Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

The post was in response to someone saying extradition is a political act. I don't recall even one case that became publicly political, do you? As steted it is almost always pro forma.

It is a political act. (But what the hell does that mean? ) All extraditions are political acts. And sometime politics plays a big role. Normally, it is a just a matter of crossing the Ts and dotting the i's but I doubt that would be so in this case.

 

[Desert Fox]

It is a political act. (But what the hell does that mean? ) All extraditions are political acts. And sometime politics plays a big role. Normally, it is a just a matter of crossing the Ts and dotting the i's but dot that would be so in this case.

Can anybody come up with any extradition requests which were approved where there is substantial evidence of innocence? I also believe there may have been one extradition request which was granted which may have violated the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Bill Williams]

The post was in response to someone saying extradition is a political act. I don't recall even one case that became publicly political, do you? As steted it is almost always pro forma.

It is a political act. (But what the hell does that mean? ) All extraditions are political acts. And sometime politics plays a big role. Normally, it is a just a matter of crossing the Ts and dotting the i's but dot that would be so in this case.

That was the point I tried to make.

The questions was: name one extradition which was refused for political reasons.

The answer: all of the ones which were refused are refused essentially for political reasons. (Case in point would be where Canada does not extradite to a US State which has the death penalty unless the D.P. is taken off the table.)

Also, all the ones which are granted are granted for political reasons. Perhaps the most common political reason is that there's no reason NOT to extradite, so it goes ahead.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is a political act. (But what the hell does that mean? ) All extraditions are political acts. And sometime politics plays a big role. Normally, it is a just a matter of crossing the Ts and dotting the i's but dot that would be so in this case.

In The United States, the court's role is to issue a "certificate of extraditibility". Google it, and you find this is part of the process.

With it, the Secretary of State can or might not extradite. As mentioned on one of the pages, such a certificate is like a warrant to search. A warrant to search simply grants the asker the right to search - it does not compel the asker to carry out the search.

However, in the USA, without such a certificate, apparently, the Secretary of State cannot extradite.

 

[acbytesla]

In The United States, the court's role is to issue a "certificate of extraditibility". Google it, and you find this is part of the process.

With it, the Secretary of State can or might not extradite. As mentioned on one of the pages, such a certificate is like a warrant to search. A warrant to search simply grants the asker the right to search - it does not compel the asker to carry out the search.

However, in the USA, without such a certificate, apparently, the Secretary of State cannot extradite.

I doubt there has been a case anything like this in the last twenty years where it is pretty obvious that the person requested to be extradited is so obviously innocent. Maybe it's just me, but I think that might effect the process a little.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

you'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar

Could you give examples of the first hand sources CD or JF provided you? Thanks in advance

Grinder,

I can, and I have. One just has to know how to ask nicely.

 

[Bill Williams]

Grinder,

I can, and I have. One just has to know how to ask nicely.

It then becomes an endless cycle. You provide one, then he wants another. Then you provide that, then he wants them all.

At some point it's just not worth it. All to defend his point of view that true crime authors, "just make things up."

You'd think it would be up to him to show the ones that were just made up. The first thing would be to actually contact those authors and ask for their sources.... which he won't do.

And the circle goes round and round.

 

[carbonjam72]

In The United States, the court's role is to issue a "certificate of extraditibility". Google it, and you find this is part of the process.

With it, the Secretary of State can or might not extradite. As mentioned on one of the pages, such a certificate is like a warrant to search. A warrant to search simply grants the asker the right to search - it does not compel the asker to carry out the search.

However, in the USA, without such a certificate, apparently, the Secretary of State cannot extradite.

My understanding is that a request is transmitted to the state department first. If the state dept is satisfied the request is in order, only then would it get forwarded to the courts (not sure but I assume that's federal court, but maybe state courts can raise a further defense). If the courts approve the extradition request, it goes back to state dept again to sign off.

The point is, state dept gets it first. As I posted before, I had asked a relative who works in a state/government attorney general office what he thought would happen if a request were made in this case. He thought there would somehow be found to be an endless number of technical defects existing in the request, such that it would never actually get into a US court.

I'm not saying that makes sense to me. I don't think that's fair to Amanda, and it sure as hell does nothing for Raf. But bureaucratic eternal limbo was his prediction, if a request were made.

I repeat my belief that Amanda and Raf will be acquitted, either by ISC or by ECHR is necessary. But I believe ISC will do the right thing this time around. I think the extradition discussion is premature.

 

[Desert Fox]

My understanding is that a request is transmitted to the state department first. If the state dept is satisfied the request is in order, only then would it get forwarded to the courts (not sure but I assume that's federal court, but maybe state courts can raise a further defense). If the courts approve the extradition request, it goes back to state dept again to sign off.

The point is, state dept gets it first. As I posted before, I had asked a relative who works in a state/government attorney general office what he thought would happen if a request were made in this case. He thought there would somehow be found to be an endless number of technical defects existing in the request, such that it would never actually get into a US court.

