Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Sly? It couldn’t have been that sly - both you and sept79 seemed to figure it out easily.
We shall have to agree to differ on this it seems. I am not as fast as you are to give the benefit of the doubt to a sex killer no matter how ‘purty’.

Meanwhile back at the skeptics forum....

The reasoning behind this seems rather circular. Because of your moral assessment of the subject, you then claim the right to just make stuff up.

 

[Bill Williams]

Court documents should never be ironic. . . .Harry Rag is in effect accusing Nencini of being an idiot if he is being ironic in a court document.

Harry Rag is now being spanked on the guilter forums about the sex-registry, claiming that there is nothing stopping the State of Washington from placing a provisionally convicted person on it now.

Every once in a while one of Harry Rag's extreme points of view offends even the hate-lobby. The provisional nature of ALL court decisions prior to March 25 2015 is being pointed out to him, even on the hate sites.

Harry Rag used to carpet bomb on-line news sites with the "mixed blood" thing, something Judge Massei didn't even believe. Harry Rag's response to there being no forensics pointing to RS or AK in the murder room was not to argue about 165B, it was to say, "The mentally ill innocentisti conveniently ignore that the whole cottage is the crime scene."

Of course the answer to that is, "yes, and the true osmotic evaluation of this is STILL to explain why (in particular) Amanda's forensic presence is in the bathroom she'd used since moving into the cottage, but not in the bedroom where the murder was committed? Even holding that the whole place is the "scene", the problem is the same - are you saying she cleaned her own forensic profile from the murder room, and left only Guede's?"

From Mr. Rag/Machine...... crickets.

 

[Diocletus]

"Jackie", PMF's resident struck off law clerk is at it again but this time he's been a bit spooked by the ECHR. He thinks the court is "naive" (sic). Jackie, baby. You've really got to get a grip of the post Salduz case law.

In Zaichenko V Russia, Jackie, the important bit is that while Zaichenko's freedom of action, the court held, was not significantly abated and the absence of legal assistance at that point (a traffic stop) did not violate his right under Article 6(3)(c) of the ECHR, the subsequent use at trial of his answers to these questions violated the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to remain silent contained in Article 6. You see, Jackie, statements made without benefit of counsel, later used to convict, are a big no no.

On the issue of waiver, Jackie, you should look at "Pishchalnikov", (also against Russia). The Court held that a waiver of the right to legal assistance “must be established in an unequivocal manner and must be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate to its importance”.
The right to counsel is a fundamental right, which from ECHR case law, underpins the concept of a fair trial. This is why the court emphasized in Pishalnikov that any waiver "must not only be voluntary, but must also constitute a knowing and intelligent relinquishment of a right. Before an accused can be said to have implicitly, through his conduct, waived an important right under article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be”.
A valid waiver has not been made where a suspect simply continues to talk to the police in an interrogation even if advised of his or her rights. And before you start to witter on again, Jackie about Ms Knox not being under arrest or not really being in custody or being just a witness, you should look at both Shabelnik V Ukraine and Brusco V France. Hey! we can't do all your work for you!

When you have reviewed these two cases, Jackie, come back to us with your thoughts and then we will see what can be done about your failing grade.

None of the convictions in the present cases can survive ECHR scrutiny, Jackie. Time for you to face up to it. When you state that "Knox may have a chance of winning a couple thousand Euro and a piece of paper for her PR people to crow about.", you are simply ignoring Article 46 of the Convention as if Article 41 is where the real action is!

Restitutio in integrum, Jackie. That's what it's all about. An Article 6 violation means the game is up and a conviction will not stand. Watch with us as the judiciary goes into humiliating retreat. It might take a bit of time. But it's gonna happen, Jackie, baby, one way or another. It's gonna happen!

I love Jackie eruptions. I also love his MO of coming out all full of piss and vinegar, getting stomped on, disappearing for a month, and then coming back and arguing that we're right but the ECHR is stupid. LOL.

