Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

If people here believe one can lie to the FBI about a crime attempting to frame someone and it isn't a serious crime, I say go try it.

It really depends on what they are lying about. If they are lying to cover up a crime, absolutely. If the lie is considered innocent, then no.

 

[Grinder]

I did find a case which touches on this one
A false report to the FBI of police brutality
https://www.fbi.gov/newhaven/press-...g-false-report-of-police-brutality-to-the-fbi
This is however a report to the FBI

This is a State one and is only a misdemeanor.
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/05/03/man-who-claimed-police-brutality-found-guilty/
From looking up his name, looks like he go community service

Found another one, way back from 1996
http://articles.latimes.com/1996-02-17/local/me-37044_1_north-hollywood
Got 60 days in jail.

Nice work and the top one is almost exactly what Amanda is charged with and the sentence range was much more than a year.

Deirdre M. Daly, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, and Patricia M. Ferrick, Special Agent in Charge of the New Haven Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, announced that EDWARD MINERLY, 52, of Ansonia, waived his right to indictment and pleaded guilty today in Hartford federal court to one count of making a false report of police brutality to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

According to court documents and statements made in court, on May 18, 2013, officers with the Derby Police Department arrested MINERLY on an outstanding probation violation warrant. On May 31, 2013, MINERLY called the New Haven Federal Bureau of Investigation and spoke with an FBI special agent. In the call, MINERLY alleged that Derby Police officers had recently arrested him for a probation violation and, upon placing him in a holding cell, commenced taunting him, subjecting him to flashing lights and tipping him backwards out of his wheelchair. MINERLY also alleged that Derby Police officers kicked him in the head, arms and upper body.

On June 6, 2013, an FBI special agent interviewed MINERLY in person at a Bridgeport hospital where MINERLY had been admitted. MINERLY again made allegations similar to those made on May 31, 2013, namely, that Derby Police officers had arrested him and, after placing him in a holding cell, picked him out of his wheelchair, threw him into a wall, flashed the lights on and off, and kicked him in the head and beat him.

In pleading guilty today, MINERLY admitted that the statements he made to the FBI alleging physical abuse by members of the Derby Police Department after his probation violation arrest were false.

“The Department of Justice is committed to investigating and prosecuting civil rights abuses by members of law enforcement,” stated U.S. Attorney Daly. “We are equally committed to prosecuting false reports of police brutality as these reports not only waste valuable federal law enforcement resources, but they have the potential to indelibly stain the police department and its officers that are unfairly maligned.”

MINERLY is scheduled to be sentenced by Senior U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello on February 10, 2015, at which time he faces a maximum term of imprisonment of five years and a fine of up to $250,000.

This matter is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Henry K. Kopel and First Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael J. Gustafson.​

​

 

[Desert Fox]

I'm not sure they call the current case calumny, could be.

Sedition laws prevented criticism of the government which is what I think her current case is about.

Looking at the cases which are talked about in the Wiki entry on Sedition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition#United_States

Most seem to be overt terrorist acts. The case of Laura Berg was dropped and comes the closest but even that does not really parallel this case really well.

 

[Grinder]

It really depends on what they are lying about. If they are lying to cover up a crime, absolutely. If the lie is considered innocent, then no.

Yes Tesla if they say they only weigh 150 lbs and they really weigh 160 and it has nothing to do with the crime no charges.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm not sure they call the current case calumny, could be.

Sedition laws prevented criticism of the government which is what I think her current case is about.

I know what Sedition is but criticizing the government is not against the law. That during times of war there have been laws passed against Sedition passed does not mean those laws are valid.

 

[Desert Fox]

This matter is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Henry K. Kopel and First Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael J. Gustafson.[/I][/INDENT]

First off he only got eight months, second that was specifically a federal case. All of the state cases, which this is closest to, are misdemeanors.

 

[Desert Fox]

I know what Sedition is but criticizing the government is not against the law. That during times of war there have been laws passed against Sedition passed does not mean those laws are valid.

The WW1 Sedition acts were mostly declared unconstitutional in 1921.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes Tesla if they say they only weigh 150 lbs and they really weigh 160 and it has nothing to do with the crime no charges.

I see you rolling your eyes but that in fact is a great analogy. If the FBI calls you down to discuss say the crime of counterfeiting and you lie about smoking cannabis they are not going to charge you with obstruction of justice. You have to be lying about something applicable to the crime you are being questioned about.

Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
The statute spells out this purpose in subsection 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), which states:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, …
Even constitutionally explicit Fifth Amendment rights do not exonerate affirmative false statements.[8] As the Court in Brogan v. United States said:[9]

Our legal system provides methods for challenging the Government's right to ask questions — lying is not one of them.

 

[Numbers]

If people here believe one can lie to the FBI about a crime attempting to frame someone and it isn't a serious crime, I say go try it.

How is your comment above germane to the Amanda Knox case?

Have you read any material on the topic of extradition from the United States? Each state is, within limits, a sovereign jurisdiction. Thus, for a crime in Italy, in which the suspect in the crime had fled to (for example) Washington State, any extradition from the US would be based on the laws of Washington State and the extradition treaty between the US and Italy. (There are those two different levels of sovereign jurisdiction or responsibility in the US.)

The exceptions would be those crimes which in the US are covered specifically by federal laws. The examples of persons prosecuted under 18 USC 1001 were for knowingly making false statement to federal officials.

That is not how the Italian law defining calunnia is stated; it involves a knowingly false accusation against someone to any judicial official - which means an ordinary police officer, a prosecutor, or a judge.

The Americans accused of violations of 18 USC 1001 were generally accused of making false statements to avoid accountability for federal crimes of a financial nature, although the law is not specific to that offense.

Please provide any example of a person in the US prosecuted under 18 USC 1001 for alleging in a court of law that police had abused them during an interrogation. Or, if you cannot, any example of a person prosecuted in the US under any law for alleging in a court of law that they had been abused by police during an interrogation.

 

[Numbers]

I'm not sure they call the current case calumny, could be.

Sedition laws prevented criticism of the government which is what I think her current case is about.

The case still in progress against Amanda Knox in Italy is for the charge of aggravated continuing calunnia against the police.

The specifics are that Amanda stated in testimony in the first-instance trial that the police hit her during the Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogation. For making that statement in open court, Mignini charged her with aggravated calunnia (a criminal offense) against the police. A number of police joined the criminal case as civil parties, as allowed by Italian procedural law.

The aggravating factor, according to the Italian authorities, is that Amanda stated the police hit her to cover-up her responsibility in the committing the crime of aggravated calunnia against Patrick Lumumba. That calunnia was aggravated because, according to the Italian authorities, Amanda accused Lumumba of murder and rape of Meredith Kercher during the Nov. 5/6 interrogation to cover-up her own involvement in the crime, and not because of the psychological pressure, threats, and slaps by the police that she said coerced her to name him. Of course, with the Chieffi CSC panel affirmation of the Hellmann court verdict, and the Marasca CSC panel acquittal, Amanda remains convicted of only "simple" calunnia against Lumumba, and has already served the three-year sentence imposed by the Hellmann court.

The continuing factor, according to the Italian authorities, is that Amanda continued to claim, in each of her appeal documents to the Italian courts, that she had been subjected to psychological pressure, threats, and slaps during her interrogation by the Italian police on Nov. 5/6, and was a defense against the charge of calunnia (or aggravated calunnia) against Patrick Lumumba.

Please explain how this charge of aggravated continuing calunnia based upon a defense issued in a court of law is comparable to a charge in the US under 18 USC 1001, especially in light of section (b) of that statute.

If you believe that someone claiming in a court of law that they have been abused by police during an interrogation is equivalent to the US law against sedition (somewhere in 18 US Code Chapter 115 - probably section 2384*), please explain. If you are merely using legal terminology without knowing what it means, please do some research on the internet.

*Seditious conspiracy: If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.**

**Is this actually the kind of crime you believe Amanda Knox is accused of by the Italians? By stating in court that she was slapped during a coercive interrogation?

 

[Grinder]

First off he only got eight months, second that was specifically a federal case. All of the state cases, which this is closest to, are misdemeanors.

Check Wyoming.

 

[Grinder]

How is your comment above germane to the Amanda Knox case?

Have you read any material on the topic of extradition from the United States? Each state is, within limits, a sovereign jurisdiction.

I thought I asked for a link on this state by state thing. Since it is handled totally by the federal system, I find it interesting.

Please provide any example of a person in the US prosecuted under 18 USC 1001 for alleging in a court of law that police had abused them during an interrogation. Or, if you cannot, any example of a person prosecuted in the US under any law for alleging in a court of law that they had been abused by police during an interrogation.

Desert Fox provided one above. States clearly lying to a FBI guy can get 5 years.

 

[Desert Fox]

Check Wyoming.

And what is Wyoming's statue of limitations?

