Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

It's false. We have well seen the inconsistencies, the evidence does not support that scenario.

P.S. If the US want to annull the treaty, let them do that.

Both the US Secretary of State and the Italian Minister of Justice have the power under law not to extradite and not to request an extradition.

Italian CPP Article 720 paragraph 3:

The Minister of Justice may decide not to request extradition or to postpone the request, informing the requesting judicial authority.
____

Any statement Mach makes or has made about Italian law forcing the Minister of Justice to request extradition is, to be polite, a misstatement.

We need to be aware that Mach's statements about Italian law need to be verified rather than accepted at face value.

 

[anglolawyer]

In fact I am specifically talking about lines of defence.
Reasonable doubt is a criterion for the judge, but it is also a possible line of defence. And this is what I am talking about.

Because I am talking with advocates, who are basically pushing a defensive argumentation.
Such argumentation is theoretically a possible defensive argument.

What I am saying is that the arguments brought by the advocates are not effective a holding this line of defence.
Things like criticising the fact that Stefanoni didn't prove she had clean gloves, is not a kind of argument capable of producing a reasonable doubt.
So the general rule: a mere observation about the fact that pieces of circumstantial evidence are not perfect, itself is not a logical argument for reasonable doubt.

You keep phrasing stuff in a strange way. There is a filmed evidence of her gloves being dirty and of her using inappropriate practises in sample collection (for example) where she swabs a large portion of the bathroom sink and then claims she found 'mixed traces'.

It is not true that the accusation (prosecution but also judges and parties, not prosecution alone) must overcome reasonable doubt on single pieces of evidence. The concept of reasonable doubt applies only to the comprehensive set of the whole evidence, whereas the existence of limits or imperfections of the single pieces of evidence, itself is not an argument capable to hold back against the set of evidence overall.

A set of imperfect pieces of information - pieces that have "holes" - under the logical point of view, is perfectly able to support a conclusion that has no doubt nor holes.
This is a rule of logical inference, and it is the concept at the root of circumstantial evidence.

No, I know this Mach. In an English court the formulation given to the jury is that they must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt on the whole of the evidence not on individual parts of it.

Interestingly (to me anyway) the Californian jury instructions in the case of Scott Peterson actually go into this question in great detail, running on for pages and pages of almost indecipherable stuff about 'essential facts' having to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Logically, if the entire case hangs on one fact and that fact cannot be proved BRD then the whole case must fail, even though it is only one fact among many. Thus, in the David Gilroy case in which the body was never found, it would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that his former lover was dead. You couldn't win the case by proving everything else to the highest standards but not that one fact.

With our case its not easy to put one's finger on such a fact (that is, a fact which, if taken away, makes the whole case collapse) so yes, we have a bunch of individual things that do not carry their own special burden of proof but which must, when combined, show guilt beyond reasonable doubt. One (not the only one) test of whether they do so is whether they cohere. Since, in this case, they do not we can safely dismiss all charges You can prove me wrong by explaining how the pieces fit together.

 

[Bill Williams]

Both the US Secretary of State and the Italian Minister of Justice have the power under law not to extradite and not to request an extradition.

Italian CPP Article 720 paragraph 3:

The Minister of Justice may decide not to request extradition or to postpone the request, informing the requesting judicial authority.
____

Any statement Mach makes or has made about Italian law forcing the Minister of Justice to request extradition is, to be polite, a misstatement.

We need to be aware that Mach's statements about Italian law need to be verified rather than accepted at face value.

That is an understatement!!!!

He is not quoting law, he is arguing the law within the context of an agenda, and an endgame in mind.

 

[Diocletus]

With our case its not easy to put one's finger on such a fact (that is, a fact which, if taken away, makes the whole case collapse) so yes, we have a bunch of individual things that do not carry their own special burden of proof but which must, when combined, show guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Well, there's the "staged break in." There's no case without it.