 

[Diocletus]

Had defense lawyers seen this note earlier, he said, Knox's defense would have taken a different approach.

Uh oh.

 

[Numbers]

Just say "No" [a reminder that extradition is a choice]:

US - Italy Extradition Treaty
Article XIII
Decision and Surrender

1. The Requested Party {US} shall promptly communicate to the Requesting Party {Italy} through the diplomatic channel its decision on the request for extradition.

2. The Requested Party shall provide reasons for any partial or complete rejection of the request for extradition and a copy of the court's decision, if any.

3. When an extradition request has been granted, ....
____
The braces indicate the case that the Requested Party is US, and the Requesting Party is Italy. Of course, the roles may be reversed depending on circumstances. Rejecting an extradition is foreseen as a possibility in the treaty, is in accordance with the treaty, and does not abrogate the treaty.

Well, it's a little different than deciding not to extradite someone under these provisions. What italy actually did was prospectively decide that a whole class of persons (persons who committed capital offenses) aren't extraditable. It did this despite a provision of the treaty that addresses when and how such persons should be extradited. So, in effect, this is at least a partial abrogation of the treaty, although the us has not treated the treaty as abrogated . . . yet.

The decision was actually 1996. I found this:

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/28/w...radition-citing-death-penalty-in-florida.html


"Though the full implications of the decision are not clear, a Justice Department spokesman in Washington said "there's concern" about the effect on future cooperation between the United States and Italy in the war against organized crime. In the past, both countries have worked closely and the 1983 treaty has been invoked to help extradite mob figures for trial in the United States.

The spokesman, John Russell, said of the court decision today, "I think it serves as a bad omen.""

Also:

Last December, Rome's Justice Ministry agreed to Mr. Venezia's extradition after the Dade County prosecutor's office made assurances that it would not seek the death penalty.

"Mary Cagle, the Dade County prosecutor who sought Mr. Venezia's extradition and had agreed to forgo the death penalty, said, "I just don't think there's any justice there."

In at least several instances, Mr. Russell said, the United States has given assurances to Canada about forgoing the death penalty.

But Giovanni Leone, a former President of Italy who had taken up Mr. Venezia's cause, described the decision as "one of historic character that does honor to Italy.""

And:

"Italian officials pointed out that the penal code requires that Mr. Venezia be tried by an Italian court. But American officials were not satisfied. Mr. Russell, the Justice Department spokesman, said, "That falls short of what we want.""

The facts of the case are quite plain. It is a little disingenuous of the pro guilt mob to seek to lecture the United States in the Kercher case with regard to its obligations in matters of Italy/USA cooperation.

I would agree that the Italian Constitutional Court decision indicates that the US should consider the implications of the Italian authorities to not follow parts of the treaty.

For example, no woman should be extradited to Italy for any alleged criminal offense by the US, because there is reasonable suspicion or belief that women have been subjected to instances of sexual harassment in the Italian judicial system, in violation of Convention Articles 3 and/or 8.

 

[Dan O.]

Not too far back in this thread, someone was questioning how the Perugian authorities would know about an article published in the Sunday Mirror. Turns out they would learn about it because they intercepted a phone call where Raffael explains giving the interview to a reporter that represented that she worked for Meredith's father. He further says he didn't see how he could refuse that interview.

 

[Diocletus]

Yes. But she's not going anywhere.

On the other hand she probably wants to go to lots of places in Europe and elsewhere and it is for these practical reasons that she needs to clear her name in Italy, probably with the invaluable assistance of the ECHR.

Another thing that occurs to me is how awesome it would be if Italy somehow managed to get her imprisoned in the US. Because what do US prisoners do? Do they sit around in jail? Nope--they file habeas corpus petitions.

