Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Bob001]

..."You have to convict them. We [all] know that in the event of acquittal there would be an immediate flight from the country. This is why you are the ones who need to render justice, even though this is [only] the second of the three stages of judgement in Italy"...

Oh, for crap's sake! Even if they're acquitted there could be a THIRD trial? Really? Is everybody crazy? Sounds like an argument for every sensible American to boycott Italy.

 

[snook1]

Personally, I am still most strongly aligned with my childhood hero Yogi Berra:
"It ain't over until its over"

If, somehow, this appeal's conclusion will be guilty as charged, then there's a High Court. No way people in Rome will bend over and say guilty as well.

However, judge Hellmann seems like a reasonable person and a person of law and justice and I believe he will find them not guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher.

 

[bolint]

Barbie Nadeau
"Judge asks if they want a five min break. #amandaknox lawyer MDG says she can go on."

If you want to piss,
You must acquit!

 

[bri1]

There's an extradition treaty, but unlike the European Arrest Warrant an American Court has a 'probable cause' clause. It must see probable cause that the person facing extradition actually committed the crime, I doubt that the mess o' pottage assembled against Raffaele and Amanda would suffice. I posted the relevant sections in a post to Alt about four months back, shortly after Judge Heavy's letter to President Obama was released.

Thanks for the info.
But if Barbie is right, that Comodi said there was no treaty, it's definitely a lie.
I thought there was probably a clause like that, and I do agree that this is what the problem would be if the US was asked to extradite following a not guilty verdict.
But Comodi doesn't want to say to the jury that 'well, there is a treaty, but because of the probable cause clause, we'd be unlikely to get her back', because that just demonstrates the flimsiness of their case.
But I can only imagine that Barbie got this wrong. And that Comodi can't have said this, because surely the defense would jump up to object? Plus other journos would be discussing...

 

[bolint]

Barbie Nadeau:
MDG gives a heartwarming description of #amandaknox and we're done for the day at 6:47. #amandaknox Monday morning at 9am

Monday?
So none of the 4 main lawyers will talk?
Or rebuttals will continue on Monday?

 

[DarkStar2011]

Oh, for crap's sake! Even if they're acquitted there could be a THIRD trial? Really? Is everybody crazy? Sounds like an argument for every sensible American to boycott Italy.

There is a Supreme Court review, but it isn't a "third trial." They can only rule on procedural issues with the previous trials, not questions of evidence. At this point, the judge in the appeal has been rather scrupulous to make sure this trial is procedurally sound, so chances of the Supreme Court overturning this one are rather slim, although the defense (if not victorious here) might be able to raise matters of Maresca showing the photos of Kercher during the summation.

 

[bolint]

I guess that no matter what the outcome will be on Monday, we arre already sentenced to two more years of debating.

 

[Kaosium]

Thanks for the info.
But if Barbie is right, that Comodi said there was no treaty, it's definitely a lie.
I thought there was probably a clause like that, and I do agree that this is what the problem would be if the US was asked to extradite following a not guilty verdict.
But Comodi doesn't want to say to the jury that 'well, there is a treaty, but because of the probable cause clause, we'd be unlikely to get her back', because that just demonstrates the flimsiness of their case.
But I can only imagine that Barbie got this wrong. And that Comodi can't have said this, because surely the defense would jump up to object? Plus other journos would be discussing...

It wouldn't surprise me that she said it, prosecutors play fast and lose with the 'facts' in Italy. They only have to think of a scenario it which it is possibly true, then it becomes probable that's what they meant.

Here's where I posted the relevant section of the US code.

 

[bolint]

Monday?
So none of the 4 main lawyers will talk?
Or rebuttals will continue on Monday?

Curious. Neither Bongiorno, nor Maori in the rebuttals?

Barbie Nadeau
"Monday lineup: Ghirga rebuttal, #sollecito, #amandaknox declarations, judge/jury will deliberate for several hrs, then verdict."

 

[snook1]

Monday?
So none of the 4 main lawyers will talk?
Or rebuttals will continue on Monday?

Ghirga will be the last one on Monday with rebuttals. Then Amanda and Raffaele will speak. Then the judges and jurors will go into deliberations for several hours.