 

[anglolawyer]

Diocletus - You may be right about Luca, thinking about it. My bad. Still I don't have an easy time believing the downstairs boys would not have blabbed after all these years. OTOH, they may never have seen the inside of their apartment again for all I know or it may have been tossed by the cops so much they wouldn't know what the cops did and what the cat burglar did. On the other other hand they could just have watched the police videos and said (in Italian) 'no way would I ever leave my bed unmade like that, man. That so totally sucks. What will mom say?' On the other other other hand that is not a good way of checking for missing jeans.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, there's the "staged break in." There's no case without it.

I think there is. They can just stage it by throwing the rock from outside so it would like the same as the way Rudy did it. Why not?

 

[Diocletus]

I think there is. They can just stage it by throwing the rock from outside so it would like the same as the way Rudy did it. Why not?

Well, wouldn't that be a staged break in?

I mean, granted, Amanda could have dressed up in a Rudy mask, really climbed up the wall and broken in, taken a dump and rubbed Rudy's DNA on it, stabbed Meredith, spread Rudy DNA around somehow, and fled the scene . . . but we're talking reasonable doubt here.

 

[Diocletus]

Diocletus - You may be right about Luca, thinking about it. My bad. Still I don't have an easy time believing the downstairs boys would not have blabbed after all these years. OTOH, they may never have seen the inside of their apartment again for all I know or it may have been tossed by the cops so much they wouldn't know what the cops did and what the cat burglar did. On the other other hand they could just have watched the police videos and said (in Italian) 'no way would I ever leave my bed unmade like that, man. That so totally sucks. What will mom say?' On the other other other hand that is not a good way of checking for missing jeans.

There is testimony on this. They said that the bed was made, that the place wasn't a mess, and that there wasn't blood all over the place.

No idea when if ever they were able to regain possession of the place or get their stuff back. I'm assuming that the cops kept the pot.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Whereas it would be a straightforward wrongful conviction if Cassazione confirms Nencini.....

It would be political insanity to pursue extradition. First of all it would highlight that Raffaele was paying a price. No doubt the pro-guilt PR campaign would try to taunt Amanda for that....

But it would probably result in forcing the Americans to do something other than say a simply, polite and "with all due respect: no."

If (and when) the State Department actually articulated reasons for the refusal, that would up the pressure within Italy about what befell Raffaele. That would be a powerful political card for America to play.

Apologies for putting it this way, but regardless of what happens to Amanda, the Americans would have a field day exposing what had happened to **Raffaele** as a reason not to extradite Amanda.

Italy would be stupid to go there.

On the other hand, Italy would be compelled to request extradition given two Italians would have been imprisoned. If their convictions are confirmed next month, I believe Italy will request extradition, placing America in the position of refusing or at least deferring a decision until after ECHR applications are processed, so there goes another few years.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

The Italian Supreme Court says, reasonable doubt means reasonable alternative scenario. "Resasonable" means, it must not be a sequence of things merely possible in rerum natura, but remote and improbable. A reasonable scenario cannot be made with a sequence of weaker or improbable explanations.

Machiavelli,
I think most of us believe it is "remote and improbable" that 1) Amanda and Raffaele randomly and inexplicably decided to team up with Rudy to kill Meredith for no real, known, concrete reason, 2) That if they DID decide to randomly take part in a sex game ritual with a stranger (or whatever), they could do so without leaving any evidence of themselves in the murder room (contaminated and unreliable bra clasp noted), and 3) Meredith's gastric emptying time defined by t lag exceeded the median by about 5 standard deviations and exceeded the 97.5% confidence interval by 40 minutes. (The further you get from the median the more improbable the scenario becomes.)

Now, put all these together, and you have a ridiculous and ludicrously impossible hypothesis.

Contrast this with Rudy the burglar acting alone. Climbed through a window (shown to be possible). Killed Meredith when she got home (obviously possible). And fled the scene (obviously possible). This allows one to get much closer to the median with respect to gastric emptying time as defined by t lag (more probable by definition and the axioms of probability theory). One does not have to postulate a crazy set of circumstances as to why Amanda and Raf left no evidence in the sex game murder room (contaminated bra clasp noted again). And we don't have to postulate some bizarre scenario as to why they decided to team up with a stranger to murder a roommate for no reason. This all seems plausible, probable, and likely. Far, far more likely than the group murder impossibility.

