Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Diocletus]

Identifying Guede

Just ran across this:

(Adnkronos) - Just today, '' the Press '', in the reconstruction signed by Guido Ruotolo, told of a fourth man, known as the 'Baron' that investigators would seek throughout Italy, especially in Lombardy. '' It has moved away from Perugia the day after the murder of Meredith - reads on quotidiano- To friends said: 'I'm going to Milan to dance'. A week ago he was still in Lombardy where relatives (Lodi). In a call on one of the phones did not respond. Since then the phones are silent and he went missing. There must be someone who protects him, who helps him in this desperate flight. RH, 21, is Ivorian, from Friday night is sought, since the investigating judge Claudia Matteini has signed the order for remand in prison. Friday, the lucky day: before the discovery of the DNA of Amanda and Meredith on the kitchen knife Raffaele Sollecito; then by the card with the fingerprints of the boy from the Ivory Coast - was located in the archive of the Office of the foreign police in Perugia and was brought to Rome in the laboratories of the Scientific - came the confirmation that it was his impression left on the pillow of bloody student slaughtered (has 20 contact points) ''. What's more, according to 'the Press': '' It should have been the 'Baron' raping Meredith. A chromosome y recovered from feces left on the toilet paper in the toilet (where the 'Baron' has impressed even the fingerprint) is the same as the coroner has isolated on the vaginal swab of Meredith ''. The '' Baron '', continues the newspaper, '' had spoken the tenant of the floor below, Stefano Bonassi, in the days following the discovery of the crime in via della Pergola 7. A particularly struck investigators: 'One evening l' I found in my house, I came back and it was with my friends. He was drunk and slept on the toilet. This guy had a physical attraction for Amanda and Meredith '. While Rome explained that the imprint on the pillow and the toilet had no paternity, investigators of the Mobile and Central Operations Service questioned dozens of guys to go back to the 'Baron'. Eventually his identity was rebuilt ''.

http://translate.google.com/transla...E-PER-IL-QUARTO-UOMO-3_134032.php&prev=search

So, they had some information that made them pull Guede's prints--likely Stefano Bonassi's tip. Then they matched the print to the pillow. But, there was also a fingerprint on the toilet paper?

 

[Numbers]

cj,
The discrepancy is that, while Prof Bassioumi is reading the treaty as one can deny extradition if the accused is placed in double jeopardy (full stop -- he is saying it doesn't matter where the accused is tried. Italy or U.S.), we are reading it as the accused cannot be placed in jeopardy in the requested country - in this case, the U.S. - and then extradited. In other words, we are reading it as the treaty allows double jeopardy (or, at least, does not explicitly give this as grounds for denying extradition). It disallows (i.e. we could deny extradition) if the situation were such that the accused is put on trial in the requested country to be extradited later. So it would only apply if Amanda had been tried in the U.S. then Italy requested extradition. Since she was tried in Italy it doesn't apply, and Italy can try her as many times as they want (going by the wording of the treaty).

The question I have is will the U.S. government extradite someone whose constitutional rights were violated by the country putting the accused on trial. Which is a weird question in itself since obviously Italy doesn't abide by the U.S. Constitution, but it is trying a U.S. citizen, so the U.S. may (should?) have some obligation to protect the accused in some way if it views the treatment as a fundamental rights violation according to their own code.

This, imo, is all secondary to all the procedural screw-ups from a forensic science perspective, and the irrationality on display by the judges. But there is nothing in the treaty saying we can deny extradition if the judges and forensic technicians are stupid and incompetent.... So, I'm still curious on what grounds the U.S. can deny extradition if it's not explicitly outlined in the treaty.

I would phrase it like this: Will the US government extradite someone, if the extradition would result in the person being subjected to a judicial process that would constitute unconstitutional "double jeopardy" if it occurred in the US?

There are cases in which the US has been willing to do this, but are there any limiting factors, i.e., the person has been declared actually innocent in the requesting jurisdiction and/or the requesting jurisdiction has itself previously refused to extradite to the requested jurisdiction on the basis of asserted national constitutional rights.

All laws and treaties of the United States must conform to the US Constitution and the rights it maintains; the US Supreme Court case Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 17 (1957) confirms this principle.