Remember the case of one Sylvia Baraldini? She was the Italian terrorist who liked to do dirty deeds in Puerto Rico (really?). She was convicted, and sentenced to US prison, and then Italy said "let her come back to Italy and we'll see that she serves out her sentence in our jail." The US, not realizing that Italy's word was worth about as much as an Indian treaty, said "OK." Of course, Italy promptly let her out of jail, explaining that it had some kind of early release program.

So, bringing this around to Amanda Knox, let's say she's in US jail, because Italy asked her to be housed there (knowing it would never be able to extradite). What will she do? She will file a habeas corpus petition arguing that she's actually innocent. I'm not sure yet of the standard that would be used in such a hearing, given it's international flavor, but the potential for entertainment is enormous: virtually none of the "evidence" against Knox is even admissible in a US court, and Italy would be required to cough up all sorts of discovery (e.g., Stefanoni's lab records, which will obviously have gone "missing").

So, what's the worst that could happen to Italy in such a proceeding? Well, here's case where a Federal judge put a beat down on the prosecuting authorities for their behavior in convicting a young female sex-triangle murderer: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/pdf/Dalzells_1997_Opinion.pdf. Opinion later vacated, but it shows you what a motivated federal judge can do in a habeas matter.

So, anyway, if Beraldini is imprisoned in Italy and then released on the basis of Italian law, why shouldn't Knox be released after a habeas proceeding that uncovers massive prosecutorial misconduct?

 

[Diocletus]

For example, no woman should be extradited to Italy for any alleged criminal offense by the US, because there is reasonable suspicion or belief that women have been subjected to instances of sexual harassment in the Italian judicial system, in violation of Convention Articles 3 and/or 8.

Well, there's that, and there's also the issue of convicting someone based on the result of some other guy's trial. That violates approximately 174 treaties, constitutional provisions, laws, regulations, guidelines and best practices.

 

[Numbers]

Another thing that occurs to me is how awesome it would be if Italy somehow managed to get her imprisoned in the US. Because what do US prisoners do? Do they sit around in jail? Nope--they file habeas corpus petitions.

Remember the case of one Sylvia Baraldini? She was the Italian terrorist who liked to do dirty deeds in Puerto Rico (really?). She was convicted, and sentenced to US prison, and then Italy said "let her come back to Italy and we'll see that she serves out her sentence in our jail." The US, not realizing that Italy's word was worth about as much as an Indian treaty, said "OK." Of course, Italy promptly let her out of jail, explaining that it had some kind of early release program.

So, bringing this around to Amanda Knox, let's say she's in US jail, because Italy asked her to be housed there (knowing it would never be able to extradite). What will she do? She will file a habeas corpus petition arguing that she's actually innocent. I'm not sure yet of the standard that would be used in such a hearing, given it's international flavor, but the potential for entertainment is enormous: virtually none of the "evidence" against Knox is even admissible in a US court, and Italy would be required to cough up all sorts of discovery (e.g., Stefanoni's lab records, which will obviously have gone "missing").

So, what's the worst that could happen to Italy in such a proceeding? Well, here's case where a Federal judge put a beat down on the prosecuting authorities for their behavior in convicting a young female sex-triangle murderer: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/pdf/Dalzells_1997_Opinion.pdf. Opinion later vacated, but it shows you what a motivated federal judge can do in a habeas matter.

So, anyway, if Beraldini is imprisoned in Italy and then released on the basis of Italian law, why shouldn't Knox be released after a habeas proceeding that uncovers massive prosecutorial misconduct?

Italy may never request extradition, because of the risk the US would ask for the EDFs and other suppressed evidence that shows Knox and Sollecito are innocent and that only another person - presumably Guede - was guilty of the rape/murder.

 

[Numbers]

Well, there's that, and there's also the issue of convicting someone based on the result of some other guy's trial. That violates approximately 174 treaties, constitutional provisions, laws, regulations, guidelines and best practices.