 

[Numbers]

I thought I asked for a link on this state by state thing. Since it is handled totally by the federal system, I find it interesting.




Desert Fox provided one above. States clearly lying to a FBI guy can get 5 years.

It's important to look at the US-Italy extradition treaty itself, and US practice.

1. The treaty specifies that to be an extraditable offense, the alleged crime must be punishable under the laws of both countries by a prison sentence of more than one year. {This is called "dual criminality".} If the person has already been sentenced, the term remaining of the sentence must be at least six months. (Article 2)

2. Extradition shall not be granted when the prosecution or the enforcement of the penalty shall have become barred by lapse of time {statute of limitations} under the law of the requesting party {Italy in this case}. (Article 8)

3. The request for extradition shall include, for a convicted person, a copy of the judgment of conviction. (Article 10, paragraph 4(a))

4. If the person sought has been convicted in absentia or contumacy, all issues of this aspect of the request {the information to be supplied} shall be decided by the Executive Authority of the US {for a sought person in the US}, and the request for extradition shall include all information relating to the facts of the case. (Article 10, paragraph 5)

5. The requested party {US in this case} shall provide reasons for any partial or complete rejection of the request for extradition. (Article 13, paragraph 2)
____
US practice is to examine whether the alleged extraditable offense constitutes a felony under: (a) federal law; (b) state law of the state in which the extradition proceeding is pending {that is, where the sought individual is residing or present}; or (c) the laws of a preponderance of the states. (How dual criminality is determined. Source: Defending the international extradition case. J. Semmelman and K. Snell, www.nacdl.org; behind a paywall but free view may be available by google searching)

_____

This is different than what I had claimed earlier, but I believe in practice that the legal effect is the same in this case.

It is important to compare the claimed Italian offense, in sufficient detail, to the US offense. In this case, the Italian offense is (as currently charged) aggravated continuing calunnia. The specific allegations are that a person is charged with falsely claiming in court testimony that she was abused by police during an interrogation, that she made the allegedly false statement to cover-up another crime of calunnia, and that she repeated the allegedly false statement through her lawyers writing appeals including those statements to each of several courts.

The Minerly case of someone pleading guilty to lying to the FBI about police brutality is interesting but somehow doesn't seem to match the Knox case, where the statements are made to a court, as testimony in a court case. Therefore, 18 USC 1001 does not match the Italian situation, because of paragraph (b) of that statute.

That Amanda Knox has lodged a claim with the ECHR against Italy for her conviction for calunnia against Lumumba, that she has been acquitted of the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher, would all play a role in any potential extradition response by the US, I believe.

ETA: A closer federal crime would be perjury, 18 USC 1621, punishable by not more than 5 years imprisonment:

(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; ....

Note that because Knox wrote in her Memoriale 1 of Nov. 6, 2007 that the police had abused her, it would seem that she did believe her statement in court was true, so a review by the US executive would question any conviction for calunnia or perjury.

 

[Numbers]

Regarding the dual criminality, some time ago I read a quite a few extradition appeal cases. One that remains in my memory, and illustrates my concept of the federal government looking to the state law, is a case from Canada. A woman and her husband (both from New York state in the US) went hunting there; in a situation in twilight (dim light), the woman fired at what she believed to be a moose in the forest. Unfortunately, she shot and killed her husband. She returned to the US, and Canada sought her extradition. I believe their charge was culpable homicide. An important issue in the case was to match that charge to a comparable New York State offense; manslaughter was chosen, and she was apparently extradited. There is also a federal offense of manslaughter (18 USC 1112), but to my recollection that was not at issue.

 

[acbytesla]

It's important to look at the US-Italy extradition treaty itself, and US practice.

1. The treaty specifies that to be an extraditable offense, the alleged crime must be punishable under the laws of both countries by a prison sentence of more than one year. {This is called "dual criminality".} If the person has already been sentenced, the term remaining of the sentence must be at least six months. (Article 2)

4. If the person sought has been convicted in absentia or contumacy, all issues of this aspect of the request {the information to be supplied} shall be decided by the Executive Authority of the US {for a sought person in the US}, and the request for extradition shall include all information relating to the facts of the case. (Article 10, paragraph 5)
____

_____

This is different than what I had claimed earlier, but I believe in practice that the legal effect is the same in this case.

It is important to compare the claimed Italian offense, in sufficient detail, to the US offense. In this case, the Italian offense is (as currently charged) aggravated continuing calunnia. The specific allegations are that a person is charged with falsely claiming in court testimony that she was abused by police during an interrogation, that she made the allegedly false statement to cover-up another crime of calunnia, and that she repeated the allegedly false statement through her lawyers writing appeals including those statements to each of several courts.