However, the US has agreed to extradition treaties with countries that allow prosecution appeals after acquittal, until a final decision is reached at a Supreme Court of Cassation. This is the civil law system common in Europe. There is a potential for conflict between US Constitutional rights and extradition to these civil law countries. This conflict has not really been addressed specifically by US courts; it seems that such extraditions are allowed or at least not yet disavowed or limited by any specific court decision.

In Executive Report 109-19 of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, excerpts of which I posted (#2118), there is an attempt to address this issue:

Although U.S. courts have indicated that extradition in such contexts is not barred, and although retrial or prosecution appeal after acquittal is often permitted in European countries with civil law traditions, it
is uncommon in the Anglo-American system. Accordingly, the committee sought to call attention to the provision. The proviso notes that, although the Treaty does not address this situation, it is the understanding of the Senate that under U.S. law and practice a person sought for extradition can
present a claim to the Secretary of State that an aspect of foreign law that may permit retrial may result in an unfairness that the Secretary could conclude warrants denial of the extradition request. It urges the Secretary to carefully review any such claims involving a request for extradition....

It is also important to distinguish the case where the civil-law style of double jeopardy is a potential risk, for a person at the beginning of the trial process, from the case (such as that of Amanda Knox) where the trial process has completed several trials, and there has actually been, in terms of US standards, double jeopardy, but in a foreign court. The question is, can the US Government, in representing or attempting to represent the foreign government in an extradition after an acquittal, constitutionally support the foreign court action, already completed, which amounts to double jeopardy in the US? IMO, NO. But that's my opinion, and not a court decision.

In this AK - RS case, that is only one issue of unfairness among many produced by the actions of the Italian police, prosecutors, and courts, and there is also the issue of actual innocence.

 

[Bill Williams]

This YouTube clip from the 2009 trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, goes to the very heart of the conspiracy against them, launched by the prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini. In it, Mignini becomes "Rudy Guede's lawyer", completely minimizing Guede's involvement in the murder - Guede being the only one with forensics in the murder room, and his forensics in the victim's vagina.

Note that Guede's explanation for that latter fact is that the sex was consensual between him and Meredith. Note that Judge Nencini in convicting Knox and Sollecito in early 2014 cites belief in Guede's story that it was a fight over rent money, a story no one told except for Guuede - and in that story, Guede says it was Meredith who let him into the cottage, not Knox.

So, here's Mignini trying to rehabilitate Guede, all to persecute Knox and Sollecito:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01JL2QhuvxU

For those who doubt that Mignini can immerse himself in fantasy.....

 

[Desert Fox]

Canada sounds like a terrible idea. The last time a loser involved in this case [Frank S] went that route it ended up in a drunken late night ‘Deliverance’ scene with the cops involved and the Italian having to make a break for the border. AIUI.
Throw in RS’s penchant for introducing knives into sexual scenarios ...........

No – Canada is out.

Wow, it is amazing you can write all that without actually having any evide3nce to back up.

At least in the past, Canada was willing to question convictions - Laura Benbenek comes to mind.

 

[Diocletus]

The question is, can the US Government, in representing or attempting to represent the foreign government in an extradition after an acquittal, constitutionally support the foreign court action, already completed, which amounts to double jeopardy in the US? IMO, NO. But that's my opinion, and not a court decision.

That's quite an interesting point. Maybe the DOJ should recuse itself.

 

[Bill Williams]

At least in the past, Canada was willing to question convictions - Laura Benbenek comes to mind.

The following is from the Canadian Department of Justice website:

There are three key stages to the Canadian extradition process:

1. The Minister of Justice must determine whether to authorize the commencement of extradition proceedings in the Canadian courts by issuing an "Authority to Proceed";
2. Where an Authority to Proceed has been issued, the Canadian courts must determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the person's committal for extradition; and
3. Where the person is committed for extradition, the Minister of Justice must personally decide whether to order the person's surrender to the foreign state.

A person sought for extradition may appeal their committal and seek judicial review of the Minister's surrender order.