More succinctly, it violates the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution, which gives the right to confront witnesses. There are no exceptions based on filtering the statements or any unexamined evidence through another proceeding.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

surprise and unfairness

I found this interesting:

"We see from a handwritten note that was made available only this summer, that the quantity of DNA on that sample B [Kercher's DNA] of the knife was noted as being 'too low,'" Dalla Vedova told the court.

Had defense lawyers seen this note earlier, he said, Knox's defense would have taken a different approach.

After the judge rejected the request by the defense, the trial resumed with the testimony of Adriano Tagliabracci, forensic consultant for Sollecito, who challenged the alleged DNA of Sollecito found on Kercher's bra clasp.

Tagliabracci testified that the amount of biological material from which the DNA was extracted was minimal. He also said that ("he"? presumably) saw mistakes that police biologist Patrizia Stefanoni made during her analysis of DNA evidence.[/HILITE]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/US/amanda-knox-trial-resumes-dna-fight/story?id=8566292&page=3

Kauffer,

The same argument holds true with respect to the TMB results. This is where the Lovejoy case in Illinois is relevant. The prosecution did not disclose negative TMB results, but it was revealed during the trial. The Illinois State Supreme Court ordered a new trial. "Discovery rules are intended to protect the accused against surprise, unfairness, and inadequate preparation...Defendant was prejudiced when Camp's conclusions were revealed for the first time at trial."

 

[Numbers]

I found this interesting:

"We see from a handwritten note that was made available only this summer, that the quantity of DNA on that sample B [Kercher's DNA] of the knife was noted as being 'too low,'" Dalla Vedova told the court.

Had defense lawyers seen this note earlier, he said, Knox's defense would have taken a different approach.

After the judge rejected the request by the defense, the trial resumed with the testimony of Adriano Tagliabracci, forensic consultant for Sollecito, who challenged the alleged DNA of Sollecito found on Kercher's bra clasp.

Tagliabracci testified that the amount of biological material from which the DNA was extracted was minimal. He also said that ("he"? presumably) saw mistakes that police biologist Patrizia Stefanoni made during her analysis of DNA evidence.[/HILITE]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/US/amanda-knox-trial-resumes-dna-fight/story?id=8566292&page=3

Kauffer,

The same argument holds true with respect to the TMB results. This is where the Lovejoy case in Illinois is relevant. The prosecution did not disclose negative TMB results, but it was revealed during the trial. The Illinois State Supreme Court ordered a new trial. "Discovery rules are intended to protect the accused against surprise, unfairness, and inadequate preparation...Defendant was prejudiced when Camp's conclusions were revealed for the first time at trial."

These instances are especially interesting in relation to the Convention and ECHR judgments. The defense is entitled to equality of arms, including discovery, and this was clearly denied to them. Thus, as found in ECHR case-law, this is a violation of the Convention Article 6. In addition, the unreliability of the evidence leads to an unfair trial; the court was made aware of the unreliability of the evidence and choose to ignore this issue and convict - and CSC and Nencini have so far followed this behavior. Again, if the unreliability of evidence results in an unfair trial, the ECHR case-law indicates ECHR will find the trial unfair, a violation of Convention Article 6.

 

[Bill Williams]

Italy may never request extradition, because of the risk the US would ask for the EDFs and other suppressed evidence that shows Knox and Sollecito are innocent and that only another person - presumably Guede - was guilty of the rape/murder.

My view is different. Italy would be stupid to request extradition. But if they did it would be as a political maneuver by the political types internally to embarrass their own judiciary and let the Americans do the dirty work of exposure.

 

[Numbers]

My view is different. Italy would be stupid to request extradition. But if they did it would be as a political maneuver by the political types internally to embarrass their own judiciary and let the Americans do the dirty work of exposure.

But probably there would be no exposure. The US State Department would ask for more information such as EDFs, the Italians would not be willing to supply it, the end.