I'm not saying that makes sense to me. I don't think that's fair to Amanda, and it sure as hell does nothing for Raf. But bureaucratic eternal limbo was his prediction, if a request were made.

I repeat my belief that Amanda and Raf will be acquitted, either by ISC or by ECHR is necessary. But I believe ISC will do the right thing this time around. I think the extradition discussion is premature.

It also does absolutely nothing for Raff. I just think that there are grounds which extradition can be argued against.

 

[platonov]

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

Keener that almost none. Remember the petition.

Its possible.

In any case why would the judiciary / executive take any notice.
The recent alibi 'story' cant have helped with (informed) public opinion.

 

[Samson]

Keener that almost none. Remember the petition.

Its possible.

In any case why would the judiciary / executive take any notice.
The recent alibi 'story' cant have helped with (informed) public opinion.

You are absolutely correct. This was very adverse to Amanda. It reduces her support base, and now there are drugs and a provisional murder conviction to contend with. What were the results of blood urine and hair follicle tests when she was imprisoned?

 

[NancyS]

Keener that almost none. Remember the petition.

Its possible.

In any case why would the judiciary / executive take any notice.
The recent alibi 'story' cant have helped with (informed) public opinion.

So you're suggesting that the recent lies and misinformation in the media, has had a negative impact? Definitely agree with that

 

[Grinder]

All extradition treaties in force require foreign requests for extradition to be submitted through diplomatic channels, usually from the country's embassy in Washington to the Department of State.[8] Many treaties also require that requests for provisional arrest be submitted through diplomatic channels, although some permit provisional arrest requests to be sent directly to the Department of Justice.[8] The Department of State reviews foreign extradition demands to identify any potential foreign policy problems and to ensure that there is a treaty in force between the United States and the country making the request, that the crime or crimes are extraditable offenses, and that the supporting documents are properly certified in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3190.[8] If the request is in proper order, an attorney in the State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser prepares a certificate attesting to the existence of the treaty, etc., and forwards it with the original request to the Justice Department's Office of International Affairs ("OIA").

 

[Bill Williams]

My understanding is that a request is transmitted to the state department first. If the state dept is satisfied the request is in order, only then would it get forwarded to the courts (not sure but I assume that's federal court, but maybe state courts can raise a further defense). If the courts approve the extradition request, it goes back to state dept again to sign off.

The point is, state dept gets it first. As I posted before, I had asked a relative who works in a state/government attorney general office what he thought would happen if a request were made in this case. He thought there would somehow be found to be an endless number of technical defects existing in the request, such that it would never actually get into a US court.

I'm not saying that makes sense to me. I don't think that's fair to Amanda, and it sure as hell does nothing for Raf. But bureaucratic eternal limbo was his prediction, if a request were made.

I repeat my belief that Amanda and Raf will be acquitted, either by ISC or by ECHR is necessary. But I believe ISC will do the right thing this time around. I think the extradition discussion is premature.

The following on IIP is a quotation from ISC which shows why they believe they are locked into finding RS/AK guilty, regardless of the evidence.

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=747&p=148070#p148069

The relevant part is this....

The ruling under discussion, even though issued at the outcome of a trial which was based on the state of the documents at that time [a fast-track trial], falls within that group of rulings covered by article 238 bis c.p.p., as with plea bargain rulings. The order in question [article 238] pursues the noble aim recalled by the petitioner [the prosecution] of preventing the dispersal of information acquired in legal proceedings which have become res judicata [i.e. where there has been a final judgment and the case is no longer subject to appeal].
Therefore the decision under appeal can be criticized for the flaw alleged [by the prosecution] of violating the law, and for the defect of inadequate reasoning, in the crucial passage of the reconstruction of the event which deals with the presence of multiple perpetrators in the crime, in the residence to which – aside from the victim – only Knox had access on that horrific evening. This is a factor which should certainly not be automatically understood as proof, but which constitutes a significant segment in the narrative reconstruction of the crime, to be assessed together with the other pieces of evidence. On this point too, the new judge must carry out a detailed examination which adheres more closely to the requirements of the law, as well as an assessment of the information seen in the context of the broader osmotic presentation of the [rest of the ] evidence.​

In essence the new judge, which turned out to be Nencini, was required to find them guilty, which he did despite no evidence being place before him to justify it, and ISC is now happy.

 

[Bill Williams]

All extradition treaties in force require foreign requests for extradition to be submitted through diplomatic channels, usually from the country's embassy in Washington to the Department of State.[8] Many treaties also require that requests for provisional arrest be submitted through diplomatic channels, although some permit provisional arrest requests to be sent directly to the Department of Justice.[8] The Department of State reviews foreign extradition demands to identify any potential foreign policy problems and to ensure that there is a treaty in force between the United States and the country making the request, that the crime or crimes are extraditable offenses, and that the supporting documents are properly certified in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3190.[8] If the request is in proper order, an attorney in the State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser prepares a certificate attesting to the existence of the treaty, etc., and forwards it with the original request to the Justice Department's Office of International Affairs ("OIA").