In all cases, the conduct for which extradition is sought must be considered criminal in both the requesting country and in Canada. This is known as "dual criminality".​

Ok, this is Canada, not the USA. There are plenty of opportunities for Canada to interfere in the affairs of another State. I would imagine that this is similar with respect to the USA holding someone where a foreign State is requesting extradition, and it probably involves another level of "politics" when that person is an American.

The first interference regards death penalty cases. Unless there's a rock-solid guarantee that no death penalty will be sought, then Canada says, "go suck eggs." Then there are refugee claimant considerations. If there is any possibility of someone being deported facing danger unrelated to the crime, then Canada says, "go suck eggs." If the danger/peril even FOR the crime is beyond Canadian standards and is seen as a realistic possibility, then Canada says, "go suck eggs."

It's not just Bembenek. In the "judgement of sufficient evidence", there is plenty of opportunity for the competent court to comment on the evidence. While such comment is not necessarily binding, it goes a long way to allowing the Minister of Justice to make an informed decision.

My completely uninformed opinion is that if Italy made such a request to Canada for a Canadian citizen caught up in the Perugian madness, Canada would say, "go suck eggs."

 

[Numbers]

That's quite an interesting point. Maybe the DOJ should recuse itself.

When political considerations are mentioned in regards to extradition, it would be uncomfortable for any administration to extradite someone and then have the Secretary of State called before a Senate committee (such as Foreign Relations) and answer questions about why someone who could demonstrate actual innocence and had been acquitted in a foreign trial, was extradited in response to a conviction in a subsequent foreign trial based on the same evidence, and who had not been afforded the basic rights of a defendant in that foreign country.

Would there be an impeachment in the House and trial in the Senate of the Secretary of State in such a situation?

 

[Diocletus]

Poll

Which of the following seems more likely:

1. Rudy Guede, art afficiando, in May 2007 travelled to Rome to see a Marc Chagall exhibit, kept the ticket stub as a souvenir, and somehow accidentally got blood on it.

OR

2. Rudy Guede, murderer, killed Meredith Kercher, broke in downstairs where he washed up, stole a pair of pants that had a Chagall exhibit ticket in the pocket, and got blood on the ticket when he put his cut hand in the pocket.

I go with no. 2.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Chagall Exhibit ticket

I go with no. 2.

That seems reasonable.

 

[js202]

Which of the following seems more likely:

1. Rudy Guede, art afficiando, in May 2007 travelled to Rome to see a Marc Chagall exhibit, kept the ticket stub as a souvenir, and somehow accidentally got blood on it.

OR

2. Rudy Guede, murderer, killed Meredith Kercher, broke in downstairs where he washed up, stole a pair of pants that had a Chagall exhibit ticket in the pocket, and got blood on the ticket when he put his cut hand in the pocket.

I go with no. 2.

Sorry if I missed it in the thread, but what's the cite/source for this?

 

[carbonjam72]

List of bloody items found in Guede's apartment or seized from him:

1. Towel
2. Show Ticket
3. Sink Trap?
4. Spot on floor (luminol)
5. Belt
6. Socks

All test for Guede's DNA or no DNA found.

Does this mean all these items had Meredith's blood and or DNA too? Sorry if that's a dumb question.

 

[Dougm]

Which of the following seems more likely:

1. Rudy Guede, art afficiando, in May 2007 travelled to Rome to see a Marc Chagall exhibit, kept the ticket stub as a souvenir, and somehow accidentally got blood on it.

OR

2. Rudy Guede, murderer, killed Meredith Kercher, broke in downstairs where he washed up, stole a pair of pants that had a Chagall exhibit ticket in the pocket, and got blood on the ticket when he put his cut hand in the pocket.

I go with no. 2.

They both seem unlikely to me. I wonder if there is another explanation? The blood being on the ticket does seem to indicate it could have been picked up at the murder cottage though. Could that ticket have been in Meredith's purse? Just a guess.

 

[Numbers]

Which of the following seems more likely:

1. Rudy Guede, art afficiando, in May 2007 travelled to Rome to see a Marc Chagall exhibit, kept the ticket stub as a souvenir, and somehow accidentally got blood on it.

OR

2. Rudy Guede, murderer, killed Meredith Kercher, broke in downstairs where he washed up, stole a pair of pants that had a Chagall exhibit ticket in the pocket, and got blood on the ticket when he put his cut hand in the pocket.

