Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[kwill]

Oh well, there's always category (a) if you prefer.

Also this

Each state has its own supreme court, which would be closer to the ISC. The US federal courts have a function similar to the European Courts, as I understand it.

Is roughly correct, in the sense that federal law in the US trumps state law, as I suppose the EU overall court can trump decisions made by courts in individual countries. (The federal gov't of course can choose not to enforce its laws. Here in Seattle it's legal now to use recreational marijuana, though it's still a federal crime. The feds aren't going to come to my house and bust me if my neighbor shows up with weed he wants to share.)

In the US, convictions of crimes can be appealed to the next highest court, but the process is expensive. People on trial have the right to an attorney, but convicted people do not, no matter how specious the evidence against them was or how badly their representation in the first trial screwed up.

The Innocence Project has changed that a little bit, but they can't possibly take on all the cases that involve people wrongfully convicted.

Americans have trouble imagining that the prosecution can appeal an acquittal . . .even after the OJ Simpson verdict, which was very widely seen as a failure of the system, everybody knew that he wasn't going to be tried again. (He did get taken to civil court, but that was only going to punish him with fines, not imprisonment.)

 

[Diocletus]

If
What I find interesting is that Sally and John would not be able to appeal their convictions to an international judicial body because America is not a signatory to any.

What are we supposed to do? Sign up for some treaty like the ECHR that says all of the same stuff that the Bill of Rights already says, and is administered by a bunch of Eurocrats? No thanks.

 

[anglolawyer]

What are we supposed to do? Sign up for some treaty like the ECHR that says all of the same stuff that the Bill of Rights already says, and is administered by a bunch of Eurocrats? No thanks.

No frikkin' way we're letting the yanks join our legal system! All that flummery 'yes, m'lud, no m'lud, may it please your lordship'. Yuk! Oh wait, that's us

 

[acbytesla]

I thought all US states allowed victim impact statements when are they presented in a trial before or after a verdict? In addition, aren’t victim’s families views part of the US parole process, inasmuch as their opinions are considered?

They aren't involved "before" the verdict, but they are after. Frankly, I don't believe they should be involved after either.

 

[carbonjam72]

Also this


Is roughly correct, in the sense that federal law in the US trumps state law, as I suppose the EU overall court can trump decisions made by courts in individual countries. (The federal gov't of course can choose not to enforce its laws. Here in Seattle it's legal now to use recreational marijuana, though it's still a federal crime. The feds aren't going to come to my house and bust me if my neighbor shows up with weed he wants to share.)

In the US, convictions of crimes can be appealed to the next highest court, but the process is expensive. People on trial have the right to an attorney, but convicted people do not, no matter how specious the evidence against them was or how badly their representation in the first trial screwed up.

The Innocence Project has changed that a little bit, but they can't possibly take on all the cases that involve people wrongfully convicted.

Americans have trouble imagining that the prosecution can appeal an acquittal . . .even after the OJ Simpson verdict, which was very widely seen as a failure of the system, everybody knew that he wasn't going to be tried again. (He did get taken to civil court, but that was only going to punish him with fines, not imprisonment.)

I think that's an extremely rare situation where a state votes to permit/forbid something the Feds don't permit/forbid - and the Freds just look the other way. Law enforcement isn't usually optional. Whats weird though is all the people in prison for pot if its no longer deemed worthy of criminal enforcement.

And conflicts between state and federal law are normally resolved in the in federal courts, not by a decision from the US attorney general.

Also, its worth noting that the US Supreme court handles I believe less than 100 cases per year, while Italy's supreme court of cassation, I thought was said to be handling "80,000" cases? (Hard to believe that's right).

I don't think the systems are comparable really.

To sit on the judge's panel at Amanda & Raf's first trial, the judges needed to have graduated middle school (8th grade) (one elderly judge was known for taking afternoon naps at trial). To qualify as a judge for the appeal panels though, they need to have graduated high school. It's a different country, and a world away, even if it is a member of the European Union.

The weirdest thing about CoulsdonUK's presence, is the perception h/she projects that the evidence rationally permits a belief that AK and RS may have some involvement in the death of Ms Kercher.

It's purely nonsensical, yet CoUK continues to ask to let 'the process play out'. But I don't think CouUK is alone in the UK. I get the sense from reading comments sections in the Daily Mail that many Brits (and some others elsewhere) are simply wedded to the idea of guilt. And not all of them because of 'looks, eyes, mannerisms, and speech analysis'.

It seems like professional commentators on TV in the UK are simply afraid to say that AK and RS are innocent. There is a fear, its palpable. I wish that would be confronted.

 

[Desert Fox]

I think that's an extremely rare situation where a state votes to permit/forbid something the Feds don't permit/forbid - and the Freds just look the other way. Law enforcement isn't usually optional. Whats weird though is all the people in prison for pot if its no longer deemed worthy of criminal enforcement.

And conflicts between state and federal law are normally resolved in the in federal courts, not by a decision from the US attorney general.

