Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[CoulsdonUK]

LOL. Probable cause is similar to reasonable suspicion in Europe. But since there has been a trial (in US view, three trials), there is more information to examine, potentially.

You do realize that the FBI does not allow LCN DNA profiling in criminal cases, only for possible identification in disasters?

That the US has what we call a "Miranda warning" or right, that a person under interrogation must be warned that they are a suspect, and given the opportunity to request a lawyer?

That the US has what we call a "Brady right" which means that the prosecution must provide all relevant exculpatory evidence to the defense (also called discovery)?

That the US has a 6th Amendment to the US Constitution, that guarantees the right to confront (cross-examine) witnesses?

ETA: And the question could come up, has the sought person been tried by the foreign country in accordance with the foreign country's laws and Constitution, which in the case of Italy would include the ECHR and ECHR case-law.

This is only bit of your post I could see happening; the US State Department deferring an extradition hearing until after ECHR have made a ruling.

 

[Planigale]

The interrogation

When Amanda and Raffaele were interrogated, they were denied access to lawyers, their interrogations were not taped and they were not officially told they were suspects. Why did the prosecution have to resort to these underhand tactics if they had a strong case?

If the police had built so much evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, why were they not presented with this evidence in the interrogations and asked to explain it? Amanda and Raffaele were not asked questions about ehri behaviour in the period after the murder of Meredith and Amanda and Raffaele were not presented with any forensic evidence.

The two statements Amanda was asked to sign were clearly prepared by the police which makes these statements false evidence. If the prosecution had a a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resort to using false evidence against Amanda and Raffaele?

Evidence

• The evidence used to convict Amanda and Raffaele was extremely dubious. I will concentrate on three pieces of evidence :-

1) A knife with the following characteristics

Not matching the wounds
Not matching a bloody imprint on the bed
It had no blood in it which would make it impossible for DNA to stay on the knife
When C * V tested the knife it was negative for the human species which againt makes it impossible for the DNA to stay on the knife
The collection of the knife was highly suspect. Only one knife was taken. How were the police able to say this knife been used in the murder. Is it credible that the only knife the police would take would just happen to be the knife used in the murder.
The two statements prepared by the police in the interrogation said nothing about Amanda stabbing Meredith. The statement Amanda prepared after the interrogation said nothing about stabbing. Amanda was not accused of stabbing Meredith in the interrogation. How is this explained if Amanda was supposed to have stabbed Meredith?
Massei said the murder was not pre-meditated. If this was the case, how do you explain the knife from Raffaele's apartment being used to stab Meredith in the cottage? Massei argued Amanda carried the knife in her bag. No evidence was provided of this such as cuts in her bag, witnesses seeing the knife or witnesses hearing Amanda mentioning the knife
Mignini was asked in an interview how Amanda committed the murder without leaving forensic traces in the room. He said Amanda may have directed the murder from the corridor. If this scenario was true, how was Amanda supposed to have stabbed Meredith?
The length of the fatal wound was 8 cm with the length of the knife being 17 cm. The knife went in more than once. Is it credible a 17 cm knife would go in exactly 8 cm several times?
C&V and the carabineri could not find any of Meredith’s DNA on the knife.
If Amanda had used the knife to stab Meredith, why did Amanda’s defence team have no objection to opening the knife but the prosecution opposed opening the knife.
The problems with Stefanoni’s DNA are well documented

2) The prosecution released a CCTV of a woman who bore no resemblance of Amanda.

3) The testimony of Nara Capazzeli who supposedly heard a scream despite the following :-

Nara was deaf and suffering from mental health problems
A scream was supposed to have carried from a bedroom at the back of the cottage through thick stone walls, a busy road and double glazing in Nara’s flat
Nara did not wake her daughter, call the police or check or check her watch. Nara did not go to the police for 24 days.
Nara claimed she was told about Meredith’s murder before the body was even discovered and saw posters of Guede, Kox, Sollecito and Lumumba before they were arrested

There are numerous with the evidence listed above. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resort to using dubious evidence totally lacking in credibility? Basic logic and common sense dictates if a knife is used to stab someone, it should match the wounds and a knife which does not match the wounds, can’t be a murder weapon and has zero credibility as evidence. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resort to using evidence as dubious as a knife which does not match the wounds as evidence? If the prosecution had a strong case, why did the prosecution feel it necessary six years after the murder to release CCTV of a woman who clearly was not Amanda?

* The witness Curalto claims he saw Amanda and Raffaele away from the cottage at the time of the murder which gives them an alibi. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did the prosecution have to resort to using evidence which undermined their case?

* During the Hellman trial the prosecution released showed a photograph of Meredith's body. This picture did not show who killed Meredith and was an irrelevant piece of information. Why did the prosecution have to resort to using irrelevant evidence if they had a strong case?

