Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

In general, even if you take the worst interpretation, what Amanda did is not considered a crime in the United States.

Let us say that I was a Saudi woman who went to the United States and Saudi Arabia requested extradition for the crime of having sex with another woman. Since it is not a crime in the US, teh state department would say "Nope."

Not necessarily. A UK national - the owner of a mincab company nearby me who once drove me to Gatwick Airport at breakneck speed (I later discovered he was famed for it) - was executed in China after being caught with a bag of heroin at their border, and despite protests of the British government.

We do not have the death penalty.

 

[Vixen]

This statement is false.

The CSC is entitled by Italian procedural law to read any motivation report or any document of the proceedings, including testimony, if that is related to the alleged defect in the case as specified in the appeal: CPP Article 606.1 (e).

The CSC authority to review a case appealed to it extends beyond the immediate issues raised in an appeal, but includes all issues raised ex officio at any stage of the proceedings and those which could not have been raised at the appeal stage: CPP Article 609, paragraphs 1 and 2.

I should have added ceteris parabus.

Of course, there may be outlier occasions when it might be an arguable legal issue.

 

[acbytesla]

The thing is, in the UK a judge's verdict is the end of the matter and there is no written reasons, unless one of the parties asks for it, with a view to appealing.

My guess is, having had the press release from Reuters and Associated Press the verdict was overturned, the UK press, at least assumed the only issue was the 'media attention' and 'stunningly flaws in the investigation' = straight from the short Reuters report, not realising there were actually back pages that incriminate Amanda in particular very badly.

Nonsense. And delusional They printed in headlines "botched investigation" and lambasted the police. They did not "ignore" the motivation.

 

[Numbers]

Ceteris paribus or caeteris paribus is a Latin phrase meaning "with other things the same" or "all or other things being equal or held constant" or "all other things being equal" or "all else being equal". A prediction or a statement about a causal, empirical, or logical relation between two states of affairs is ceteris paribus if it is acknowledged that the prediction, although usually accurate in expected conditions, can fail or the relation can be abolished by intervening factors.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus

Amazing that someone will post items that have no context given and thus simply make no sense.

 

[Mike1711]

You DO know Bruno & Marasca ruled that Amanda covered for Rudy?

Clearly she is less prejudiced than you.

Nonsense.

They were not charged with any such mandate. It's the lower court that created this "Judicial Fact". Why would the B/M Court give an opinion on this, other than to align themselves with that which is legally defined as fact already?

 

[Mike1711]

You miss the point Nencini had a very limited remit. The remainder was res judicata, and as such Bruno & Marasca erred in (a) evaluating the merits and (b) issuing verdicts on legal points that had never been pleaded by either party, a serious legal error.

In effect, Bruno & Marasca issued a pardon, when they do not have the jurisdiction to do so. Only the Renzi government have the power to acquit a defendant found definitively guilty by a court of law. B&M did not argue Massei's reasoning was wrong. Do not be deceived by the term 'lower court'. Massei's court is superior in terms of assessing the facts of the case and again, B&M went beyond their remit and erred in reversing Massei's facts found which had not been remitted back to Nencini. This is because those merits were rubber stamped by Chieffi.

You're making stuff up....again. Your convoluted argument is at best nonsense. The Massei Court is not superior and its got nothing to do with assessing facts. It's to do with assessing law, which the Messei Court erred....badly.

What part of this are you struggling with?....it doesn't matter how many times you are able to "prove" the presence of AK and RS in the house because proof of there presence at the murder scene is utter,y absent. The conclusion will always be the same....innocent.

It really is that simple. All the other stuff is legal window dressing.

 

[Mike1711]

That's where they err. They have not shown that Massei and Nencini's verdicts were outside the range of reasonableness, and don't forget judges have wide-ranging powers. You cannot appeal a verdict or overturn it merely because you disagree with it or don't like it.

Verdicts, by law have to follow laws to be binding. It is trite to say that a court making a finding of guilt where evidence of presence at the crime scene is absent as a legal nonsense.

The courts of appeal may well overturn a verdict if they "...disagree with it or don't like it.", provided there is a legal basis to do so.