The only piece of evidence left is the knife, and multiple independent experts, some of whom are the absolute top forensic geneticists in the field, have explained how the result is due to contamination since robust LCN procedures weren't followed. Now you have nothing else to explain. No other implausibilities. The lone burglar and murderer scenario is simple, easily explainable, and far more likely.

We are being honest when we say no one here understands why you think the sex game ritual scenario is probable, likely, and makes sense, but the lone wolf scenario is implausible and unlikely. We really don't, as it contradicts everything we have ever known and learned about science and rationality. You simply saying it's not likely and science is wrong doesn't make it so.

 

[Kauffer]

Desert Fox has brought up the Pietro Venezia case, in which Italy refused to extradite a guy even though the death penalty was taken off the table by the prosecutor. I think they tried the guy themselves, and then let him out of jail early. Doesn't seem to have caused much of a ripple, so I'm not sure that the moon has to fall from the sky when discretion is exercised not to extradite.

Putting that aside, didn't the Italians know the US had the DP when they negotiated the extradition treaty? So what's up with suddenly putting a gloss on the treaty that prohibits extradition in capital cases? Why can't the US then do the same for a case where the defendant was smacked around, nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel was used, and/or there has been double jeopardy?

The death penalty is off the table for all US requests to EU countries including UK. US must give assurances that the DP won't be used. But in all other respects, extradition requests are effectively rubber stamped even if delayed by ECHR applications, with the UK. The other way it is different because you have probable cause hearings. The Italy/US treaty is older and operates differently and as you suggest, the Sec of State has more discretion. Our equivalent only gets involved as a source of appeal on limited grounds.

My point is that Italy won't make a request; yummi's is that it must. I think he's wrong.

 

[Kauffer]

Both the US Secretary of State and the Italian Minister of Justice have the power under law not to extradite and not to request an extradition.

Italian CPP Article 720 paragraph 3:

The Minister of Justice may decide not to request extradition or to postpone the request, informing the requesting judicial authority.
____

Any statement Mach makes or has made about Italian law forcing the Minister of Justice to request extradition is, to be polite, a misstatement.

We need to be aware that Mach's statements about Italian law need to be verified rather than accepted at face value.

...and there we go. Numbers has found the relevant Italian law. Well done!

 

[Bill Williams]

On the other hand, Italy would be compelled to request extradition given two Italians would have been imprisoned. If their convictions are confirmed next month, I believe Italy will request extradition, placing America in the position of refusing or at least deferring a decision until after ECHR applications are processed, so there goes another few years.

The "compelled" part of that is not a legal compulsion, but a moral one. I somewhat agree with you, CoulsdonUK (don't faint!).

However, it hands the Yanks a diplomatic card to play, in my opinion, that the Yanks would use - perhaps with relish. They'd highlight the wrongfulness for Raffaele, but the rightness for Rudy, and **publicly** refer to the evidence you've read about here.

It would be Chris Halkides vs. Patrizia Stefanoni on the news programs, and some enterprising CNN up-and-comer would find out about the withheld EDFs.

To request extradition opens the door for the Americans to let Italy have it with both barrels. But nicely and diplomaticly. Perhaps even to achieve some other, unknown diplomatic end- tit for tat.

You can bet this is already being talked about, perhaps not so nicely behind the scenes. IMO what this will play to is the divisions **within Italy** over this. The party of Hellmann vs. the party of the PMs, etc. and that is just within the judiciary.

Does Italy really want that? You can bet that if Italy DOES request extradition it will be because the politico-person who controls that process will do it knowing it will embarrass some other group within Italy, perhaps an opponent of his. Then he gets to say, "What? Me embarrass him? I was only doing what I was supposed to be doing, request extradition!"

Ya, right.

 

[Diocletus]

The death penalty is off the table for all US requests to EU countries including UK. US must give assurances that the DP won't be used. But in all other respects, extradition requests are effectively rubber stamped even if delayed by ECHR applications, with the UK. The other way it is different because you have probable cause hearings. The Italy/US treaty is older and operates differently and as you suggest, the Sec of State has more discretion. Our equivalent only gets involved as a source of appeal on limited grounds.

