Sunday, September 24, 2023

Knox’s Misleading Petition To The Supreme Court

Posted by James Raper

Dalla Vedova also wrote untruthful Knox ECHR petition

1. Setting The Record Straight

With reference to this MailOnline article and numerous Italian reports (see one translation below) on Knox’s attempt to have Italy quash her calunnia conviction.

It should be borne in mind that the conviction was:

1. Rendered definitive by the 1st Chambers of the Supreme Court following an appeal by Knox on the issue

2. Effectively confirmed as definitive by the 5th Chambers of the Supreme Court

3. The 5th Chambers also poo-poo’d any attempt by the ECHR to interefere with the conviction whatever decision the ECHR came to.

4. The ECHR, in it’s ruling, did not in any event request the Italian justice system to review the safety of the conviction

5. The 5th Chambers also held, as a fact, that Knox was present in the cottage when Meredith was murdered. Accordingly she was perfectly well aware that Lumumba was not there and thus innocent.

There is an argument for saying that with a lawyer present she probably would not have made the accusation incriminating Lumumba.

That rather depends on what we cannot know, but it is hardly an excuse since she did (though there was no justifiable reason as to why she should, and she knew she was lying when she did.

The argument being used is like saying “Well I would not have shot him if there had been someone there to stop me”. Hardly an adequate defence.

I suspect that the hearing to which the MailOnline refers is really for leave to appeal - the route Guede took when challenging his definitive conviction, only to be denied leave.

Again Knox is drumming up interest so that she can continue with another round of grift and money making appearances.

But again - as always with the Italian Justice system - it is a question of watch this space.

2. Italian media report

Translation from Italian News Service TGCOM:

Meredith Kercher Case: Amanda Knox asks to cancel her sentence for slander against Lumumba

Appeal to Cassation of the American for the three years of imprisonment on the basis of one of the articles introduced by the Cartobia reform. Congolese opposes “out of respect for truth and justice”

Amanda Knox is asking that the definitive sentence of three years of imprisonment arrived for slander against Patrick Lumumba and linked to the trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher (for which she and Raffaele Sollecito were aquitted) be canceled.

She is doing this with an appeal to the Court of Cassation on the basis of one of the articles introduced by the Cartobia reform and after the European Court of Human Rights recognized the violation of her defense rights during the investigation.

However, Patrick Lumumba, the Congolese owner of the former pub Le Chic of Perugia, who was accused by the girl from Seattle and unjustly arrested for the murder, is opposed to the application. His motivation: “No to the cancellation of the sentence out of respect for truth and justice”.

Acquitted for the crime of Meredith Kercher but condemned for slander towards Patrick Lumumba, Amanda Knox presented the application in the Court of Cassation through the lawyers Carlo Dalla Vedova, her historical lawyer, and Luca Luparia Donati.

The appeal will be examined, in the council chamber and in non-participatory form [only lawyers present] at the beginning of October by the Fifth Chambers of Cassation. The appeal is accordingly opposed by Lumumba, represented by the lawyer Carlo Pacelli, “out of respect for truth and justice”.

This court may reject the American appeal, revoke the sentence of conviction for slander, or order a renewal of the trial, which in that case would be held in Perugia.

However, the possibility of a new trial is deemed very remote by Knox’s lawyers on the basis of the sentence of Cassation which acquitted her of the murder charge.

A possible cancellation of the conviction for slander would not however open the way to a request for compensation for unjust detention by Knox, since the terms have expired, though she could still make a request for damages.

Patrick Lumumba opposes the request of Amanda Knox to cancel the sentence against her slander towards him “out of respect for truth and justice”.

“Especially in the memory of Meredith Kercher” Patrick underlined with his lawyer, the lawyer Carlo Pacelli who will also represent him in the Court of Cassation. “Lumumba immediately became a civil party against Knox and that remains party to every procedural act” added the lawyer.

Lumumba was arrested for the murder of Meredith Kercher accomplished in Perugia in November 2007 based on Knox’s initial statements, but after 14 days in the cell he was released, because he was totally recognized as foreign to that crime and immediately acquitted.

Amanda Knox will not be in Italy for the hearing of the Cassation which will examine her request to cancel the sentence suffered for slander to Patrick Lumumba. “The procedure will be in the council chamber and without the parties. And also Amanda is awaiting a second child ...” explained the lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova, her defender from the initial stages of the investigation for murder. A charge from which she was definitively acquitted [actually, untrue].

It was Knox herself who asked to present the application to cancel the sentence of conviction. “She has always considered the accusation of slander unjust because she believes she had not committed that crime”.

Posted by James Raper on 09/24/23 at 09:18 AM in Hoaxes Sollecito etc


Yes to all of the above. Background #1:

Knox had two main lawyers, Ghirga and Dalla Vedova.

Ghirga is a criminal lawyer from Perugia, and good friends with Dr Mignini, and he always took a cautious line (as did most other lawyers including the top Rome criminal lawyer that walked off).

Dalla Vedova in contrast (suggested to the Knoxes by the American Embassy) is a business lawyer, and in the Perugia court he made mistake after mistake after mistake, and among lawyers was a laughing-stock.

This seems to have addled him. A bee in the bonnet as the Brits say.

Among other things Ghirga refused to join in Dalla Vedova’s crazy appeal to the ECHR (which was not shared with the Italian prosecutors until years later, and found to have broken records for crackpottery).