* The defence proved conclusively Raffaele called 112 before the arrival of the postal police. Despite this the prosecution still continued to maintain Raffaele called 112 after the arrival of the postal police. If the prosecution had a strong case, why did they have to rely on discredited evidence?

Re the knife: you forgot the breach in chain of evidence. The knife was taken out of the evidence bag in the police station and repackaged in a pre used box. This was done in an unclean envirionment, with no precautions against cross contamination. Then really dubious (no detectable DNA) LCNDNA typing evidence is 'recovered' from the knife. In many jurisdictions the mere fact the evidence bag had been opened at the police station, the evidence manipulated and repackaged would render any findings invalid.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is only bit of your post I could see happening; the US State Department deferring an extradition hearing until after ECHR have made a ruling.

I agree. In fact I believe that if the murder conviction is confirmed by the ISC and extradition is sought by Italy, the State Dept will very probably look at the case and decide that there is a significant possibility of a successful application to the ECHR. And I don't think that - either politically or judicially - US State will want to risk granting the extradition (and imprisonment in Italy) of someone whose conviction might well be (effectively) overturned* by the ECHR. Therefore I suspect that US State will deny extradition until it at least receives indications from the ECHR on the likelihood of a successful application.


* And yes, I know of course that the ECHR cannot overturn Italian court convictions. But any sort of significant Art 6 ruling by the ECHR will mean that Italy will be ordered to apply full remedy to become compliant. And in this case it will mean either a retrial (but with a huge hole in the prosecution case that would very likely lead to acquittal anyhow) or a quashing of the conviction(s) altogether.

 

[Numbers]

Effectively the ECHR can rule laws illegal by saying they breach human rights; so for European democracies this is not true. In the US the supreme court can rule laws unconstitutional so this is not true for the US.

Of course, it is a bit more complex than that. The ECHR may suggest a desired outcome, and it is up to the EoC member State, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, to come up with a solution. That could be a change in law, or merely a change in the interpretation of the law, or it could be a change in the State's constitution.

 

[Diocletus]

Of course, it is a bit more complex than that. The ECHR may suggest a desired outcome, and it is up to the EoC member State, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, to come up with a solution. That could be a change in law, or merely a change in the interpretation of the law, or it could be a change in the State's constitution.

As a practical matter, the case is all over once ECHR finds an Art. 6 violation of any kind. Italy can change their ways or just keep on denying other peoples' human rights . . . whatever.

 

[Diocletus]

I agree. In fact I believe that if the murder conviction is confirmed by the ISC and extradition is sought by Italy, the State Dept will very probably look at the case and decide that there is a significant possibility of a successful application to the ECHR.

Doesn't seem to be anything preventing them from doing so. Particularly now that Italian courts have decided on their own, in breach of the extradition treaty, that no murderers can be extradited to Florida (or any other DP state).

Wonder how all of the Senators in DP states are going to feel about that? Do you think the Department of State will take notice of this ground-breaking Italian court decision? LOL.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach, that is interesting information. By the way, there may be a typo in your post, or a big mistake in the book I am using for the CPP. (The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical Essays and English Translation, edited by M. Gialuz, L. Luparia, and F. Scarpa). CPP 668 is titled: Person convicted for mistaken name.

Could this Article number be to a different procedure code?

Sorry, it's a typo. It's 698 cpp par. 2. But it doesn't exist any more because of the CC ruling.

 

[Diocletus]

Doesn't seem to be anything preventing them from doing so. Particularly now that Italian courts have decided on their own, in breach of the extradition treaty, that no murderers can be extradited to Florida (or any other DP state).

Wonder how all of the Senators in DP states are going to feel about that? Do you think the Department of State will take notice of this ground-breaking Italian court decision? LOL.

This is weird, you know. The Dept. of State doesn't seem to have made any sort of public protest of this, even though the President was briefed on it at the time. I guess they just figured that if they bided their time . . . what comes around would go around.

 

[carbonjam72]

I know you have asked this before. Why would any US department "represent" Italy in the extradition process? I would think Italy would represent themselves. Or am I misunderstanding this?

Yes, Coulsdon has asked this before, I think he/she just derives some sort of pleasure from having people go through the mental motions of imagining the scenario.

But as I understand it, Italy would forward a request to the US state dept, which evaluates to see if the paperwork is in order, and if so, forward it to the US Justice dept, which then acts as Italy's agent in the US courts. If it gets through the US courts and is certified for extradition, it goes back to the state dept again, and the Secretary of state has to sign off on it.

However, right now, there sill is no confirmed conviction. So the sadistic slobbering must be put on hold.

 

[Diocletus]

Yes, Coulsdon has asked this before, I think he/she just derives some sort of pleasure from having people go through the mental motions of imagining the scenario.

