Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

How do you know the unnamed juror even exists?

Chris_Halkides

I believed you missed my response in #2317:

If you wish to accept that Ms Battista knows that the person she spoke to was an actually juror that is your prerogative, but it is hardly proof. Are you familiar with the “fake 9/11 survivor”?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

two different anonymous jurors

Chris_Halkides

I believed you missed my response in #2317:

CoulsdonUK,

I read that, and my message last night (#2360) was in response. Again, how do we know that the juror that Judge Nencini spoke of even exists?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

I read that, and my message last night (#2360) was in response. Again, how do we know that the juror that Judge Nencini spoke of even exists?

Chris_Halkides

The existence or non-existence of the jurist Ms Battista wrote of is an issue for anyone who accepts or believes in the accuracy of the ABC News article.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

anonymous jurors redux

Chris_Halkides

The existence or non-existence of the jurist Ms Battista wrote of is an issue for anyone who accepts or believes in the accuracy of the ABC News article.

CoulsdonUK,

The juror of whom Judge Nencini spoke is just as anonymous as the one interviewed by ABC news. Do you believe in the existence of the former juror? Why or why not?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

The juror of whom Judge Nencini spoke is just as anonymous as the one interviewed by ABC news. Do you believe in the existence of the former juror? Why or why not?

Chris_Halkides

To be honest I do not see it as worth further discussion given that Italy does not publish jurist names. Why do you assign significance to either article? The Florence motivations still stand, they will be reviewed at some point in the future by the Italian Supreme Court.

 

[Grinder]

Chris please post the link to the Battista article again.

Coulsdon - if she wrote a false article of this nature about a judge don't you think a defamation or equivalent charge would have been filed? This whole affair led to two inquiries, one by the judiciary and one by the judicial legislative committee. Clearly his statements were questioned even if he wasn't sanctioned.

 

[Bill Williams]

CoulsdonUK,

I read that, and my message last night (#2360) was in response. Again, how do we know that the juror that Judge Nencini spoke of even exists?

If that juror does not exist than the irony is....

...... Nencini lied.

 

[Grinder]

Chris_Halkides

To be honest I do not see it as worth further discussion given that Italy does not publish jurist names. Why do you assign significance to either article? The Florence motivations still stand, they will be reviewed at some point in the future by the Italian Supreme Court.

The reason, as explained in a response to a direct question from you, is that JREF is considered a adjunct international court and our ruling may hang in the balance depending on the truth or falseness of the lay judge's comments.

Currently Nencini's ruling is not accepted at the court of JREF or in The Book of Grinder and recent focus groups indicate the court of public opinion here in the US say extradition is highly unlikely.

You will of course be sanguine when the case for Amanda moves to US jurisdiction, right?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Vanity Fair and Ms. Knox's outsider status

Chris please post the link to the Battista article again.

Coulsdon - if she wrote a false article of this nature about a judge don't you think a defamation or equivalent charge would have been filed? This whole affair led to two inquiries, one by the judiciary and one by the judicial legislative committee. Clearly his statements were questioned even if he wasn't sanctioned.

ABC's Nikki Battista wrote an article in 2009. link: "Knox's fate was decided by two Italian judges and six jurors who were not sequestered, screened for biases and could freely read media reports."

And this is interesting in light of Nina Burleigh's much more recent article: "She [Vanity Fair reporter Judy Bachrach] said Knox "didn't have a chance" because "she is an outsider. If you are an outsider, a foreigner, you don't know a lot of famous powerful people you are sunk."

 

[Desert Fox]

On injustice anywhere, a poster has suggested that the Italian supreme court is planning to just wait out the statute of limitations for resolving the case, which seems to be November, and just dismiss it based on that. Suggested that it is a common Italian legal tactic on controversial cases.

 

[Bill Williams]

The reason, as explained in a response to a direct question from you, is that JREF is considered a adjunct international court and our ruling may hang in the balance depending on the truth or falseness of the lay judge's comments.

Currently Nencini's ruling is not accepted at the court of JREF or in The Book of Grinder and recent focus groups indicate the court of public opinion here in the US say extradition is highly unlikely.

You will of course be sanguine when the case for Amanda moves to US jurisdiction, right?

It will never in a million years be allowed to reside in any American "jurisdiction", either the State Department, or in a US Court which will be tasked with ruling on whether or not an extradition request is legal acc. to treaty.

The last thing The Republic of Italy wants, if it is corporately sane, is a truly independent inquiry into the process from Nov 2, 2007, onwards.

Whereas Cassazione can keep it all in-house, by ruling that Knox/Sollecito were de facto convicted at Rudy's fast-track trial, and therefore is ruling that Knox's/Sollecito's separate process must include them as participants in a multiple attacker scenario......

.... it therefore must be kept in-house. By refusing to request extradition, Italy will guarantee that the only "official" inquiries into this horrible ordeal stop with Cassazione. Anything said in the USA or the UK are simply matters of opinion of foreign states who (they will say) should mind their own business. Look up the Treaty of Westphalia.