In the AK/RS case it is abundantly clear that transgressions in law were evident. These transgressions were "disagreed with AND not liked" by the B/M court and rightly so.

 

[Mike1711]

'Evidence' rejected by Massei and Nencini, who had a 360 degree view of all the evidence put before them, not just PIP soundbites and spin.

There is no legal ground to reject this evidence.

Just as in the Oscar Pistorius appeal the Supreme Court of Appeal overturned the lower court's decision to "reject" evidence given by state ballistics expert on the basis that this is unsound in law.

 

[Matthew Best]

Not necessarily. A UK national - the owner of a mincab company nearby me who once drove me to Gatwick Airport at breakneck speed (I later discovered he was famed for it) - was executed in China after being caught with a bag of heroin at their border, and despite protests of the British government.

You don't say that your cab driver friend was extradited to China, which is what was under discussion, and it seems unlikely as he was caught "at their border". Also, having a bag of heroin is also a crime in the UK (which was the other matter under discussion).

It's like you haven't really read or understood the post you're responding to.

 

[Mike1711]

That's right. A Supreme Court judge NEVER gets to (for example) hear a cross-examination of a witness, the police or an expert witness. They do not examine exhibits. They never get to read witness statements.

In this case, the quality of the police investigation was never assessed by any court so it is hard to imagine how they could legitimately annul the charges simply on Bongiorno's say so.

Rubbish.

The appeal court gets to see ALL the court transcripts, including verbatim transcripts of cross examination of witnesses. If witness statements are admitted in the trial court as evidence then the appeal court gets to see them. If witness statements are not admitted as evidence in the trial court then such statements are not evidence in any court.

 

[Mike1711]

The thing is, in the UK a judge's verdict is the end of the matter and there is no written reasons, unless one of the parties asks for it, with a view to appealing.

My guess is, having had the press release from Reuters and Associated Press the verdict was overturned, the UK press, at least assumed the only issue was the 'media attention' and 'stunningly flaws in the investigation' = straight from the short Reuters report, not realising there were actually back pages that incriminate Amanda in particular very badly.

Nonsense again.

Having studied English Law for a 6 month semester credit, you are absolutely wrong. It is clear that English Law has a hierarchy in terms of required written judgements whereby higher court judgements trump lower court judgements as precedent setting cases. These cases are recorded as case law and form volumes written work laying the foundation of English Law.

You continually wing your way with unfounded, unresearched and blatantly untrue statements.

Stop it!

 

[Mike1711]

Nonsense. The grounds of appeal was never 'non sequitur', which is always a false premise and never valid legal grounds for appeal anyway.

Who said anything about the grounds for appeal being a non sequitur?

"...which is always a false premise..." - what are you talking about? This is so obviously false that doesn't need pointing out. Why am I doing this????

 

[Desert Fox]

Not necessarily. A UK national - the owner of a mincab company nearby me who once drove me to Gatwick Airport at breakneck speed (I later discovered he was famed for it) - was executed in China after being caught with a bag of heroin at their border, and despite protests of the British government.

We do not have the death penalty.

Are you trying to be dishonest?

This is about extradition. If the person is arrested in the country they are persecuted, there can be little which the nation which the person holds citizenship can do. However, once that person is outside the prosecuting nation, most nations will refuse to extradite.

If you are a British citizen and escape back to the UK, actually even a US citizen hiding in the UK, the UK will refuse to extradite until the United States pulls the death penalty off the table.

 

[Desert Fox]

IIRC it was the 22 CIA operatives. Did they not get extradited?

No they were not extradited, however I was a bit wrong because the Italian minister of Justice refused to request extradition. Not as if it would have happened in any case. They cannot however visit the EU because there are warrants for their arrest in the EU.

Edit, this is weird
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case#Investigation_and_warrants_for_CIA_operatives
Two other Italian suspects reached plea bargains. Giuliano Pironi, who admitted stopping Nasr and controlling his identity during the kidnapping, was given a suspended sentence on one year, nine months and a day. Renato Farina, vice-director of Libero newspaper, who was hired by the SISMI in 1999,[32] was accused as an accessory. He was given six months sentence that was converted into a fine.

