Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[codyjuneau]

I am not an easy sell with pictures over the internet, but that definitely looks like rocks the right size for Rudy to have used. Dunno about the depression though, when was this picture taken?

I believe it was taken in April of 2009.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I can't believe the first part of your post is true, Bruce (that the U.S. wouldn't extradite due to 'double jeopardy') because it would mean the U.S. doesn't recognize Italy's legal system. In Italy, of course, people are presumed to be innocent until the final verdict, meaning that this verdict is equivalent to the first verdict in a U.S. case. To me it seems very unlikely the U.S. doesn't formally recognize this.

I didn't make it up as I went along.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, it's academic anyway. We haven't even seen the motivations report yet, let alone had anything overturned by the Supreme Court.

Rolfe.

 

[katy_did]

I didn't make it up as I went along.

Do you have an example of a similar case where the U.S. has refused to extradite on the grounds of double jeopardy?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Well, it's academic anyway. We haven't even seen the motivations report yet, let alone had anything overturned by the Supreme Court.

Rolfe.

Correct. But let's be real here. This is pretty simple. She will never be extradited. Ever. It's not going to happen and everyone knows this.

 

[Rolfe]

And for that reason also it's academic. Let's not get distracted here.

Rolfe.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Do you have an example of a similar case where the U.S. has refused to extradite on the grounds of double jeopardy?

No, I don't see the need to do the research because Amanda will never be extradited. My information comes from an attorney familiar with the law.

 

[katy_did]

Well, it's academic anyway. We haven't even seen the motivations report yet, let alone had anything overturned by the Supreme Court.

Rolfe.

Agreed, it's purely academic (apart from anything else, I calculate there's a 99.56% chance the Supreme Court will uphold the not guilty verdicts anyway). All the same, I'd be really surprised if the U.S. doesn't recognize the different stages of the Italian legal process.

I can see that the lawyers might contest any extradition attempt on the grounds of double jeopardy, but I imagine that would be just the legal argument they'd put forward rather than a rule already set in stone.

Anyway, yes, academic!

 

[Rolfe]

I think the USA might contest it on the weakness of the case. Though of course they expect other countries to hand over their citizens just on their say-so.

Rolfe.

 

[Matthew Best]

You are dribbling the point. I am not asking you about the law.

No, you were asking about the law. You asked if they were innocent of a crime. How else can this question be parsed but as a question about the law?

You "suspect" Guede is not innocent of staging?

I did not say that. By putting words into my mouth that I did not say you are demonstrating that you are incapable of honest argument, and are not worth engaging with.

So you confirm that your concept of presmuption [sic] of innocence is only about Amada [sic] Knox.

Ditto. I did not say that my presumption of innocence is only about Amanda Knox. If you can't deal with what people actually post and respond to that, what is the point in conversing with you?

 

[katy_did]

No, I don't see the need to do the research because Amanda will never be extradited. My information comes from an attorney familiar with the law.

I don't doubt you're right that she'll never be extradited, even if the SC overturns the verdict (which it won't). I just don't think you're right on the double jeopardy thing, because it makes no sense. As Rolfe says, a more likely argument against extradition would be the weakness of the case (especially post-C&V report) rather than "we won't extradite because we don't recognize your country's legal process".

 

[Machiavelli]

He told a different story when first interviewed by the police.

On what day was he interviewed? And what did he say?

It has been said he was paid by the paper.

Paid by a local paper for testifying the false in a murder trial?
Do you feel confortable as you imagine all these random people willing to pay money to commit crimes for no gain, and so many people willing risk, to take part in criminal conspiracies for no reason, just for the sake of it?

This is his third tour as a witness in a murder trial. He is an acknowledged heroin user and dealer.

Ok, but many witnsses are.

Even if he thinks he is telling the truth there is no way of knowing because of the time and the drug use.

No, just a moment. For "drug use", we are not talking of a person high on drugs, and not "drugs" in general; this is a person addicted to a drug (not high on a drug), not to any drug but to heroin.
Heroin use is not something healthy in terms of quality of life and is a dangerous substance (due to dosage and power on central systems of breath control), it but does not cause people to be unable to remember correctly and to be a witness. Opioids can have effects on consiousness for a while if the dose is heavvy, but do not have hallucinogenic effects nor effects on memory (while instead alcohol has) and cannot produce any false memories.

Moreover, you cannot dismiss the simple datum that Curatolo appears sure and not confused, he never changes his acount and appears to not have an interest nor a moral inclination for inventing a false story. These are points that you have to consider as you actually hear the voice of a person giving his testimony and answering questions. You cannot just cling to the prejudice that all heroin users are all unreliable: if this were valid as a universal rule, the testimony of a prostitute (or anyone else) who claims to be victim of a rape or robbery should be always dismissed on the ground that possibly the person had a drug use. Which is obviously an absurd position, testimonies of people cannot be dismissed entirely in all cases just because they use drugs.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I don't doubt you're right that she'll never be extradited, even if the SC overturns the verdict (which it won't). I just don't think you're right on the double jeopardy thing, because it makes no sense. As Rolfe says, a more likely argument against extradition would be the weakness of the case (especially post-C&V report) rather than "we won't extradite because we don't recognize your country's legal process".

