that not only does the reconviction fail to redress any of the human rights violations, but it actually constitutes more human rights violations since it doesn't accommodate the right to a lawyer and his considerations as part of the retroactive scenario that the reconviction is based on.

What's weird is trying to hold a conversation (of sorts) with me via a 3rd party on the forum. Maybe in that case you get the nod in the weirdness stakes. I suggest that you unblock if indeed you have blocked me and have a reasoned debate on the subject. I agree that there is nothing left to gain by recycling other aspects of the case since K&S are acquitted, the boat has sailed, and it's not coming back for you. This is all you have left.

Oh! I see I blow CV out of the water in terms of weirdness, it leaves me wondering where you are placed in the weirdness stakes. No I'm not a relation of Amanda's, I just have a passion for justice that's all.

Corpus,

I want to say I agree with what you are saying and the people who say flat out shes innocent witout even looking or taking a deep dive of the evicence should never, ever be charged with jury duty. As I said, there is enough there, taking out the behaviors and lies, that really bring up questions (as I posted above)

I agree with the courts last ruling back in 2014 or whatever that said there is a strong chance that all 3 were implicit and knowing. I say that becuase it does seem there is strong case of not just being ONE person that was there that night. i think early on it was mentioned it did look like it was multpel people involved by many analysts early on or courts

I remember reading your posts in 2009/2010 iirc and understand what you said and understand the facts that weight towards her being AT LEAST involved or capable. I am not sure if its the same as KENDINE or 239 who is coming back to post.

this topic should not be locked since its the only topic, IIRC, in INTERNET history that documents and has a back and forth as intense as this one with facts laid out and people trying to break down a case at this length

The points you made were all valid and I agree with, what i aslo agree with is that I do believe most of DNA and prints we found were from Guede, its not even close, the DNA found on the bra was found to have more raf than amanda but tbh the issue with that in court is that since it was in fact taken 40 days late ( shouldnt have been) and hwo they were bagged up which we saw, was just ill equipped,

im not saying anyone should or shouldnt be charged innocent or guilty with complete botched police procedure, but I will say for as gruesome of a murder as it was to have been with the blood and moving body, im surprised that guedes DNA and imprints are far far far more flashing and way more present at the end point of body than either raf or amanda. if they were there at the time and did it as rudy does say.

also what i stated above with the other evidence.

Yeah i see that i did have a typo there and the post is not very clear.

I agree with you that Amanda was very likely involved in the killing somehow.

I also always thought that the amount of time you invest in this and the way you argued with people in here was a bit weird.

That being said that TGcommments guy, now thats a really weird dude. Much weirder than you.

I think that is for others to decide. But I am sure a lot of people consider me to be weird or kooky.

From you comments so far it doesn't seem to me at all that you are after justice but are a die hard supporter comer there what may.

Are there any other in your opinion falsely accused people that you feel as passionate about?

Thanks for clarifying. I initially got interested in the case purely as it took place in Italy, as my common law wife is Italian. I concede I got over emotionally invested in the case also. When she was provisionally acquitted in 2011 I genuinely wondered if she was innocent as I hadn't yet done a deep dive into the case. However after reading the available court reports/transcripts, there was no doubt in my mind she was involved and I was quite frankly flabbergasted at the blatancy of the MB court's farcial reasoning, false claims and going beyond its mandate to acquit. Ironically my missus has no interest or knowledge in the case, but after their acquittal she casually said that she felt they were going to get off, once I told her that Sollecito's lawyer was Giulia Bongiorno, who my missus considers corrupt, as apparently do many other Italians. She's regarded as a mob lawyer over there apparently. So that gave me an insight into how things pprently work in Italy and I don;t think their judiciary can be trusted overall. But yeah I got over invested in it and will hold my hand up in that regard and it's over with now anyway.

As for TG he's a die hard Knox groupie from that weirdo international skeptics forum and I blocked him on reddit due to his persistent lies. Even now he's gaslighting re the ECHR, for reasons I outlined and Knox has until today to apply, otherwise she'll most likely be barred from re-applying. As I said he's several years late to the party wrt this thread and apparently wants to resurrect it to rehash the whole thing again which I've no intention of doing.
Cheers

Okay but with respect I think it should be locked as there's nothing else to discuss that hasn't been already, unless Knox does re-apply to the ECHR, which so far she hasn't seem to have done and the deadline is today. There's no mention of this online or on Knox's social media that I've been able to find, despite TG's "trust me bro" claim without providing any sources.

Also and just to clarify re Guede he was convicted on less dna evidence (5 samples) than Knox (7 samples, 6 of which were hers.)

Knox DNA:
1 Knife blade Meredith (LCN)
2 Knife handle Knox
3 Sink (shared bath)- Knox (in blood)
4 Tap/ Faucet (bathroom)- Knox & Meredith
5 Bidet (bathroom) Knox & Meredith
6 Bath mat (bathroom) Knox & Meredith (mixed)
7 Filomena’s room floor Knox & Meredith (mixed)

Guede DNA:

1 Guede’s DNA found on Meredith’s body (vaginal swab).

2 Bloodied Handprint on Pillowcase

3 DNA on Meredith’s Purse/Zipper

4 Toilet Faeces

5 Shoeprint and DNA in Meredith’s Room

So Guede's dna wasn't everywhere, again he was convicted on less dna evidence than Knox.