I thought there were no plea bargains in Italy?

 

[Bill Williams]

Who said anything about the grounds for appeal being a non sequitur?

"...which is always a false premise..." - what are you talking about? This is so obviously false that doesn't need pointing out. Why am I doing this????

Welcome down the rabbit hole, Mike 1711. Take a break and come back as Mike1712...........

 

[Mike1711]

I should have added ceteris parabus.

Of course, there may be outlier occasions when it might be an arguable legal issue.

I get it. It was nonsense before and now it's still nonsense.

I think you meant to add "in vino veritas". That would still make no sense but over this period of excess you might have an excuse.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

Wow. Fifteen posts in a little over an hour!

So long as there's someone keeping on guard against zealotry ...

 

[LondonJohn]

A direct statement by a defendant is treated as pretty much prima facie evidence (cf Ruth Ellis testifying she 'wanted to kill' the victim= summary hangman's noose).

Only if that direct statement is judged to be reliable and credible. Not if there is a reasonable suspicion that the statement was, for example, the result of unlawful coercion.

Perhaps I might direct you once again to the interesting documentary shown on Discovery Channel: "Secrets of Interrogation". It contains a textbook example of improper police coercion in the interrogation of a 20-year-old man of average intelligence.

Fortunately for anyone who has a serious and sincere interest in this subject, the interrogation was videotaped. I very strongly recommend that you watch it - you might well get educated and enlightened. The relevant part of the programme starts at around 26:00.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xr...of-interrogation-hdtv-xvid-diverge_shortfilms


The man is repeatedly and aggressively told that the police "know" he was present at a murder, and that they have evidence to prove that. The police then instruct the man to tell them the "truth" - i.e. that he participated in the murder in some way - or the consequences for him will me hugely more serious. The police instruct the man that admitting to them that he was present at the murder - and at the same time giving them information on the person(s) who actually killed the victim - will be massively to his benefit; if he does not do so, then the police will seek for him to be charged with the murder itself. The man is being given a Sophie's Choice.

Eventually, the man takes what seems to him to be the option which is the "least detrimental" to him. He states "OK, I was there", and makes exactly the "confession" that the police are ordering him to give. He includes details which do no more than mirror the things that the police have already told him.

In so many respects, this scenario is extraordinarily similar to the conditions under which Knox was interrogated on 5th/6th November 2007. Knox too was told that the police "knew" she was present at the scene of the murder. Knox too was told that if she didn't "remember the truth", then she would face far more serious and damaging consequences: telling the police the "truth" that she had met with and facilitated Kercher's killer would be far more beneficial to her than saying nothing and getting charged with (and convicted of) the murder itself.

In the case of the man in the documentary, however, incontrovertible evidence soon materialised to show conclusively that he was actually thousands of miles away in Brazil*. His whole "confession" could be proven beyond all doubt to have been a false confession, which had been improperly coerced from him in the interrogation.

I wonder how this cast-iron false confession sits with the (flawed) belief that "A direct statement by a defendant is treated as pretty much prima facie evidence".......? There are none so blind as those who will not see.


* Fortunately, the US police department investigating this case, despite their huge and obvious (and documented on video) misconduct and failings in the interrogation of this man, were apparently honest and diligent enough to set aside tunnel vision and confirmation bias in their quest to verify the man's confession. Unlike some other regional police forces in another country that might come to mind.........

 

[bagels]

The USA has one of the most draconian human rights records for prisoners in the world (second only to China in death penalties). It shows what a jaundiced eye you have when looking at Italy, which bends over backwards for the defendant and has a prison population thirty times lower than the USA. Even Amanda said the prison was 'swell'.

Italy is a great place to be a criminal, there's no doubt about it. Burglary, theft, holding stolen property, all while armed, carries no punishment. If you rape and murder a girl just trying to study for a test in her own home while in the process of your next burglary you can be out of prison within a dozen years.

It's not a great place to be an innocent person suspected of a crime however.

These are completely different things.

 

[bagels]

You cannot appeal a verdict or overturn it merely because you disagree with it or don't like it.

I agree completely. 110%. This is my issue with the Italian justice system in fact. So we're in agreement