I go with no. 2.

Sounds like a great catch! Did Guede have any previously known interest in art? And while I recall there was a ticket for a show, I didn't realize it was for an art exhibit. Was this detailed in the court records? It seems like a subtle piece of exculpatory evidence for Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[Diocletus]

They both seem unlikely to me. I wonder if there is another explanation? The blood being on the ticket does seem to indicate it could have been picked up at the murder cottage though. Could that ticket have been in Meredith's purse? Just a guess.

The ticket is from May 2007.

 

[Diocletus]

Does this mean all these items had Meredith's blood and or DNA too? Sorry if that's a dumb question.

No. They show signs of blood (via TMB or luminol) and either had Rudy's DNA or no DNA. No Meredith DNA.

 

[Dougm]

The ticket is from May 2007.

Ah, good point. My guess is wrong. Thanks.

 

[Numbers]

The ticket is from May 2007.

Presumably Meredith was not in Italy in May, 2007. She was only in Italy starting in September, 2007. If anyone has verifiable information otherwise, please correct this statement with citation(s).

 

[katy_did]

In Executive Report 109-19 of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, excerpts of which I posted (#2118), there is an attempt to address this issue:

Although U.S. courts have indicated that extradition in such contexts is not barred, and although retrial or prosecution appeal after acquittal is often permitted in European countries with civil law traditions, it
is uncommon in the Anglo-American system. Accordingly, the committee sought to call attention to the provision. The proviso notes that, although the Treaty does not address this situation, it is the understanding of the Senate that under U.S. law and practice a person sought for extradition can
present a claim to the Secretary of State that an aspect of foreign law that may permit retrial may result in an unfairness that the Secretary could conclude warrants denial of the extradition request. It urges the Secretary to carefully review any such claims involving a request for extradition....

It is also important to distinguish the case where the civil-law style of double jeopardy is a potential risk, for a person at the beginning of the trial process, from the case (such as that of Amanda Knox) where the trial process has completed several trials, and there has actually been, in terms of US standards, double jeopardy, but in a foreign court. The question is, can the US Government, in representing or attempting to represent the foreign government in an extradition after an acquittal, constitutionally support the foreign court action, already completed, which amounts to double jeopardy in the US? IMO, NO. But that's my opinion, and not a court decision.

I think your quote actually addresses a very specific situation in the UK, where someone who's been definitively acquitted of a crime can be retried years later if new evidence emerges. It's not meant to address the more common situation in civil law countries where the prosecution is allowed to appeal (in the sense that this isn't the context of the concern raised).

I don't think extradition will happen but I think it will be a political decision, not a legal one. That's if Italy even makes the request in the first place (again, a political decision). If the case were lower profile I think it would just be a run-of-the-mill extradition though, given evidence doesn't usually play much part in extradition, especially where the person has already been convicted.

 

[Dougm]

I don't think extradition will happen but I think it will be a political decision, not a legal one. That's if Italy even makes the request in the first place (again, a political decision). If the case were lower profile I think it would just be a run-of-the-mill extradition though, given evidence doesn't usually play much part in extradition (especially where the person has already been convicted).

I agree with this.

 

[carbonjam72]

The ticket is from May 2007.

This seems like an item that would stick out in someone's mind if they had held onto it for that long. Its an art show with cache.

I think the guess that its from the guys downstairs, makes the most sense. But if none of them claims it, then maybe it goes back to being Meredtih's, assuming she was in Italy then and had gone to the show. Could she have gone alone, or mentioned it to family. Was this line of inquiry ever pursued?

But it has to belong to someone.

Of course, if it were one of the guys downstairs, that would imply Rudy might have got it while, ahem, breaking in to the downstairs apartment.However, since all the blood and disruption downstairs can be attributed to a profusely bleeding cat, the downstairs boys can logically (Italian version) be eliminated from being the owners of the ticket stub.

Funny though how only Rudy's DNA was found on it. I wonder if its yet another case of profile suppression of DNA data, to conceal the ticket owner's DNA because it presents an unwelcome element of narrative that doesn't fit Mignini's nice clean frame job.

I'm intrigued. I wonder if there's any testimony about it?