There would be more exposure at the ECHR, where a very brief summary of the unreliable evidence - probably no longer than this sentence - would be put into a judgment. The ECHR would say the unreliable evidence made the trial unfair, thus there is a violation of Convention Article 6, on to Articles 41 (just satisfaction) and 46 (restoration of the situation before violation, preventing future violation). But the details of Article 46 would rest primarily with the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

 

[carbonjam72]

My view is different. Italy would be stupid to request extradition. But if they did it would be as a political maneuver by the political types internally to embarrass their own judiciary and let the Americans do the dirty work of exposure.

I guess I just disagree that the issues are thought out in that way. They can't very well put Raffaele in jail, and then not even go through the motions of requesting extradition for Amanda. Even if Raf were not in jeopardy, I think they would still be required to go through the motions of making an extradition request, if for no other reason, than to follow through on behalf of the victims survivors, or the "interests of justice".

I don't see how they can fail to make a request, although that did happen with the CIA people, IIRC. If its not a matter of government employees or some sort of privileged issue, I can't see them not having to follow through with a request.

I would also be amazed if the US state dept has not quietly advised them after the acquittal that any such future request will not be satisfied, in light of the Hellman acquittal.

Again though, I can't see cassation confirming these verdicts. It's too well known that there are flaws in the convictions, it undermines public confidence in the justice system. I just can't see it happening, but of course, that's just guesswork.

There's really no telling what would happen. That's the scary part, is that the government doesn't tell its position, but its cruel to allow the knox's to believe they may be subject to extradition. I think Ted Simon dropping off Amanda's defense, when he was there pro bono, is a pretty good sign that they have it in writing that extradition will not apply, no matter what.

 

[Bill Williams]

I guess I just disagree that the issues are thought out in that way. They can't very well put Raffaele in jail, and then not even go through the motions of requesting extradition for Amanda. Even if Raf were not in jeopardy, I think they would still be required to go through the motions of making an extradition request, if for no other reason, than to follow through on behalf of the victims survivors, or the "interests of justice".

I don't see how they can fail to make a request, although that did happen with the CIA people, IIRC. If its not a matter of government employees or some sort of privileged issue, I can't see them not having to follow through with a request.

I would also be amazed if the US state dept has not quietly advised them after the acquittal that any such future request will not be satisfied, in light of the Hellman acquittal.

Again though, I can't see cassation confirming these verdicts. It's too well known that there are flaws in the convictions, it undermines public confidence in the justice system. I just can't see it happening, but of course, that's just guesswork.

There's really no telling what would happen. That's the scary part, is that the government doesn't tell its position, but its cruel to allow the knox's to believe they may be subject to extradition. I think Ted Simon dropping off Amanda's defense, when he was there pro bono, is a pretty good sign that they have it in writing that extradition will not apply, no matter what.

Every time I ask someone who is Italian, or knows Italy what is going on, I either get dietrology in return (Machiavelli) or I get an account of some sort of dietrology they claim is presently going o behind the scenes. The explanation of multi-layers of intrigue is dizzying to a simpleton like me.

Either way, guilt or innocence, it's all dietrology. The facts/evidence of this case has long since disappeared- arguably just after the Hellmann verdict.

So my dietrology is as good as any one else's!!

In a related vein, Raffaele has just made a post where he describes the problem he's facing. And just as some imbedded, invested guilters claim his present tactic is to throw Amanda Knox under a bus, he does not even give her a mention......

What is this case about as far as he's concerned?

The reality of "judicial truth" in Italy, and once a truth has been established judicially in Italy, no Italian should doubt that it is a fact.

It's about this the way "judicial truth" is established - in this case, he implies, judicial truth is not just established by the courts. PM's are part of the court/judicial structure.... so that if a prosecutor claims something (regardless of evidence) and if a court agrees (instead of demand proof from their colleague the prosecutor, they then demand proof from the defence that the prosecutor is wrong!!!!).....

.... then the judicial truth is established. This is regardless of what the evidence is. If a prosecutor can hypothesize about something, then it is well on its way to being "fact", what might be viewed as a "factoid" in any other system.