But as I understand it, Italy would forward a request to the US state dept, which evaluates to see if the paperwork is in order, and if so, forward it to the US Justice dept, which then acts as Italy's agent in the US courts. If it gets through the US courts and is certified for extradition, it goes back to the state dept again, and the Secretary of state has to sign off on it.

However, right now, there sill is no confirmed conviction. So the sadistic slobbering must be put on hold.

I was actually delighted to read that there is an acting US Attorney in Seattle. I'll bet she would really, really like to have Cantwell recommend her for the full-time job. In the alternative, the new US Attorney will be a person selected by . . . Cantwell.

 

[carbonjam72]

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.

I can't really agree with this. The one thing we have seen, in regards to the US government standing up for its citizens, is generally it doesn't happen. Citizens are apparently like cattle to the government, not just in the US, but probably every government.

Smooth relations and real politik is what seems to rule the mindset of bureaucrats around the world. Pretty sickening really.

Unless of course, the case somehow becomes public. Then no one wants to be seen as cruel and human, or folding in the face of pressure for foreign countries, its unseemly.

Every once in a while, justice seems to prevail. BUt it can take decades to get the massive beast of government to focus its attention, and come to a reasoned decision.

So no, I don't think there's the slightest possibility that Amanda will spend one more day in jail, here or in Italy. Ted Simon dropped off her legal team, my guess is they already have the get-out-of-jail-free card signed, sealed and sitting in Simon's vault and at the state dept.

But I can't see Italy not having to go through the motions. Much as one poster would like to keep equating Guede and Raffaele, there is nothing similar about them. The former is obviously guilty, which practically no one doubts. The latter is obviously innocent, which is widely believed worldwide, at least among the rational.

I do not believe these convictions will be affirmed in March, or ever. I think they are on their way to eventual dismissal, though that may take a few more years to unwind. Sad for the Kerchers, but they should never have glaumed on to a wrongful conviction.

 

[carbonjam72]

The Secretary could ask for copies of the EDFs or other suppressed evidence.

That would result in a delay as well, maybe one that would be geologically significant (tens of thousands of years, perhaps).

That's what should happen really They should say they won't even consider it until all the suppressed evidence if provided access to, and allowed testing of the evidence that would have exonerated them (computers, glass from Filomena's window, DNA files, etc).

Really, the US should be seeking to extradite Mignini to stand trial in the US for what he did in this case. That would be justice.

 

[carbonjam72]

So, the Italian government is too weak to resist the will of the magistrates? What happened to their balls?

Too weak to resist the public, I think is what mach means. Which is also why its likely cassation will not confirm the convictions, no one thinks Raf is anything but a victim at this point, save a few posters here and a handfull of trolls.

And, they fell into the nutella.

 

[Numbers]

This is only bit of your post I could see happening; the US State Department deferring an extradition hearing until after ECHR have made a ruling.

I actually don't believe that should Amanda's conviction be finalized, a US Secretary of State would move to extradite; there wouldn't be a probable cause hearing. The issues with the case are becoming well known here.

 

[Numbers]

See my post above. The US Supreme Court cannot introduce or repeal any laws. Only the various legislatures can do that. The SC can tell legislators that any particular law is unconstitutional, since one of the SCs key jobs is to interpret the constitution and apply it as appropriate. And if anyone is convicted under a law that the SC deems unconstitutional, then of course the SC can overturn the conviction. But overturning a conviction is categorically not the same thing as abolishing the law that led to the conviction. And similarly, announcing that a particular law is unconstitutional is not the same as abolishing the law. It's saying to the relevant legislature: "I'd abolish that law if I were you".

Well, I understand, I think, the point you are trying to make. But that's not how it works in the US. If the Supreme Court says a law, or part of a law, is unconstitutional, that means the unconstitutional elements cannot be enforced. The unconstitutional law or part of the law is not "repealed" but it is not extant. The Congress could pass a new or revised law in its place.

The US Supreme Court actually does make laws, in a way, as does I believe, the courts in other common law countries, such as England and Wales. These laws are court decisions which become binding precedent. For example, in the US, the case Miranda v Arizona held that police interrogations must issue a warning to suspects including their right to a lawyer, and that has become precedent. It is procedural law: If the police violate it, the information from the interrogation may not be used. Congress passed a law soon after Miranda that was a weaker version, and when a case came up where it was used, the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional, so Miranda prevailed as precedent.

 

[Numbers]

I was actually delighted to read that there is an acting US Attorney in Seattle. I'll bet she would really, really like to have Cantwell recommend her for the full-time job. In the alternative, the new US Attorney will be a person selected by . . . Cantwell.

