Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

Coulsdon,

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

On this subject, I can't help wondering whether the Italians will allow Raffaele to remain at large during this process. Their lives can thus wither on the vine, giving morbid satisfaction to the dark side.

 

[platonov]

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?

Really Coulsdon ?

Do you think Italy will request extradition ?

I'd be very surprised if they don't.
And just slightly less surprised if the 'US' doesn't comply.

Admit it - you are just teasing the groupies.

 

[JREF2010]

On this subject, I can't help wondering whether the Italians will allow Raffaele to remain at large during this process. Their lives can thus wither on the vine, giving morbid satisfaction to the dark side.

What a nightmare for him. Reading about the innocents imprisoned, and those released making the news its a reality the "goober courts" could continue the mess the prosecution and forensic team started.

 

[Samson]

Really Coulsdon ?

Do you think Italy will request extradition ?

I'd be very surprised if they don't.
And just slightly less surprised if the 'US' doesn't comply.

Admit it - you are just teasing the groupies.

Platonov, do you think the US public will take a keener interest in the facts of the case if extradition is requested?

 

[carbonjam72]

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?

No, I don't think Raf was given special treatment. I think the Italian police are shockingly corrupt and I think coerced confessions, fake evidence, tramp witnesses and wrongful convictions are tragically common in Italy.

My fear is that they may not be terribly less common in the US and UK as well.

 

[carbonjam72]

On this subject, I can't help wondering whether the Italians will allow Raffaele to remain at large during this process. Their lives can thus wither on the vine, giving morbid satisfaction to the dark side.

Why would the Italians allow Raf to remain out of prison after a confirmation of his conviction by the ISC? There's no basis for not taking him directly to prison to serve a confirmed sentence, IIUC.

Even if the case were pending in front of the ECHR, how could the Italians release him from prison without an order from an Italian court?

The fact that it would appear grossly unfair for Raf to be in prison, and the US refuse extradition, is one more reason ISC has to send the case back down for another appeal trial, or just dismiss it for lack of evidence (outright dismissal is what I think most likely. Or sending it back down in such a way that its toast - like by ruling the DNA evidence inadmissible as per C&V, and excluding AK's coerced statements which Nencini did not do; and ditching Curatolo as per Hellman, and requiring Rudy to testify as a constitutional right to face their accuser).

Rudy goes on the witness stand for one day, and then the case gets dismissed. That's my scenario, fantasy or otherwise.

In any event, I really do not believe these convictions will be confirmed.

 

[Samson]

Why would the Italians allow Raf to remain out of prison after a confirmation of his conviction by the ISC? There's no basis for not taking him directly to prison to serve a confirmed sentence, IIUC.

Even if the case were pending in front of the ECHR, how could the Italians release him from prison without an order from an Italian court?

The fact that it would appear grossly unfair for Raf to be in prison, and the US refuse extradition, is one more reason ISC has to send the case back down for another appeal trial, or just dismiss it for lack of evidence (outright dismissal is what I think most likely. Or sending it back down in such a way that its toast - like by ruling the DNA evidence inadmissible as per C&V, and excluding AK's coerced statements which Nencini did not do; and ditching Curatolo as per Hellman, and requiring Rudy to testify as a constitutional right to face their accuser).

Rudy goes on the witness stand for one day, and then the case gets dismissed. That's my scenario, fantasy or otherwise.

In any event, I really do not believe these convictions will be confirmed.

A fascinating area for discussion.
Rudy, was Amanda standing on the left or right side of Meredith as you sexually violated her?

 

[Desert Fox]

In any event, I really do not believe these convictions will be confirmed.

I really hope you are right. . . .
After watching first Paradise Lost, some people called the Arkansas government asking about the case, thinking the three had been released only to find that they were incarcerated. As such, I don't know how foolhardy your hope is.

 

[carbonjam72]

I really hope you are right. . . .
After watching first Paradise Lost, some people called the Arkansas government asking about the case, thinking the three had been released only to find that they were incarcerated. As such, I don't know how foolhardy your hope is.

They said Mario Spezi would have stayed in prison if not for the international media storm provoked by Douglas Preston, and taken up by the Italian media as well.

This case is literally an extension of that one. There's reason for hope. I'd rather be passionate about the truth, than cynical about a lie.