If the political folks in Italy want to make good on the stalled judicial reform, where their system is stuck halfway between inquisitorial and adversarial, the political folks (who control the mechanics of extradition) just may wish to get the Americans to do the dirty work for them.....

..... usually (with exceptions) one cannot be convicted in the USA on a prosecutor's say-so. That's where this sits.

And as Raffaele says, until some other court in Italy rules that cows cannot fly, if a PM or a court has claimed that they can, than all Italians are bound to accept the judicial truth.......

...... that cows can fly.

You see, even Raffaele knows that what he's facing has nothing to do with Amanda Knox.

 

[Kauffer]

I guess I just disagree that the issues are thought out in that way. They can't very well put Raffaele in jail, and then not even go through the motions of requesting extradition for Amanda. Even if Raf were not in jeopardy, I think they would still be required to go through the motions of making an extradition request, if for no other reason, than to follow through on behalf of the victims survivors, or the "interests of justice".

I don't see how they can fail to make a request, although that did happen with the CIA people, IIRC. If its not a matter of government employees or some sort of privileged issue, I can't see them not having to follow through with a request.

I would also be amazed if the US state dept has not quietly advised them after the acquittal that any such future request will not be satisfied, in light of the Hellman acquittal.

Again though, I can't see cassation confirming these verdicts. It's too well known that there are flaws in the convictions, it undermines public confidence in the justice system. I just can't see it happening, but of course, that's just guesswork.

There's really no telling what would happen. That's the scary part, is that the government doesn't tell its position, but its cruel to allow the knox's to believe they may be subject to extradition. I think Ted Simon dropping off Amanda's defense, when he was there pro bono, is a pretty good sign that they have it in writing that extradition will not apply, no matter what.

They could always not imprison Mr Sollecito. It's a choice available - pending an ECHR application.

The problem is that in the event of a confirmation, the cases split off. Mr Sollecito's fate is in the hands of the domestic authorities whilst Ms Knox's future is tied up with the will of the Italian government and possibly the US government.

The Italians are between a rock and a hard place with these cases and as time winds on the options available to them narrow considerably. Even the least abrasive course of action - another trial (or a continuation of the present one, depending on which way you look at it) - makes them look indecisive.

But better to look indecisive than foolish or stupid. I agree with you that Cassation is unlikely to confirm.

 

[Numbers]

Every time I ask someone who is Italian, or knows Italy what is going on, I either get dietrology in return (Machiavelli) or I get an account of some sort of dietrology they claim is presently going o behind the scenes. The explanation of multi-layers of intrigue is dizzying to a simpleton like me.

Either way, guilt or innocence, it's all dietrology. The facts/evidence of this case has long since disappeared- arguably just after the Hellmann verdict.

So my dietrology is as good as any one else's!!

In a related vein, Raffaele has just made a post where he describes the problem he's facing. And just as some imbedded, invested guilters claim his present tactic is to throw Amanda Knox under a bus, he does not even give her a mention......

What is this case about as far as he's concerned?

The reality of "judicial truth" in Italy, and once a truth has been established judicially in Italy, no Italian should doubt that it is a fact.

It's about this the way "judicial truth" is established - in this case, he implies, judicial truth is not just established by the courts. PM's are part of the court/judicial structure.... so that if a prosecutor claims something (regardless of evidence) and if a court agrees (instead of demand proof from their colleague the prosecutor, they then demand proof from the defence that the prosecutor is wrong!!!!).....

.... then the judicial truth is established. This is regardless of what the evidence is. If a prosecutor can hypothesize about something, then it is well on its way to being "fact", what might be viewed as a "factoid" in any other system.

If the political folks in Italy want to make good on the stalled judicial reform, where their system is stuck halfway between inquisitorial and adversarial, the political folks (who control the mechanics of extradition) just may wish to get the Americans to do the dirty work for them.....