Ghirga seems not a party to this new crackpottery. No surprises there.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/24/23 at 10:56 AM | #

Background #2. Knox still hasn’t paid Patrick his award (around $100,000) as decided by the 2009, 2011, and 2013 (First Chambers) courts.

She has come out with no end of weak and nasty excuses. She may be in contempt of the Supreme Court, in which event any appeal could drop dead.

We are trying to find out why Pascelli and Italian media are not mentioning this.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/24/23 at 11:28 PM | #

Great reasoning as always, James!

I saw the DM article in which Lumumba’s counsel is very much against it and about how traumatic it is for his client to have to relive the nightmare event.

My view is this.  Knox based her ECHR appeal on the Boninsegna “calunnia II” case in Florence brought by prosecution based on complaints by questura (police-station) staff.  Boninsegna found her ‘Not Guilty’; there was accidentally a failure to appeal.  What verdict is there to overturn? He had no legal power to remark on the case she was convicted in.

A judge can only rule on their own cases of which they were the judge during the hearing.  Whilst Boninsegna might have remarked his opinions on the first case, it has no legal status.  This is where ECHR erred.  They were blindsided by Della Vedova, inundating them with quotes from Boninsegna, who had acquitted her anyway, so no verdict to overturn.

Boninsegna also remarked that the policewomen had been too friendly.  Whilst being careful not to be familiar is essential, it seems whatever they did could be argued a breach by Knox’ lawyers, trying to find any loophole they could, as they are paid to do by their client.

The other thing is, if Knox wants to resurrect the case, then perhaps she won’t mind if the forensic evidence is revisited, now that we have fantastic advances in DNA testing.  In the UK, murderers who thought they had ‘got away with it’ and were covered by ‘double jeopardy’ have now rudely realised they did not and are not.  (For example, Babes in the Wood childkiller Russell Bishop was initially acquitted.  New advances in forensics managed to match his jumper fibres to the girls and he was convicted on the second occasion.)

Another thing: laws aren’t usually retrospective.  I can’t see how she would qualify for a pardon.

Error in the TGCOM article:  Lumumba is not an Ivorian, he is from the Congo, or is it Democratic Republic of Congo.  Also, ‘the girl from Seattle’ is also a coded stereotype as she was a 20-year-old adult at the time.  But it remains true that Knox upheld the American tradition of passing blame onto the nearest Black guy (cf Susan Smith).  It was lucky that the random Austrian-Swiss guy who happened to frequent the near-empty bar that night, did come forward as an eye-witness that Lumumba did have an alibi or Patrick might still be languishing in jail.

Some outstanding questions for Knox:

1. What did you do with the key to Meredith’s room?

2. Why was there extensive cleaning at Sollecito’s that night, complete with bottles of ACE bleach and buckets containing latex gloves, when he had a regular cleaner?

3. Why did Sollecito’s father testify to police that this flood happened before circa 8:42pm but you said in court it didn’t happen until after dinner circa past 10:30pm?

4. Why did you say you went back to the cottage to return a mop you said you had borrowed to clean up the flooding at around 10:00am yet Sollecito says he slept until 10:00, but police records of logs show that you were up at abut 05:00am playing Fight Club and Come As You Are by Nirvana?  Any reason for the evasiveness?

5. How come your lamp was found under Meredith’s bed?

6. How came a strand of hair that looked like yours was found clutched in Meridith’s hand in rigor mortis?

7. How come a strand of hair that looked like yours was found lying across the top of Meredith’s bag?

8. How come you were so evasive about having gone into the Old Town that afternoon?  Did you meet Guede there?  Did you buy drugs there?

9. Why did you call your mother at 04:00am in her time zone before Meredith’s door was even kicked down?

Posted by KrissyG on 09/25/23 at 09:30 AM | #

Again, I like all of this. With political-appointee judges Marasca & Bruno long gone, the much-ridiculed Fifth Chambers actually might reopen the case, especially in light of Dr Mignini’s much-read book.

Re-opening the case would mean winding back their extreme mission-creep and sending the case back down to the Florence appeal court - which actually got it 100% right.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/26/23 at 10:52 AM | #

Here for starters is a possible 10 to add to KrissyG’s timely tough-questions list. 

10. Why did Sollecito call his book “Honor Bound?” We know the reason; does Knox? Throughout the book Sollecito subtly drops Knox in it, as if she was there on the night and he was not - but he was honor bound to not separate from her at trial.

Though in fact he DID separate: he never took the stand to confirm her third alibi (that she did not go out on the night) though she was desperate throughout trial for this and sent him lovenotes and things.

(Sollecito lost a libel case in Florence to Dr Mignini on exactly this. Dr Mignini mostly ignored the numerous libels in Sollecito’s book (and all in Knox’s) but his work rules required that he rubutt Sollecito’s false claim that he was offered a deal to roll over on Knox. There was no such offer and the extensive evidence against Knox hardly required this.) 

Knox has periodically bounced Sollecito on his head for his non-support. Stiffing him when he flew to Seattle after they were released. Refusing to marry him so he could stay in the US. Not inviting him to the 2019 Modena show.

If this legal process reopens they could really go for one another’s throats. Gee thanks Dalla Vedova. Here’s a tip. Be more careful in what you ask.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/26/23 at 11:00 AM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Explaining The New Attempt To Annul Knox’s Calunnia Conviction & ECHR’s Role

Or to previous entry PM Berlusconi RIP: Attempted To Rattle Largely Impervious Justice System