That Amanda Knox has lodged a claim with the ECHR against Italy for her conviction for calunnia against Lumumba, that she has been acquitted of the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher, would all play a role in any potential extradition response by the US, I believe

Of course the first would apply to this case *Note that it says the Executive Authority of the US. That means the President of the US. (Never going to happen) I agree with the last comment.

I think we all know (with the exception of Vixen) that Amanda's case regardless if the lower court convicts her that it will never make it through the full court process because of the statute of limitations and it is doubtful if it did that Italy would request extradition. It would not make Italy look good to the US or the world for that matter.

Also, my guess by that time the ECHR will probably have ruled on Amanda's case.

 

[andreajo]

Regarding the dual criminality, some time ago I read a quite a few extradition appeal cases. One that remains in my memory, and illustrates my concept of the federal government looking to the state law, is a case from Canada. A woman and her husband (both from New York state in the US) went hunting there; in a situation in twilight (dim light), the woman fired at what she believed to be a moose in the forest. Unfortunately, she shot and killed her husband. She returned to the US, and Canada sought her extradition. I believe their charge was culpable homicide. An important issue in the case was to match that charge to a comparable New York State offense; manslaughter was chosen, and she was apparently extradited. There is also a federal offense of manslaughter (18 USC 1112), but to my recollection that was not at issue.

Numbers, I read your posts with great interest. At the moment, I am interested in the outcome of the calunnia trial and the matter before the ECHR. Thanks for taking the time to pass on your research.

In Canada, the culpable homicides are murder, manslaughter, and infanticide. The non-culpable ones would include self-defense. (Wikipedia article on culpable homicide). A relatable Canadian charge that is not manslaughter sounds more like criminal negligence causing death.

 

[Desert Fox]

Of course the first would apply to this case *Note that it says the Executive Authority of the US. That means the President of the US. (Never going to happen) I agree with the last comment.

I think we all know (with the exception of Vixen) that Amanda's case regardless if the lower court convicts her that it will never make it through the full court process because of the statute of limitations and it is doubtful if it did that Italy would request extradition. It would not make Italy look good to the US or the world for that matter.

Also, my guess by that time the ECHR will probably have ruled on Amanda's case.

If it was a jury trial in the US and I was on that jury, police abuse people during interrogation is simply too common. If there were twenty police officer witnesses who said that they did not abuse her, I would not find her guilty.

Wonder if Italian lay judges think the same way.

Also, when is the statute of limitations?

 

[Vixen]

Let us say that it can be spun this way for argument sake. . . . .

What we are talking about is a young woman fully grown adultwhom, under interrogation voluntary interview, broke and astutelytold the police what she thought they wanted to hear, and which would get her out of a tight situation of having confessed to (a) being at the crime (b) taking the 'murderer/rapist' there and (c) failing to report it or (d) help the victim. In similar cases, the victim perpetratorof the interrogation aforesaid is almost never alwaysprosecuted (I don't know of any and I have looked a fair number of cases which have some similarities)

Do you really think the Secretary of State would actually allow extradition on such a hot potato.

BTW: Most federal crimes have a five year statute of limitations so even under federal law, she would be free and clear. In addition, there is still the issue of a speedy trial.

FIFY.

The statute of limitations begins as of the point of the last act. In Amanda's case, the tort of calunnia has been a continuing act, on which is predicated the whole Great Hoax of 'Amanda was railroaded by the Italians', including a book that perpetuates the hoax released in 2011, for which an advance of $3.4m was made, for the profit of ghost writer Linda Kulman and publishers HarperCollins (who may well imagine they are exempt from European Proceeds of Crime Acts, being careful not to publish ATT in Europe), and repeated on numerous occasions on tv appearances since.

 

[Vixen]

Well no: that's the sort of thing that might be thought by a person blinded by vengeance, confirmation bias, and some sort of bizarre, irrational need to see a plainly-not-guilty Knox be found guilty and punished.

But on top of that, it would appear that now you understand that the following statement of yours...

A direct statement by a defendant is treated as pretty much prima facie evidence

...is simply not true, in that it's not an absolute statement. So we may be making at least the tiniest bit of progress towards education and enlightenment!

It is indeed true. The case of Derek Bentley is called to mind, who was hanged for the 1953 murder of a policeman in England. His younger companion pulled the trigger, but it was Bentley who took the greater legal portion of blame for saying, "Let him have it".