..... usually (with exceptions) one cannot be convicted in the USA on a prosecutor's say-so. That's where this sits.

And as Raffaele says, until some other court in Italy rules that cows cannot fly, if a PM or a court has claimed that they can, than all Italians are bound to accept the judicial truth.......

...... that cows can fly.

You see, even Raffaele knows that what he's facing has nothing to do with Amanda Knox.

Here's the problem as I see it. Italians can pretty much do whatever mischief they want to do to other Italians. It's in the unwritten part of their Constitution. Eventually, the ECHR may right a situation, although they're swamped with applications against Italy, and some other "advancing" or "developing democracy" nations, for example, Ukraine, Russia, Turkey, and to a lesser degree, some of the smaller former Communist bloc countries.

If and when Italy requests extradition for Amanda Knox, they will need to provide the motivation report. When Department of State and Department of Justice lawyers read that report, presumably the Nencini one, they will be laughing and crying so hard that no further action will be taken.

 

[carbonjam72]

Every time I ask someone who is Italian, or knows Italy what is going on, I either get dietrology in return (Machiavelli) or I get an account of some sort of dietrology they claim is presently going o behind the scenes. The explanation of multi-layers of intrigue is dizzying to a simpleton like me.

Either way, guilt or innocence, it's all dietrology. The facts/evidence of this case has long since disappeared- arguably just after the Hellmann verdict.

So my dietrology is as good as any one else's!!

In a related vein, Raffaele has just made a post where he describes the problem he's facing. And just as some imbedded, invested guilters claim his present tactic is to throw Amanda Knox under a bus, he does not even give her a mention......

What is this case about as far as he's concerned?

The reality of "judicial truth" in Italy, and once a truth has been established judicially in Italy, no Italian should doubt that it is a fact.

It's about this the way "judicial truth" is established - in this case, he implies, judicial truth is not just established by the courts. PM's are part of the court/judicial structure.... so that if a prosecutor claims something (regardless of evidence) and if a court agrees (instead of demand proof from their colleague the prosecutor, they then demand proof from the defence that the prosecutor is wrong!!!!).....

.... then the judicial truth is established. This is regardless of what the evidence is. If a prosecutor can hypothesize about something, then it is well on its way to being "fact", what might be viewed as a "factoid" in any other system.

If the political folks in Italy want to make good on the stalled judicial reform, where their system is stuck halfway between inquisitorial and adversarial, the political folks (who control the mechanics of extradition) just may wish to get the Americans to do the dirty work for them.....

..... usually (with exceptions) one cannot be convicted in the USA on a prosecutor's say-so. That's where this sits.

And as Raffaele says, until some other court in Italy rules that cows cannot fly, if a PM or a court has claimed that they can, than all Italians are bound to accept the judicial truth.......

...... that cows can fly.

You see, even Raffaele knows that what he's facing has nothing to do with Amanda Knox.

Hey Bill, got a link to Raf's post, I'd be curious to read.

(Your dietrology is most certainly as good as anyone's! Dietrology is Italy's most abundant commodity).

 

[Bill Williams]

They could always not imprison Mr Sollecito. It's a choice available - pending an ECHR application.

The problem is that in the event of a confirmation, the cases split off. Mr Sollecito's fate is in the hands of the domestic authorities whilst Ms Knox's future is tied up with the will of the Italian government and possibly the US government.

The Italians are between a rock and a hard place with these cases and as time winds on the options available to them narrow considerably. Even the least abrasive course of action - another trial (or a continuation of the present one, depending on which way you look at it) - makes them look indecisive.

But better to look indecisive than foolish or stupid. I agree with you that Cassation is unlikely to confirm.

Cassazione's agenda does not seem to care about them looking stupid. What they seem hell bent on doing is preserving judicial truth, mainly as established with Rudy's process.

If they were concerned about how others viewed them it would never have got this far.