Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

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.

Except in murder, rape and treason at least IIRC that's the way it is here.

I looked it up for you:

The Italian criminal system has a statute limiting the time for prosecution of all crimes, apart from felonies punishable by life imprisonment, to a period of time equalling the maximum penalty provided for by law, which cannot, though, be less than six years for delitti (felonies) and four years for contravvenzioni (misdemeanors).
It is not enough that the criminal suit be started before the statute of limitations ran out: it is the definitive sentence that must be handed down before the term expires.
There is also another statute of limitations, limiting the time for enforcing a penalty, to a period of time provided for by law: twice the time to be served, or ten years in the case of a fine, when dealing with a felony; five years, when dealing with misdemeanors.
​

So as you can see, statute of limitation does not apply in murder cases and even if the fact that they were not sentenced to life mattered came into play they would still have 26 years.

 

[Desert Fox]

Except in murder, rape and treason at least IIRC that's the way it is here.

I looked it up for you:

The Italian criminal system has a statute limiting the time for prosecution of all crimes, apart from felonies punishable by life imprisonment, to a period of time equalling the maximum penalty provided for by law, which cannot, though, be less than six years for delitti (felonies) and four years for contravvenzioni (misdemeanors).
It is not enough that the criminal suit be started before the statute of limitations ran out: it is the definitive sentence that must be handed down before the term expires.There is also another statute of limitations, limiting the time for enforcing a penalty, to a period of time provided for by law: twice the time to be served, or ten years in the case of a fine, when dealing with a felony; five years, when dealing with misdemeanors.
​

So as you can see, statute of limitation does not apply in murder cases and even if the fact that they were not sentenced to life mattered came into play they would still have 26 years.

I think you mean six years, not twenty-six years. What I am suggesting is that it gives the Italian court an "out" where they look alright while getting this over.

To quote a bit so I don't have to rewrite it:
Probably their most honorable escape is to simply delay a ruling until after November 2nd; seven years will have elapsed since the murder and six years since Knox was charged. Under Italian law the case should be dismissed because a “reasonable time” (defined as six years) will have passed without the courts reaching a final decision; that Amanda’s attorney could file this request suggests it is a constitutional right unrelated to the statute of limitations.

This solution is ideal because none can criticize the court for acquitting Knox and Sollecito; police and prosecutors will be blameless for criminal actions in the course of investigation which now become moot; and since the defendants are not acquitted, the state will owe them no money.

 

[Grinder]

Except in murder, rape and treason at least IIRC that's the way it is here.

I looked it up for you:

The Italian criminal system has a statute limiting the time for prosecution of all crimes, apart from felonies punishable by life imprisonment, to a period of time equalling the maximum penalty provided for by law, which cannot, though, be less than six years for delitti (felonies) and four years for contravvenzioni (misdemeanors).
It is not enough that the criminal suit be started before the statute of limitations ran out: it is the definitive sentence that must be handed down before the term expires.There is also another statute of limitations, limiting the time for enforcing a penalty, to a period of time provided for by law: twice the time to be served, or ten years in the case of a fine, when dealing with a felony; five years, when dealing with misdemeanors.
​

So as you can see, statute of limitation does not apply in murder cases and even if the fact that they were not sentenced to life mattered came into play they would still have 26 years.

I think you mean six years, not twenty-six years. What I am suggesting is that it gives the Italian court an "out" where they look alright while getting this over.

To quote a bit so I don't have to rewrite it:
Probably their most honorable escape is to simply delay a ruling until after November 2nd; seven years will have elapsed since the murder and six years since Knox was charged. Under Italian law the case should be dismissed because a “reasonable time” (defined as six years) will have passed without the courts reaching a final decision; that Amanda’s attorney could file this request suggests it is a constitutional right unrelated to the statute of limitations.

This solution is ideal because none can criticize the court for acquitting Knox and Sollecito; police and prosecutors will be blameless for criminal actions in the course of investigation which now become moot; and since the defendants are not acquitted, the state will owe them no money.

No I meant 26 years because it says The Italian criminal system has a statute limiting the time for prosecution of all crimes, apart from felonies punishable by life imprisonment, to a period of time equalling the maximum penalty provided for by law

Since she was sentenced to 26 years the statute couldn't be less and the six number is the shortest a SOL can be for a felony even if the max for that felony was less than sixe years.

The appeal includes a speedy trial clause. That doesn't mean it is a constitutional clause or even applicable law it just means it was part of the appeal. If the Wiki I provided is correct, it would seem strange that there is a limit of six years and yet it is specifically a six minimum. I do recognize there is a difference between length of trial and statute of limitations which could apply. I doubt the ISC will accept that appeal, but it would give them an out.

Not sure how the money thing would work. Not sure that result would really be good for the kids.