I posted the US/Italy treaty a while back. I don't think anyone actually bothered to read it.....

 

[Chris_Halkides]

why they make chocolate and vanilla

With all due respect, your 'charitable' evaluation of Sfarzo's Anniversary blog entry requires a complete suspension of disbelief.

On the Anniversary of a horrific senseless murder to write that abominable abortion of disgusting disrespectful drivel could only come from a personality such as Sfarzo.

Yes, Dr, it sure is 'difficult'.

I am certain that if it was your daughter Sfarzo was stupidly mocking and demeaning on the Anniversary of her death, you might find it even more 'difficult' than your argument implies.

Your concluding sincere personal wish for the deceased would have been much better served by just remaining silent and ignoring the likes of Sfarzo and his sick parody attempt.

This just the latest example that Sfarzo's iconic standing and endless quoting and heralding from the majority of innocence arguers could not be more undeserved.

Pilot Padron,

Your alliterative abilities are awesome. However, reasonable people may disagree about many things, including this one. I obviously disagree Frank's entry is sick parody or is mocking and demeaning. I do appreciate the criticism that Frank cannot know what Meredith would say (no one can). Yet, it is the attempt to do so that generates empathy. Moreover, I had not considered that the damage to Meredith's computer would deprive her family of some sense of what her life in Perugia was like.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I posted the US/Italy treaty a while back. I don't think anyone actually bothered to read it.....

I surely did.

 

[Machiavelli]

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36:

if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall be forwarded by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this subparagraph

.... arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner ...

Well, so I don't see a mention about a status of "factual suspect", as by your claim. Where is it?

 

[Osterwelle]

Critically, they did not contact the embassy until after they had conducted a second lawyerless session following the suspect declaration at 1:45.

Yep, that's for sure. Either they didn't inform Amanda about her rights so she didn't request them to contact the embassy or she did do that and they just didn't care and sent the memo later.

In any case, I'm not sure that the embassy would've been much of a help there anyway. They're not bound to aid, at least not by the Vienna Convention. Look how "fast" the "ConOff" went to the prison .

-
Osterwelle

 

[Machiavelli]

When would extradition kick in anyway?

If the Supreme Court doesn't uphold Hellmann, then they'll send it back to the second level for a retrial, right? Knox would then be subject to extradition at that point, in order to stand trial. That's the usual procedure as I understand it. It's not a case of her being found guilty in absentia and then extradited.

So wouldn't the strength of the case be examined by the US authorities at that stage? The USA seems to have this right in these treaties, although it has managed to negotiate asymmetric treaties where it only has to demand someone and the other country has to comply. So, is it likely the US would grant an extradition request based on evidence that had been shredded in the Hellmann court?

Rolfe.

In a pure academic scenario, if Hellmann's verdict is rejected by the Supreme Court, a new trial will take place, and at that stage no extradition will be requested. Amanda Knox will be simply demanded to be present to the first trial hearing, and if she doesn't come, she will be declared contumace ("absent") and tried in absentia.
Only at the very end, if convicted in absentia and if the last verdict is confirmed in a fifth round by the Supreme Court, extradition request will be submitted.

 

[Freddy]

No, I don't see the need to do the research because Amanda will never be extradited. My information comes from an attorney familiar with the law.

This sounds correct to me. I recently read a case where a US sentencing court refused to count a conviction in Germany as a prior conviction for sentencing purposes, because the procedure did not afford due process protections that are substantially equivalent to American due process protections. Testimony regarding the conduct underlying the conviction was still admissible; it just didn't count for the automatic enhancement for prior convictions.

That isn't exactly analogous to this case, of course, but it does illustrate the fact that American courts evaluate foreign proceedings and their results according to American standards of due process. And in America, once acquitted by a jury it's game over. The prosecution does not get to appeal an acquittal by a jury in America, and that is the standard an American court would apply in a hypothetical extradition scenario. American courts will not facilitate the trial of American citizens under procedures that violate basic due process protections afforded to defendants in America.

Even if double jeopardy were not an issue, however, extradition would still most likely be refused based on the weakness of the evidence. Almost none of the evidence offered at the first trial would be admissible in an American court. The case against Knox and Sollecito would never have made it to trial in America. In such circumstances, extradition would be out of the question even if there were no double jeopardy issue. The extradition treaty requires a showing of probable cause, and Italy would not be able to meet that burden. (Even if you don't credit the expert testimony at the appeal trial, in the event of an extradition request there would be a hearing to determine if there is probable cause. At that hearing, there would be more expert testimony regarding the forensic evidence, and that would not help the cause of extradition.)

 

[katy_did]

I posted the US/Italy treaty a while back. I don't think anyone actually bothered to read it.....

If it's this, then I'm not surprised, as it's quite long! I got as far as the 'double jeopardy' clause and then skim-read the rest; hopefully I read the relevant bits...

I already knew that the U.S. wouldn't extradite someone if they were being re-tried for a crime they'd already been convicted or acquitted of, which is what the treaty says. But as I understand it, in Italy no one is finally convicted or acquitted until the Supreme Court ruling (the presumption of innocence applies till then), and the different stages are all part of the same process. I would think it's the Supreme Court ruling which is recognized by the U.S. as a conviction or an acquittal. But I'd be interested to know how this has worked in previous cases.