..... and since nothing you describe (yet) involves US courts.... what part of this ISN'T political?

Didn't you watch The West Wing?

 

[Grinder]

..... and since nothing you describe (yet) involves US courts.... what part of this ISN'T political?

Didn't you watch The West Wing?

If you define every act by government as political then this is political. If by political you mean that politics dictates the outcome that is something different.

It is entirely possible that the State Department could refuse to forward the request to the OIA.

Apparently some here think that "conservatives" look at the case with a guilty eye and then if the next administration is Republican they may be more likely to forward the request.

Maybe the general consensus here that she is innocent and all can see it, except a few friends of PQ and PG, then maybe either the Italians will figure it out or the US will file the request in the circular filing cabinet.

 

[Grinder]

The only example of someone asking for source material to verify something one of the novelists wrote was Tesla and the gold watch affair and nothing came of it other than assurances Diaz told her and was reading off a police report (that couldn't/wasn't produced). It wasn't explained why in telling this story Diaz would need the report.

Did Follain explain how he acquired dialogue from inside the police station?

Btw, those are the only two specifics I recall questioning though I could have forgotten something that I'm confident will be brought up.

Did CD ever tell us where the fact that the DNA on the knife identified as Meredith's turned out to be starch came from? Oh, I forgot that didn't count because she wrote it in her blog and blogs don't count.

 

[acbytesla]

If you define every act by government as political then this is political. If by political you mean that politics dictates the outcome that is something different.

It is entirely possible that the State Department could refuse to forward the request to the OIA.

They could...they have that power. The question is "would they"?

Apparently some here think that "conservatives" look at the case with a guilty eye and then if the next administration is Republican they may be more likely to forward the request.

I'm afraid that is possible, but honestly am not sure. Amanda comes from a state who's governor and congressional delegation is almost 80% Democrat. The last Republican Presidential nominee to win Washington State in the General election was Reagan. (I think) I see Cantwell and Murray probably supportive. I also see Hillary to be supportive. I'm just not sure the position the Republicans might take. If I was to judge it by the talking heads on Fox, I'd say they would not be supportive.

 

[platonov]

They're lying about Britney again - It's so unfair !!!!!

So you're suggesting that the recent lies and misinformation in the media, has had a negative impact? Definitely agree with that

No, I'm suggesting that the Press Conf (that caused a mass outbreak of amnesia/denial in some quarters) where RS said that he wasn’t claiming AK as an alibi coupled with the RS family press leaks about cocaine dealers might have hurt the 'purty' white killer's image.

 

[Bill Williams]

If you define every act by government as political then this is political. If by political you mean that politics dictates the outcome that is something different.

It is entirely possible that the State Department could refuse to forward the request to the OIA.

Apparently some here think that "conservatives" look at the case with a guilty eye and then if the next administration is Republican they may be more likely to forward the request.

Maybe the general consensus here that she is innocent and all can see it, except a few friends of PQ and PG, then maybe either the Italians will figure it out or the US will file the request in the circular filing cabinet.

I would suggest to you that the chief *political* consideration for the State Department will be which side of the internecine-war within Italy's judiciary it wishes to support. Here's an issue served up on a platter for the US to be able to meddle!

And especially if it is a Democratic administration in D.C. at the time of any request, the politics of the town will hardly matter given The State of Washington's politics. At best, if Mitt Romney rallies in 2016 and steals the White House, they would simply call in a favour from the State of Washington Democrats before doing the inevitable.

I think back to Gloria Allred's views as given to Piers Morgan, then of CNN. She hinted at the judicial mess Italy has created (using the Knox/Sollecito case as an anology for what was wrong with the place in general), and for her all that was, was trying to do business within Italy. She quickly discerned that it wasn't worth it - because what would be a relatively minor Human Resources issue in the USA, could balloon in Italy into a multi-year, multi-trial civil dispute. She was clear that the legal-climate there needed fixing....

.... which could very well be exploited in this case. No, this case will not result in a massive overhaul of Italy's cumbersome system, with the backroom political-machinations even within a local legal community.... (witness the implied war even within Perugia and the Appeal's level of courts there, where the president of the Perugia Court of Appeal, Wladimiro De Nunzio, is accused of back room dealing to appoint Hellmann so as to undo the embarrassment Mignini caused....

..... which was elevated by Cassazione to a full-blown internecine war.

But imagine someone with even the most dull of political imagination in State Department thinking they'd died and gone to heaven. I mean, someone in the State Department, a political organization, is probably licking their lips, praying to Almighty God, "Please, please, please make them send an extradition request!!!!!"

See what I mean? You make it all sound so clinical - that US Senators always vote on military bases in their States solely on homeland security needs.

Ya right.