 

[Grinder]

There are concerns about the excessive length and over use of pre-trial detention. Several organisations have criticised the indefensible delays in progressing trials with release pending trial very rarely granted. Fair Trials International has reported that defendants are not able to take part in decisions to order detention which are not made in public.
The Italian government has also faced major criticism about provisions which make illegal entry and stay a criminal offence in Italy.
The right to a Fair Trial in Italy
Violation findings by the ECtHR of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (criminal cases only)
Between April 2007 and June 2012, Italy has been held in violation of Article 6 ECHR in fifteen decided cases. All of the cases found violations of Article 6(1), the right to a fair public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal.
NGO and other reports
The major and continuing criticism of the Italian legal system is that trials take an unaccountably long time. The Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention states that ‘the Government should, as a matter of priority, put in place legislative and other measures to decrease the duration of criminal trials with a view to ensuring better protection of the right to be tried without delay’. This sentiment is echoed in numerous NGO reports. The absence of effective limits on the length of pre-trial investigations, the large number of minor offences covered by Italian law, unclear and contradictory legal provisions, insufficient resources, including an inadequate number of judges, and strikes by judges and lawyers have all been raised as key factors in accounting for the current delays.
The US State Department highlighted the police practice of engaging detained persons in ‘informal chats’ before making a formal arrest. This practice essentially denies suspects the right of consulting a lawyer as this right may only be invoked at the time of arrest.
ETA - DF why don't you ask the poster for a cite on the alleged Italian law limiting all trial to 6 years?

 

[Grinder]

The Italian law[7] and Romanian law[8] are quite peculiar in this regard since lawsuits and trials must be ended, rather than started, within such a time limit (this applies only to criminal proceedings). This makes it effectively possible to avoid a guilty sentence by delaying the trial enough for the time limit to expire.
For criminal cases, this means that the public prosecutor must prosecute within some time limit. The time limit varies from country to country, and increases with seriousness of the alleged crime (for example, in most jurisdictions, there is no statute of limitations for murder). When a time limit is suspended, it does not run (akin to hitting "Stop" on a stopwatch). Common triggers include the defendant being on the run. When a time limit is interrupted, it is restarted (like hitting "Reset" on a stopwatch). This may be triggered by a new crime committed.
If a criminal is on the run, he can be convicted in absentia, in order to prevent prescription, or the time limit does not elapse during that time.
The prescription must not be confused with the need to prosecute within "a reasonable delay", an obligation imposed by the European Court of Human Rights. Whether the delay is reasonable or not, will depend on the complexity of the trial and the attitude of the suspect.

 

[Grinder]

Italian Parliament Set to Finish Vote on Law That May End Berlusconi Trial
By Jeffrey Donovan Apr 13, 2011 5:34 AM PT 0 Comments Email Print
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
LinkedIn
Save
Italy may pass a bill today that would shorten the length of trials in the country with Europe’s slowest legal proceedings, possibly ending some corruption cases against Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

The Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of parliament, will likely conclude voting in Rome on the measure. Opposition lawmakers, including former anti-graft prosecutor Antonio Di Pietro, insist it’s tailored to end Berlusconi’s legal woes. Supporters say the legislation is needed to overhaul one of the least-efficient judicial systems in Europe. The final vote is expected to take place at 8 p.m.

“It’s the same old problem,” Enrico Letta, deputy head of the main opposition Democratic Party, told reporters in Rome this week. “It’s the gap between Berlusconi’s personal interest and the interest of Italians” who want “proper trials carried out in a reasonable timeframe.”

Hundreds of demonstrators have rallied for days in front of parliament against the bill, which the National Association of Magistrates says would affect thousands of other trials. Protesters say the cases include the bankruptcy of Parmalat Finanziaria SpA, the trial of former Bank of Italy Governor Antonio Fazio for market manipulation and proceedings related to a 2009 gas explosion in the Tuscan city of Viareggio that killed almost two dozen people, relatives of whom took part in today’s protest outside parliament.

“Infinite trial lengths damage all citizens,” Justice Minister Angelino Alfano said in remarks broadcast yesterday by Sky TG24 television. Recent amendments to the bill “will avoid it having the kind of negative impact on the entire legal system that some people have been talking about.”

Slim Majority

Berlusconi’s parliamentary majority was weakened last year when dozens of lawmakers defected from his ruling coalition, partly over his attempts to overhaul the justice system. He generally has a Chamber majority of about 10 votes. As the version of the bill that passed the Senate was amended in the Chamber, it will have to be voted again in the Senate, where Berlusconi has a broader majority than in the lower house.

The bill sets a three year-limit on trials where the defendant faces a maximum sentence of 10 years. The law would grant another two years for the first appeal, and one and a half years for the final appeal. For more serious cases such as Mafia crimes or terrorism, the process can last as long as 10 years, the legislation says.
Berlusconi, 74, faces two trials that started in 2006. In one, he’s accused of bribing U.K. lawyer David Mills to lie on his behalf under oath. In the other, he faces charges of tax fraud at his Mediaset SpA (MS) television company. The premier denies any wrongdoing and says prosecutors want to topple him.

Nothing Thrown Out

“No trial will be shelved,” Maurizio Paniz, who’s leading the bill through parliament for Berlusconi’s People of Liberty party, said in comments posted on the party’s website. The bill “is completely indifferent” to Berlusconi because in almost all his trials, “the judges will make sure to complete all the levels of justice in time and nothing will be thrown out.”