Also, its worth noting that the US Supreme court handles I believe less than 100 cases per year, while Italy's supreme court of cassation, I thought was said to be handling "80,000" cases? (Hard to believe that's right).

I don't think the systems are comparable really.

To sit on the judge's panel at Amanda & Raf's first trial, the judges needed to have graduated middle school (8th grade) (one elderly judge was known for taking afternoon naps at trial). To qualify as a judge for the appeal panels though, they need to have graduated high school. It's a different country, and a world away, even if it is a member of the European Union.

The weirdest thing about CoulsdonUK's presence, is the perception h/she projects that the evidence rationally permits a belief that AK and RS may have some involvement in the death of Ms Kercher.

It's purely nonsensical, yet CoUK continues to ask to let 'the process play out'. But I don't think CouUK is alone in the UK. I get the sense from reading comments sections in the Daily Mail that many Brits (and some others elsewhere) are simply wedded to the idea of guilt. And not all of them because of 'looks, eyes, mannerisms, and speech analysis'.
It seems like professional commentators on TV in the UK are simply afraid to say that AK and RS are innocent. There is a fear, its palpable. I wish that would be confronted.

Where the hell does that idea come from. . . . .Been tests of such things and it is no better than chance?

 

[Samson]

I think that's an extremely rare situation where a state votes to permit/forbid something the Feds don't permit/forbid - and the Freds just look the other way. Law enforcement isn't usually optional. Whats weird though is all the people in prison for pot if its no longer deemed worthy of criminal enforcement.

And conflicts between state and federal law are normally resolved in the in federal courts, not by a decision from the US attorney general.

Also, its worth noting that the US Supreme court handles I believe less than 100 cases per year, while Italy's supreme court of cassation, I thought was said to be handling "80,000" cases? (Hard to believe that's right).

I don't think the systems are comparable really.

To sit on the judge's panel at Amanda & Raf's first trial, the judges needed to have graduated middle school (8th grade) (one elderly judge was known for taking afternoon naps at trial). To qualify as a judge for the appeal panels though, they need to have graduated high school. It's a different country, and a world away, even if it is a member of the European Union.

The weirdest thing about CoulsdonUK's presence, is the perception h/she projects that the evidence rationally permits a belief that AK and RS may have some involvement in the death of Ms Kercher.

It's purely nonsensical, yet CoUK continues to ask to let 'the process play out'. But I don't think CouUK is alone in the UK. I get the sense from reading comments sections in the Daily Mail that many Brits (and some others elsewhere) are simply wedded to the idea of guilt. And not all of them because of 'looks, eyes, mannerisms, and speech analysis'.

It seems like professional commentators on TV in the UK are simply afraid to say that AK and RS are innocent. There is a fear, its palpable. I wish that would be confronted.

It will be. There will be a discovery in time that Hellman established the factual truth, but posters here beat him to it. Trawling the early threads is a really interesting journey, starting with the cartwheel thread and Skeptical Ginger. Posters here will generally celebrate quietly, but with a sense of deep happiness. IMO.

 

[Planigale]

If Raffaele and Amanda’s are actually convicted I assume they will appeal to the ECHR, if as you and many here contend the Perugian appeal was overturned for no legitimate legal reason then I assume they would win their ECHR appeal, but it should be on a point of law.

Charis_Halkides

I do not know of a trial process involving murder that has been stopped because of public opinion.


Noted.


What I find interesting is that Sally and John would not be able to appeal their convictions to an international judicial body because America is not a signatory to any.

Just to reiterate, the ECHR is NOT a court of appeal. The ECHR cannot set aside the conviction if this is the outcome. What is happening is a separate civil case by Knox vs the State of Italy for breach of human rights. The main breaches will be right to a timely trial - almost certainly they will win because both Italian internal standards and previously stated ECHR standards for duration of trial process will be breached. This may involve reward of some compensation. The more important is the access to legal advice. I suspect they will win this, since they were denied initial access to a lawyer. If they do win this then the ECHR will direct the Italian state to remedy the breach. The Italian state could choose to ignore this (as the UK does in regards to the right of convicted prisoners to vote), or set aside the conviction as irrevocably tainted or order a retrial excluding tainted material - essentially the various confessions. Compensation can be zero, prisoners sued the UK government for being denied the right to vote, won the case but got no compensation.

I think Sollecito and Knox's best bet for the case to be dismissed is within the Italian judicial system, not relying on the outcome of the ECHR.

 

[Samson]

Just to reiterate, the ECHR is NOT a court of appeal. The ECHR cannot set aside the conviction if this is the outcome. What is happening is a separate civil case by Knox vs the State of Italy for breach of human rights. The main breaches will be right to a timely trial - almost certainly they will win because both Italian internal standards and previously stated ECHR standards for duration of trial process will be breached. This may involve reward of some compensation. The more important is the access to legal advice. I suspect they will win this, since they were denied initial access to a lawyer. If they do win this then the ECHR will direct the Italian state to remedy the breach. The Italian state could choose to ignore this (as the UK does in regards to the right of convicted prisoners to vote), or set aside the conviction as irrevocably tainted or order a retrial excluding tainted material - essentially the various confessions. Compensation can be zero, prisoners sued the UK government for being denied the right to vote, won the case but got no compensation.