My point is that Italy won't make a request; yummi's is that it must. I think he's wrong.

Yeah, but extradition in DP tables is disallowed because of judge-made law, not because of what the treaties say. In effect, the ECHR countries have said that it's a violation of human rights to extradite someone to face the DP. So, there shouldn't be any problem with a US court saying that it's a violation of human rights to extradite someone whose fundamental rights have been violated. I know the Italians would get whiny and all of that, but the US has dealt with it going the other way.

BTW, in the Venezia case, the DP was taken off the table. Italy still refused to extradite.

 

[Kauffer]

On the other hand, Italy would be compelled to request extradition given two Italians would have been imprisoned. If their convictions are confirmed next month, I believe Italy will request extradition, placing America in the position of refusing or at least deferring a decision until after ECHR applications are processed, so there goes another few years.

What? How does that work? There is no compulsion - Numbers has just provided the evidence. Why are Italy going to get themselves mired in some awful international row in order to bolster the egos of the nitwits in their judicial system whom they want to take down a peg or two anyway? The looming ECHR case is a reason not to make the request.

 

[Diocletus]

On the other hand, Italy would be compelled to request extradition given two Italians would have been imprisoned. If their convictions are confirmed next month, I believe Italy will request extradition, placing America in the position of refusing or at least deferring a decision until after ECHR applications are processed, so there goes another few years.

It doesn't matter because ISIS is invading Italy shortly. Pretty sure the US won't extradite young women to ISIS. That would be as bad as an Italian prison with sex-assault guards.

 

[Numbers]

I think there is. They can just stage it by throwing the rock from outside so it would like the same as the way Rudy did it. Why not?

The only evidence alleging to demonstrate the presence of AK and RS in association with the murder is Meredith's DNA allegedly on the knife blade and RS's DNA allegedly on the bra clasp. Curotolo (sp) only places them on the piazza, and he wasn't sure what day. Guede's investigatory statements can't be used; their use and use of the fast-track trial or appeals motivations would appear to be precluded by Italian law*, Constitution*, and ECHR case-law**. (Apparently, that did not stop the CSC and Nencini from using Guede and the fast-track trial and appeal motivations in quashing Hellmann's acquittal and provisionally convicting AK and RS.)

*CPP Articles 238 and 238-bis; It. Const. Article 111
**Luca v Italy

 

[Numbers]

I think there is. They can just stage it by throwing the rock from outside so it would like the same as the way Rudy did it. Why not?

And what happened to the putative blood stain and hairs found by the broken window?

Amazing how some evidence just seems to get lost.

 

[Numbers]

On the other hand, Italy would be compelled to request extradition given two Italians would have been imprisoned. If their convictions are confirmed next month, I believe Italy will request extradition, placing America in the position of refusing or at least deferring a decision until after ECHR applications are processed, so there goes another few years.

The Italian government, which makes the final decision on requesting extradition, and the Italian judiciary, are nearly completely independent.

The Italian President, with the consent of the Italian government, also has the power to pardon.

 

[Kauffer]

Yeah, but extradition in DP tables is disallowed because of judge-made law, not because of what the treaties say. In effect, the ECHR countries have said that it's a violation of human rights to extradite someone to face the DP. So, there shouldn't be any problem with a US court saying that it's a violation of human rights to extradite someone whose fundamental rights have been violated. I know the Italians would get whiny and all of that, but the US has dealt with it going the other way.

BTW, in the Venezia case, the DP was taken off the table. Italy still refused to extradite.

I'm right behind you there!

Of course your opponents might say that the business of rights violations is not something you should cite because no authority has made a finding that rights were violated and (presumably) an essential element of the extradition treaty is a mutually accepted trust in the efficacy of each country's judicial system - otherwise it would never have been signed. However, it is the facility provided for within the treaty which would be the determining factors in the operation of whatever discretion the sec of state is advised he has. But regardless, I don't think it's ever going to get that far.