Italian trials can drag on for more than a decade, and the slow pace has been repeatedly condemned by the European Court of Human Rights.

 

[Desert Fox]

Well, it sounded like a good argument but until some evidence is shown, not really a useful argument. As I have written before though, there is nothing wrong with being wroing.

 

[Samson]

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.

The issue is that Machiavelli and Popper declare the request to be pro forma (can not not happen).

 

[Grinder]

Well, it sounded like a good argument but until some evidence is shown, not really a useful argument. As I have written before though, there is nothing wrong with being wroing.

Except of course being wrong or in your case wroing

I think you should go challenge the poster with some of what I have provided you.

Become a surrogate Grinder .

Specious assertions always sound good, that's their raison d'etre. The reason they are putting it in the appeal is for ECHR as they can say they pointed out the Italians' failings.

 

[Grinder]

The issue is that Machiavelli and Popper declare the request to be pro forma (can not not happen).

Well that's not what pro forma means. Are you trying to say that Mach and Popper don't think Italy will request extradition?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

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.

Please point out where I posted that Ms Battista wrote a false article?
The juror’s name was not quoted in the article; we do not know that the person who was interviewed was an actual juror.

As far as I can recall, the Florence appeal judge (Nencini) was investigated for speaking to the media.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

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?

I have posted on numerous occasion that if Raffaele and Amanda’s verdicts are confirmed that Amanda will not be extradited, etc etc. A question; do you believe Raffaele has received preferential treatment as an Italian in this case?

 

[Samson]

Well that's not what pro forma means. Are you trying to say that Mach and Popper don't think Italy will request extradition?

pro forma

In law, pro forma court rulings are intended merely to facilitate the legal process (to move matters along).

They say an extradition request is a certainty, must happen. Machiavelli said it once on TJMK to my knowledge, Popper many times on PMF.
ETA I cite them because the back catalogues prove them to be accurate forecasters of events.

 

[Desert Fox]

Except of course being wrong or in your case wroing

I think you should go challenge the poster with some of what I have provided you.

Become a surrogate Grinder .

Specious assertions always sound good, that's their raison d'etre. The reason they are putting it in the appeal is for ECHR as they can say they pointed out the Italians' failings.

Actually what I am looking for is an out, one which allows the Italian court to drop the case without making their own system look bad. There is almost always something which can be used in this manner in every case than I am aware of.

 

[Grinder]

pro forma

In law, pro forma court rulings are intended merely to facilitate the legal process (to move matters along).

They say an extradition request is a certainty, must happen. Machiavelli said it once on TJMK to my knowledge, Popper many times on PMF.
ETA I cite them because the back catalogues prove them to be accurate forecasters of events.

I know what it means and it is the opposite of what you wrote:

The issue is that Machiavelli and Popper declare the request to be pro forma (can not not happen).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Bartleby the Scrivener

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?

From Battista's article: "It was hard to envision Knox doing this," she said. "But it is possible. … We can all drink too much, then get in a car and drive."

My point was that "it is possible" doesn't sound like someone convinced BARD. In addition, I am sure that many of us have had a little to much to drink and then drove somewhere, However, "We can all drink too much, then stab our roommate," just doesn't make any sense. CoulsdonUK would prefer not to voice an opinion on this.

I did not see any quotes from anyone besides Nencini in the Daily Mail article.

 

[Grinder]

Please point out where I posted that Ms Battista wrote a false article?
The juror’s name was not quoted in the article; we do not know that the person who was interviewed was an actual juror.

As far as I can recall, the Florence appeal judge (Nencini) was investigated for speaking to the media.

As I said upstream, I wasn't following this very closely and thought the unnamed judge was from the Nencini issue of him correcting their opinions after they watched TV at home.

I didn't mean to say you accused Battista of a false article but my point was that Nencvini could sue if there wasn't a real judge commenting but since it was from another article it is moot.

I have posted on numerous occasion that if Raffaele and Amanda’s verdicts are confirmed that Amanda will not be extradited, etc etc.

A question; do you believe Raffaele has received preferential treatment as an Italian in this case?

But that's not what I asked. If the US refuses extradition when that aspect is in their court will you accept their ruling? You have expressed on numerous occasions that you (paraphrased) put your faith or trust or accept in the Italian courts because they have jurisdiction. Same for when it comes here?

ETA - do not believe Raf has received preferential treatment. Do believe that Nencini and Mignini have.

 

[Samson]

I know what it means and it is the opposite of what you wrote:

Sorry Grinder, this is what I wrote,

The issue is that Machiavelli and Popper declare the request to be pro forma (can not not happen).
A ungainly double negative, but what I meant.

 

[Grinder]

Sorry Grinder, this is what I wrote,

The issue is that Machiavelli and Popper declare the request to be pro forma (can not not happen).
A ungainly double negative, but what I meant.

Sorry, I guess my mind just dropped the double.

 

[Grinder]

Coulsdon,

I would very much appreciate your answering whether or not you will be sanguine about the US rulings on extradition?