Also it's irrelevant if the bra clasp was found 40+ days later- DNA found weeks, months or even years later is used to convict defendants in court. DNA against Steven Avery (Teresa Halbach's hood latch) wasn't found until four months later and was still used among other evidence to successfully convict him. This is just bar raising for Knox. And this was also covered in this very detailed and thorough thread, and this is what I meant by rehashing stuff that was already covered. I'm just tired of it.

So again personally I think this thread should be put to bed, as it doesn't look likely at all that Knox will make any headway with the ECHR and she doesn't even appear to have applied. We leave it at that thanks.

You are more than welcome to respond to my comments if you think you have something sensible to say. Yes, there are a few other cases, but I'm not discussing them on this forum.

To CV

The problem is that you've failed to make sense of anything you said so far. I've already told you on 2 previous occasions that Amanda and her legal team are currently in communication with the ECHR. She has a specialist in ECHR law as part of the team who would know the procedures a whole lot better than you are pretending to do.

You are avoiding the 7 points I raised upthread that undermine the integrity of Italy's use of the memoriale as a means to circumvent their responsibility for the human rights violations. The REAL reason you are avoiding debate is that you know deep down that you know Italy's actions are indefensible.

I agree that the murder charge aspect of the case should be put to bed since you none of the DNA evidence you refer to as Amanda's can be regarded as incriminating according to multiple experts such as Bruce Budowle, Greg Hampikian, Elizabeth Johnson, Conti and Vecchoitti as well as Peter Gill who was one of the team that pioneered the use of DNA profiiling in criminal cases. There is nothing to suggest that the DNA attributed to Amanda was remotely incriminating, since Amanda had lived at VDP7 for at least 5 weeks. Her DNA would be expected to be there while Rudy's was not. See Peter Gill's presentation on the subject. Notably:

"The key consideration was the distribution of DNA profiles of Guede vs Knox and Sollecito. Multiple profiles from multiple evidential items are much less likely to all be contamination incidents, whereas weak (one-off) results are more likely to be contaminants—this was always a recognised difficulty for the prosecution who invented the selective cleaning hypothesis to explain away inconvenient results."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...

Your claim that Amanda won't make any headway with the ECHR is pure pie-in-the-sky speculation. In reality, it's a subject that you are too ****-scared to confront.

TG care to respond to me on what I posted on the later page? i think for all intents and purposes when discussing facts of case just respond to me not corpus as its at a standstill between youtwo

I also agree with SOME of corpus points so youcan exchange with me

Seeing as you quoted his post, this is yet another sterling example of rehashing.
Conti- Vechiotti, Gill, Hampikian and Budowle have already been thoroughly debated scrutinised and ultimately debunked on this thread yeas ago. He keeps proving rehashing with this post you quoted.
Seriously why is this being rehashed and what purpose does it serve when it was covered years ago? He wants to debate this aspect yet again despite it being done years ago?

Do you now see what I mean and at least understand where I'm coming from, when I say the thread should be closed, even if you disagree? As I said he's late to the party and simply wants to rehash and revise everything. The evidence and court procedure including the Marasca Bruno SC have been thoroughly covered and Knox as of today has missed her deadline to apply to the ECHR as I checked hudoc and have seen nothing to indicate she's applied again, so I fail to see how discussing this aspect has any merit.
So again do you at least see where I'm coming from even if you disagree?

You asked me if I was interested in other cases to which I said yes, but not on this forum. I'm not going to use you as an intermediary with CV. I'm disappointed that CV doesn't have the cojones to debate with me directly. I've no personal considerations about Amanda Knox.

To CV.

You want the thread to be closed, right? Then why did you take it upon yourself to recycle the subject of DNA evidence? DNA evidence debunked by who, you? I won't bring up the subject of the murder charge, if you don't bring the subject up yourself, but you did! Which is why I responded. I'm still perplexed as to how you arrived at your conclusion regarding any such deadline. In terms of the ECHR, is this the page you mean:

https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22execidentifier%22:[%22004-52517%22]}

If not, please post a link to the page you're referring to.

Well and I call bullshit on everything you just said.

Whatever!

CV You said:

Yes, Amanda has been reconvicted of calunnia, and this is final according to Italian law. However, did you think that this meant Amanda must reapply to the ECHR to start the proceedings all over again, as she did in 2013?

This is drivel. The committee of Council of Europe foreign ministers is not a judicial appeal body. There has been no 'reconviction', since Knox's slander conviction has never been overturned by any appeal court -- instead it was reconfirmed by the Court of Cassation in January, notwithstanding the police failures noted by the ECHR. In other words Knox gained a further appeal to Cassation and again lost. The four-month deadline for a new appeal to the ECHR (it used to be six months, but it was shortened in 2022) passed in May, and despite Knox's love of publicity we've heard nothing about any further action, so that would appear to be that.

Are these your own considerations, or did someone advise you?