I think Sollecito and Knox's best bet for the case to be dismissed is within the Italian judicial system, not relying on the outcome of the ECHR.

Sollecito and Knox have no more control over the Italian process after this next phase as I understand it, but how could the ECHR ignore the case? What case would ever tick more boxes for close attention?

 

[Diocletus]

No frikkin' way we're letting the yanks join our legal system! All that flummery 'yes, m'lud, no m'lud, may it please your lordship'. Yuk! Oh wait, that's us

Wait. I thought you were trying to get out of the echr? Don't think you're signing up with us, either. Ask the Canadians, they're very hospitable.

 

[Diocletus]

Just to reiterate, the ECHR is NOT a court of appeal. The ECHR cannot set aside the conviction if this is the outcome. What is happening is a separate civil case by Knox vs the State of Italy for breach of human rights. The main breaches will be right to a timely trial - almost certainly they will win because both Italian internal standards and previously stated ECHR standards for duration of trial process will be breached. This may involve reward of some compensation. The more important is the access to legal advice. I suspect they will win this, since they were denied initial access to a lawyer. If they do win this then the ECHR will direct the Italian state to remedy the breach. The Italian state could choose to ignore this (as the UK does in regards to the right of convicted prisoners to vote), or set aside the conviction as irrevocably tainted or order a retrial excluding tainted material - essentially the various confessions. Compensation can be zero, prisoners sued the UK government for being denied the right to vote, won the case but got no compensation.

I think Sollecito and Knox's best bet for the case to be dismissed is within the Italian judicial system, not relying on the outcome of the ECHR.

As a practical matter, if the echr rules in favor of Knox and Sollecito, they won't go to jail. That's probably all they care about at this point.

Anyway, it's difficult to imagine Italy "ignoring" the ecthr if Italy is adjudicated to have breached its echr obligations and is directed to remedy the situation. This isn't like a voting issue.

 

[Samson]

There is an interesting debate on PMF ORG between The Machine and the mysterious but articulate Mister Pink.
The latter, probably correctly, contends that senator Maria Cantwell is now in control of the extradition process.
Denied.

 

[Diocletus]

There is an interesting debate on PMF ORG between The Machine and the mysterious but articulate Mister Pink.
The latter, probably correctly, contends that senator Maria Cantwell is now in control of the extradition process.
Denied.

Of course, there is no extradition process yet.

But if anyone thinks that the sitting us senator from the jurisdiction in question is not a very, very significant force in the extradition process if so desired, that person has no idea what they're talking about.

 

[Samson]

Of course, there is no extradition process yet.

But if anyone thinks that the sitting us senator from the jurisdiction in question is not a very, very significant force in the extradition process if so desired, that person has no idea what they're talking about.

I follow the threads with morbid fascination.
Statistics always interest me, and in fact one American senator equals one NZ Prime minister.
If only the kids of today would do mental arithmetic.

 

[Samson]

Congratulations and celebrations.
Charlotte.
Wait one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN7lxSO5CfU

Italians needed for a battle, etc

 

[Samson]

I am appalled by the neglect of American medical specialists that can quickly close this case. The autopsy is unchallenged, so where are the American doctors that can declare the stomach contents incongruous with any prosecutorial theory of a TOD beyond the timing of the first hand witness 9 20 pm.
What is going on?
This is completely unbelievable.

 

[Samson]

I hated calling CoulsdonUK on a message he thought was private. Unfortunately we are wasting time, many thousands of hours, and The Kercher family want Raffaele's money he inherited from his mother to pay their legal bills to thug Maresca.

 

[carbonjam72]

As a practical matter, if the echr rules in favor of Knox and Sollecito, they won't go to jail. That's probably all they care about at this point.

Anyway, it's difficult to imagine Italy "ignoring" the ecthr if Italy is adjudicated to have breached its echr obligations and is directed to remedy the situation. This isn't like a voting issue.

I don't like to imagine ISC will confirm the convictions. but suppose ISC does confirm, And ECHR does find in favor of Amanda and Raf. What happens to the civi judgement? When does that get paid, and would Raf have to sue for a clawback?

 

[lonepinealex]

I am appalled by the neglect of American medical specialists that can quickly close this case. The autopsy is unchallenged, so where are the American doctors that can declare the stomach contents incongruous with any prosecutorial theory of a TOD beyond the timing of the first hand witness 9 20 pm.
What is going on?
This is completely unbelievable.

Did either of the defendants bring up the gastric evidence in any of the trials or in their appeals?

 

[Samson]

Did either of the defendants bring up the gastric evidence in any of the trials or in their appeals?

Raffaele's Italian specialist did an Italian job.