 

[snook1]

Curious. Neither Bongiorno, nor Maori in the rebuttals?

To be fair, the other lawyers did a good job. Much better than in the first trial and definitely much better than the prosecution.

 

[bolint]

"But if Barbie is right, that Comodi said there was no treaty"

Whatever she said, Italian newspapers also quote her as saying that.
Though not in the trial, but in a break.

TGCOM:

"Non è una paura ma un dato di fatto che Amanda Knox potrebbe partire per gli Stati Uniti se venisse assolta", ha poi spiegato durante una pausa del processo d'appello il magistrato. che ha osservato: "Tra Italia e Usa non c'è trattato di estradizione".

 

[Grinder]

Today, as in past, I cannot help noticing that yet again Blogger SfarzoTM writings about the case are repeatedly exalted and heralded here (again).
Specifically, his last post being "his best ever" or slightly more reasonably "one of his best".

Curious why anybody that isn't PG is labeled with the TM. Harry Machine, Skeptical Bystander, Kermit, Popper, Yummi, Stint7 and the rest aren't labeled that way by you, why?

 

[Kaosium]

Oh, for crap's sake! Even if they're acquitted there could be a THIRD trial? Really? Is everybody crazy? Sounds like an argument for every sensible American to boycott Italy.

The Italian System includes a three trial system, though the Supreme Court is only to handle legal issues. The prosecution can appeal it to the Supreme Court, and it goes there automatically on behalf of the defense, but it is only to consider the legal ramifications of the decision, to ensure that it has been correctly arrived at through the bitter auspices of Italian Law.

I'd be interested to see how many acquittals were overturned at the Supreme Court level, it would really surprise me if it was many.

 

[Rolfe]

I'd like to join in... Frank Sfarzo's current piece is very moving, powerful and true. I try not to get emotional about it all, but it gave me thrills. Thank you, Frank!

Linky?

Rolfe.

 

[DarkStar2011]

"But if Barbie is right, that Comodi said there was no treaty"

Whatever she said, Italian newspapers also quote her as saying that.

Although she seems to be far off base here, let's be honest -- say the verdict comes down as not guilty and Knox returns to Seattle. Then, a few months down the road, the Supreme Court decides to side with Mignini's claim that the time had passed for being able to request re-examination of the DNA, and hence vacates the appeal result and reinstates the conviction from the first trial. Citing the extradition treaty, Italy demands the U.S. return Knox to Perugia to complete her twenty-six year sentence. Does anyone seriously think that the U.S. would comply?

After all, the U.S. has an extradition treaty with Switzerland as well, but that didn't stop them from saying "forget it" when we called on them to send Roman Polanski back here for sentencing.

 

[bolint]

Even if they're acquitted there could be a THIRD trial? Really?

Yes.
There the Supreme Court can even order a new trial. On the first degree.

 

[Dougm]

Or at least a mop and bucket.

Nah, that is not scary at all!!

 

[Dan O.]

Curious why anybody that isn't PG is labeled with the TM. Harry Machine, Skeptical Bystander, Kermit, Popper, Yummi, Stint7 and the rest aren't labeled that way by you, why?

I think it stands for "True Moniker".

 

[bolint]

Does anyone seriously think that the U.S. would comply?

Nobody thinks it in Italy, I guess.
The US has a poor record of extraditing citizens.

But even an Italian(!) Mafia boss (Rosario Gambino) was quite difficult to get extradited:

" The Italian government attempted to extradite Gambino in 2001,based on an in absentia conviction for drug trafficking.[4] The U.S. District Court in California denied the request because Gambino had already been acquitted on similar charges in New York.[4] In 2006, Gambino was released from prison after serving 22 years and transferred to an immigrant detention center in California to await expulsion to Italy.[12] In September 2007, an immigration judge in Los Angeles cited the United Nations Convention Against Torture in ruling that Gambino should not be deported. The judge found that in Italy, Gambino would probably be locked up in a harsh, life-threatening and life-shortening prison system designed to compel inmates to reveal information about the Sicilian Mafia (see article 41-bis prison regime).[7] Similar reasoning was used to prevent his brothers from being deported after their criminal convictions. Immigration and Customs Enforcement successfully appealed the ruling.[7] On May 23, 2009, Gambino arrived at Rome"