 

[Grinder]

They said Mario Spezi would have stayed in prison if not for the international media storm provoked by Douglas Preston, and taken up by the Italian media as well.

This case is literally an extension of that one. There's reason for hope. I'd rather be passionate about the truth, than cynical about a lie.

Doing an impersonation of Fox News - They said... who might they be?

What odds would you give me on the ISC setting them free or disallowing the DNA?

ETA - and how is it that "This case is literally an extension of that one".

 

[Bill Williams]

They said Mario Spezi would have stayed in prison if not for the international media storm provoked by Douglas Preston, and taken up by the Italian media as well.

This case is literally an extension of that one. There's reason for hope. I'd rather be passionate about the truth, than cynical about a lie.

If "The Face of an Angel," is a bit of a fizzle, then George Clooney's, "The Monster of Florence" (where Clooney plays Douglas Preston!) will hit Italy where it hurts. Clooney is untouchable in Italy. On style points alone.

I still maintain that the final scene of "The Monster of Florence" will have the crazy prosecutor who tried to railroad both Preston and Spezi....

.... will be his mobile ringing, calling him down to a cottage in Perugia where there'd been a murder of a foreign student.

As he drives down he thinks of his PM-career in tatters, himself now charged with crimes and Italy's reputation in tatters for the predatory prosecutions related to the Monster of Florence case.

.... and his fantasies surrounding Narducci.

He'll get out of his car and approach some of the students milling around. He'll go up to a young student, obviously upset as to what had been found that afternoon in the cottage.

He'll ask in Italian, "What is your name." In halting Italian the answer will be, "Il mio nome è Amanda Knox." The the film will fade to black, and roll credits.

 

[Bill Williams]

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).

I kind of doubt it, because at base extradition is a political thing.

However, this is one thing I'd be willing to bow to their expertise over my guesses.

 

[Grinder]

I kind of doubt it, because at base extradition is a political thing.

However, this is one thing I'd be willing to bow to their expertise over my guesses.

Extradition is usually pro forma. Can you regale us with a list of extradition cases in which the US refused on political grounds?

If you're saying it's a political decision in Italy, I too would defer to the Italians that have had a good track record in predicting.

 

[Desert Fox]

Doing an impersonation of Fox News - They said... who might they be?

What odds would you give me on the ISC setting them free or disallowing the DNA?

ETA - and how is it that "This case is literally an extension of that one".

Sometimes I wish there was a way to tell what prosecutor or judges really think.
With the various cases that I am pretty confident are wrongful convictions, are the judges / prosecutors deceiving themselves or are they being dishonest.

Do you really think that without the pressure on them that the Arkansas legal system would have released the West Memphis Three. I do think that media pressure does have an effect on court cases.


This is what I found based on what we were discussing earlier:
http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/s...supreme-court-against-conviction-in-florence/
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 111 of the Italian Constitution provide for proceedings having an end in a “reasonable time”. Italian Law has established (with law 89/2001 concerning financial compensations for too long trials) that this “reasonable time” clause is satisfied if a proceeding comes to a definitive verdict in six years.

 

[Bill Williams]

Extradition is usually pro forma. Can you regale us with a list of extradition cases in which the US refused on political grounds?

If you're saying it's a political decision in Italy, I too would defer to the Italians that have had a good track record in predicting.

All of them are handled through the State Department, that makes it political. It's got nothing to do with granting or refusing. If it were simply one judiciary getting "reach" into another country's judiciary, then you'd be on to something.

It's why it's called a "request". Only in subnational entities is extradition a mostly legal thing.

It has nothing to do with whether it is granted or refused "on political grounds". It is always a political process because the final step is done by the Executive branch which is independent from the judiciary, at least in the USA.

ETA - once again, when Canada attached conditions to the Lawrencia "Bambi" Bembenek case, in granting extradition from Canada to Wisconsin, the conditions were attached by politicians in Canada, not courts. "The Canadian government showed some sympathy for her case, and before returning her to Wisconsin, obtained a commitment that Milwaukee officials would conduct a judicial review of her case." The Canadian government is NOT the Canadian judiciary.

BTW - the review showed no misconduct, but Canada interfered politically anyway.