What some may not realize is that not only the US Attorney, but the US Judges and magistrates are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. That means in each state, they are effectively selected with the approval of the state's Senators. Not that that results in any bias. But all office holders including judges, prosecutors, legislators, and executives of the US are Constitutionally required (by Article VI) to take an oath of office to support the US Constitution. And there is an expectation that they, including judges, do so. This may be different than in Italy, where it appears that judges arbitrarily pick the laws they wish to follow.

 

[Bill Williams]

However, it hands the Yanks a diplomatic card to play, in my opinion, that the Yanks would use - perhaps with relish.

I can't really agree with this. The one thing we have seen, in regards to the US government standing up for its citizens, is generally it doesn't happen. Citizens are apparently like cattle to the government, not just in the US, but probably every government.

Smooth relations and real politik is what seems to rule the mindset of bureaucrats around the world. Pretty sickening really.

Unless of course, the case somehow becomes public. Then no one wants to be seen as cruel and human, or folding in the face of pressure for foreign countries, its unseemly.

I know nothing, really.... I'm a Monday morning quarterback on this.

Yet, you and I are saying the same thing. There is enough of a "WTF?" circulating though the USA these days with regard to this case, that (even though there will hardly be rioting in the streets) the American diplomat corps lose nothing by standing behind Knox. My opinion only, and uninformed, at that! But if the March 25 Cassazione decision is to uphold Nencini's conviction, 90% of Americans who even follow this case (or know what it is) will say, "Wait a minute, wasn't she acquitted?" Hell, even Winterbottom's film ends assuming Raffaele and Amanda had been acquitted, and the film was made after the ISC reversal of 2013!!! (And Winterbottom is a Brit!!!)

If American gov't protection of its own citizens is as dreadful as you believe, this is the one where it could stand up for a notable citizen free of charge, and have plenty of reason to do so: and look good all the while to seem to be repairing that image!

Or they could agree to extradition on the condition that Stefanoni and her lab release the EDFs and failing that, extradition is off the table. Canada did the equivalent in relation to Wisconsin's extradition request about Lawrencia Bembenek, a convicted murderer who was a former cop herself, and who had escaped prison (escaping to Canada) while serving the sentence. (The problem with her conviction is that she probably did not do it!)

The country getting the extradition request has a lot of cards to play, with no rules really available to the other side other than diplomatic harsh language and outrage!

 

[carbonjam72]

I know nothing, really.... I'm a Monday morning quarterback on this.

Yet, you and I are saying the same thing. There is enough of a "WTF?" circulating though the USA these days with regard to this case, that (even though there will hardly be rioting in the streets) the American diplomat corps lose nothing by standing behind Knox. My opinion only, and uninformed, at that! But if the March 25 Cassazione decision is to uphold Nencini's conviction, 90% of Americans who even follow this case (or know what it is) will say, "Wait a minute, wasn't she acquitted?" Hell, even Winterbottom's film ends assuming Raffaele and Amanda had been acquitted, and the film was made after the ISC reversal of 2013!!! (And Winterbottom is a Brit!!!)

If American gov't protection of its own citizens is as dreadful as you believe, this is the one where it could stand up for a notable citizen free of charge, and have plenty of reason to do so: and look good all the while to seem to be repairing that image!

Or they could agree to extradition on the condition that Stefanoni and her lab release the EDFs and failing that, extradition is off the table. Canada did the equivalent in relation to Wisconsin's extradition request about Lawrencia Bembenek, a convicted murderer who was a former cop herself, and who had escaped prison (escaping to Canada) while serving the sentence. (The problem with her conviction is that she probably did not do it!)

The country getting the extradition request has a lot of cards to play, with no rules really available to the other side other than diplomatic harsh language and outrage!

First, I don't think the convictions will be affirmed. But if they are, I expect the US government will do what it does best: nothing. They won't lift a finger to extradite, or move the case forward.

You don't really see harsh or critical language between allies. Such language is reserved for "the axis of evil". Things might be muttered behind the scenes, but you'll never see an ally deliberately embarrassing another ally in public, it just doesn't happen. Try to think of an example.

When the UK denied extradition of that hacker Gary McKinnon, they didn't gloat, or boast. They just said IIRC its being denied on humanitarian grounds (and I say good for them, our laws on computer hacking and drug use are nutso).

Diplomacy is all about smoothing relations, not kicking up dust and making scenes. How fast and quietly can an issue be swept under the rug. That seems to be the SOP.

But as I say, I don't see the convictions affirmed. And in any event, Amanda will never spend another day in jail over this tragic fraudulent conviction, not one day.

Mignini on the other hand, well, time will tell...

 

[Machiavelli]

So, the Italian government is too weak to resist the will of the magistrates? What happened to their balls?

What balls?

 

[Kaosium]

What balls?

'John Marshall (Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court) has made his decision, now let him enforce it.'


That took balls, and it didn't end well, (it lead directly to the 'Trail of Tears') but one thing you cannot say about Andy Jackson is he lacked cojones.