An extradition request forces the USA to go public with and make official its concerns.

Italy would be nuts to request it.

 

[Bill Williams]

On injustice anywhere, a poster has suggested that the Italian supreme court is planning to just wait out the statute of limitations for resolving the case, which seems to be November, and just dismiss it based on that. Suggested that it is a common Italian legal tactic on controversial cases.

I sincerely doubt Cassazione will do this. There is now not enough profile to stop Cassazione from putting the finishing touches on this madness.

Most have moved on. However, it will ignite a firestorm here on JREF.

 

[Desert Fox]

Italy would be nuts to request it.

Nobody thought that Italy would request the extradition of Mario Lozano either.

 

[Grinder]

On injustice anywhere, a poster has suggested that the Italian supreme court is planning to just wait out the statute of limitations for resolving the case, which seems to be November, and just dismiss it based on that. Suggested that it is a common Italian legal tactic on controversial cases.

I don't believe there is a statute of limitations for murder.

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't believe there is a statute of limitations for murder.

I am pretty sure that one of Amanda's specific arguments is that the case violated several Italian legal statutes as far as timeliness of the legal procedures. I don't have all these items at my fingertips however.

 

[Grinder]

It will never in a million years be allowed to reside in any American "jurisdiction", either the State Department, or in a US Court which will be tasked with ruling on whether or not an extradition request is legal acc. to treaty.

The last thing The Republic of Italy wants, if it is corporately sane, is a truly independent inquiry into the process from Nov 2, 2007, onwards.

Whereas Cassazione can keep it all in-house, by ruling that Knox/Sollecito were de facto convicted at Rudy's fast-track trial, and therefore is ruling that Knox's/Sollecito's separate process must include them as participants in a multiple attacker scenario......

.... it therefore must be kept in-house. By refusing to request extradition, Italy will guarantee that the only "official" inquiries into this horrible ordeal stop with Cassazione. Anything said in the USA or the UK are simply matters of opinion of foreign states who (they will say) should mind their own business. Look up the Treaty of Westphalia.

An extradition request forces the USA to go public with and make official its concerns.

Italy would be nuts to request it.

Forsan. Bill I wished you hadn't tried to spoil the point.

Coulsdon has maintained a fall back position of respecting the jurisdiction that has control of the case i.e. Italy. If the Italians convict and request extradition, I want to know what his/her position will be at that time.

Coulsdon doesn't respect the court of JREF or the findings in The Book of Grinder but what about the US Federal Court system or our State dept?

On you point, they will do what plays in the homeland not the international court of opinion.

 

[Grinder]

I am pretty sure that one of Amanda's specific arguments is that the case violated several Italian legal statutes as far as timeliness of the legal procedures. I don't have all these items at my fingertips however.

Yes, but that's not the same thing as statute of limitations. Even in a murder case the defendant is entitled to a speedy or at least not interminable trial(s).

AFAIK they put that in more for ECHR than the ISC.

 

[Grinder]

ABC's Nikki Battista wrote an article in 2009. link: "Knox's fate was decided by two Italian judges and six jurors who were not sequestered, screened for biases and could freely read media reports."

And this is interesting in light of Nina Burleigh's much more recent article: "She [Vanity Fair reporter Judy Bachrach] said Knox "didn't have a chance" because "she is an outsider. If you are an outsider, a foreigner, you don't know a lot of famous powerful people you are sunk."

Thanks Chris I wasn't following this back and forth that closely.

The Battista article and quotes seem relatively unimportant. I'm sure some of the jurors lost sleep. Why do either you or Coulsdon think it important?

The information about Nencini seems much more important because it appears that he may have influenced the outcome and it points out the flaw of allowing judges to watch and read about the case. Here, while many juries are not sequestered, the jurors are strictly forbidden from media and discussions regarding the case.

Was anybody quoted in the Nencini trial article besides him?

 

[Desert Fox]

Yes, but that's not the same thing as statute of limitations. Even in a murder case the defendant is entitled to a speedy or at least not interminable trial(s).

AFAIK they put that in more for ECHR than the ISC.

It is unfortunate that I used the term "Statute of Limitation" but I meant in terms of as far as from arrest to trial. Once charges are brought, you have a specific timeline which to finish by.

 

[Bill Williams]

Forsan. Bill I wished you hadn't tried to spoil the point.

Coulsdon has maintained a fall back position of respecting the jurisdiction that has control of the case i.e. Italy. If the Italians convict and request extradition, I want to know what his/her position will be at that time.

Coulsdon doesn't respect the court of JREF or the findings in The Book of Grinder but what about the US Federal Court system or our State dept?

On you point, they will do what plays in the homeland not the international court of opinion.

You are probably right.

One then has this image of Saddam Hussein firing pistols in the air in celebration for the crowd below for losing, that's right losing the first Gulf War.

It was enough to stand up to the Great Satan.

I still maintain that Italy would be insane to take this outside its own borders.