 

[Grinder]

This is what I found based on what we were discussing earlier:
http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/s...supreme-court-against-conviction-in-florence/
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 111 of the Italian Constitution provide for proceedings having an end in a “reasonable time”. Italian Law has established (with law 89/2001 concerning financial compensations for too long trials) that this “reasonable time” clause is satisfied if a proceeding comes to a definitive verdict in six years.

I gave you neutral sources that made it clear there is no six year limit. Why even quote from a site with an obvious bias?

There is no doubt that the ECHR doesn't like how long the cases take in Italy but the article on the new system I provided makes it pretty damn clear that Italian law has no six year limit.

Even the wording doesn't say over six is cause for dismissal only that 6 years satisfies the clause. Do you really believe that all those cases where Italy is judged to take too long by the ECHR are under six years because if not it would indicate the Italians don't regard six years as the max.

 

[Desert Fox]

I gave you neutral sources that made it clear there is no six year limit. Why even quote from a site with an obvious bias?

There is no doubt that the ECHR doesn't like how long the cases take in Italy but the article on the new system I provided makes it pretty damn clear that Italian law has no six year limit.

Even the wording doesn't say over six is cause for dismissal only that 6 years satisfies the clause. Do you really believe that all those cases where Italy is judged to take too long by the ECHR are under six years because if not it would indicate the Italians don't regard six years as the max.

It is not so much arguing that it is hard and fast but giving an avenue which the Italian court system can do to get rid of a hot potato. This ISC seems to play their own game, for example how they excused pedophilia based on amorous intent.

 

[carbonjam72]

Doing an impersonation of Fox News - They said... who might they be?

IIRC, Preston recounts this in his book, the MOF, as related to him by an Italian friend after Spezi's release. So in your book, that would be 3rd hand hearsay. And in my book, 100% credible.

What odds would you give me on the ISC setting them free or disallowing the DNA?

Odds? No idea. I just think thats how it will roll.

ETA - and how is it that "This case is literally an extension of that one".

Have you read Preston/Spezi's MOF? If yes, we can talk. If not, I won't be able to sway your opinion. And given your reluctance to rely on 'true crime' investigations. even your reading it might not give us enough common ground to discuss. But I've spun out my thoughts on this a few times here. I'd be crushed if I thought you weren't avidly studying my every effusion.

 

[carbonjam72]

If "The Face of an Angel," is a bit of a fizzle, then George Clooney's, "The Monster of Florence" (where Clooney plays Douglas Preston!) will hit Italy where it hurts. Clooney is untouchable in Italy. On style points alone.

I still maintain that the final scene of "The Monster of Florence" will have the crazy prosecutor who tried to railroad both Preston and Spezi....

.... will be his mobile ringing, calling him down to a cottage in Perugia where there'd been a murder of a foreign student.

As he drives down he thinks of his PM-career in tatters, himself now charged with crimes and Italy's reputation in tatters for the predatory prosecutions related to the Monster of Florence case.

.... and his fantasies surrounding Narducci.

He'll get out of his car and approach some of the students milling around. He'll go up to a young student, obviously upset as to what had been found that afternoon in the cottage.

He'll ask in Italian, "What is your name." In halting Italian the answer will be, "Il mio nome è Amanda Knox." The the film will fade to black, and roll credits.

It's a fascinating question bill as to how they'll shape the film, what bookends would they use. Where does it start, where does it end. The start is pretty easy, more or less. But the end?

"still unsolved", "remains unsolved", or "has never been solved" will be the last words before the credit roll, is my guess.

But chronologically?

At some point, everyone gives up on the case. They know they never caught, or at least imprisoned the right person/people. They know they've convicted and hounded innocent people, destroyed innocent lives with their bogus investigations.

It's a big responsibility to take on. No cake walk that.

 

[acbytesla]

Extradition is usually pro forma. Can you regale us with a list of extradition cases in which the US refused on political grounds?

If you're saying it's a political decision in Italy, I too would defer to the Italians that have had a good track record in predicting.

It is usually pro forma. But can you name another case of an American convicted on such suspect evidence? Can you name another case where the majority of Americans probably think that defendant innocent?

This is not just another run of the mill pro forma case. Therefore it may not likely be another pro forma extradition process.