Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Bruce Fischer]

Why all these arguments and....errrrr....'incorrect information' (again)..... about extradition and double jeopardy ????

"It is Over".....

Remember ? ?

All those arguing guilt...... "were wrong"

Remember ? ?

You have nothing left. Go fishing, take a walk, enjoy the sun.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

(Which BTW reminds me of how propaganda influences the masses of 'less informed' with simpleton sequences of self perpetuating restatements.)

Maybe you need reminding (or possibly informing) about Judge Hellman's comments after his in Court TV cameras were off.
__________________________________
Amanda Knox judge says she may have 'been responsible' after all
Judge says acquittal of US student and Rafaelle Sollecito was based on 'truth created in the proceedings'.
But the real truth may be different. They may be responsible, but the evidence is not there."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/06/amanda-knox-judge-responsible
________________________________

But surely you knew that.

You also surely know that repeatedly arguing by using propaganda like spin about "exoneration, completely vindicated, etcccc" is grossly inaccurate, even if the Final Appeal had been decided.
Which you may also need informing... has not.

This style is easily seen for what it is; an agenda driven, spin biased argument that gets little relevance from informed readers.
But these arguments do usually manage to garner the usual mindless "atta boy" or two, if that is the objective.

ETA:
In the interests of a Forum that extols endlessly the necessity for minute accuracy, Judge Hellman never used the words that you seem so enraptured with, and keep repeating.
He did however use the *exact* words I have referenced above:They may be responsible

Once again, you are wrong. You are reading from articles that lost Hellmann's words in translation. He never said anything of the sort. Do some research.

 

[TruthCalls]

What some people seem to not understand, or not accept, is that Curatolo's testiomony can never work as an evidence of their alibi, because their alibi is that they were at Raffaele's apartment.
Curatolo's testimony would only prove they are lying about their alibi. And a false alibi is evidence of guilt. The fact that they are not there is - based on Curatolo's testimony and the medical opinions - not only qustionable on logical grounds due to uncertainity about ToD and about timings of Curatolo's testimony, but also legally of little value. Because you don't have to be in a specific place in order to be guilty of a charge, you only have to be responsible of an event. Whether their responsibility consists in stabbing Meredith or doing other activities such as covering things up, to me, only a secondary matter. The first logical step is finding proof of involvement and responsability, dynamic is a secondary step. It's obvious that if both are not in the murder room at the moment of the fatal stabbing, it would be difficult to describe a dynamic of the murder. But nonetheless a false alibi like this one cannot be considered an evidence of non-responsibility.

Wow, such tortured logic. So is it your belief that if there is evidence that makes it impossible for someone to have been at a murder scene, but this evidence contradicts their alibi, then you assume they can be guilty of the murder because they lied, even though the evidence proves they couldn't have committed the murder. Do I have this correct?

Stomach content analysis puts ToD between 9pm and 10pm. Curatolo's testimony, if you believe it, puts Amanda and Raffaele not at the cottage until "right up to midnight". This creates quite the conundrum for you; either you don't believe this witness and therefore their alibi is not being contradicted and they weren't at the murder scene when Meredith died, or you do believe this witness and therefore they weren't at the murder scene when Meredith died.

Not surprisingly, you seem to want to accept Curatolo's testimony, but in order to make things work, you wish to disbelieve stomach content analysis (i.e., adjust the ToD to your liking) and suggest Curatolo has the right people and the right day, but he's got the wrong time. Sorry, you can't customize evidence to suit your needs.

 

[davefoc]

I think that the proper remedy would be exclusion of illegally obtained statements. Whether this would extend to derivative information is another issue.

So, in many cases, the violation of the treaty obligation would probably not result in the overturning of a conviction (if there is other evidence to support the conviction). But in the case where the illegally-obtained statements form the sole basis for the conviction, as with the Knox calunnia conviction, this WOULD result in an overturning of the conviction. No one should be sentenced to go to jail on the basis of statements that the police illegally ellicited.

Based on the article that I linked to it seems that the US Supreme court has decided that a failure to inform an individual of their right to request the notification of their consul is not grounds for reversal of the conviction. One might disagree with the decision, but the US Supreme Court decided that the US does not need to comply with the treaties it has signed to convict somebody.

ETA:
From the article:

There is reason to believe in the United States that non-compliance is more
typical than compliance. In many instances when foreign nationals raise the matter
in criminal courts, the government acknowledges that the arresting officers did not
advise the arrestee about consular access. When, as will be seen below, Mexico
sued the United States over non-compliance, it appeared that very few Mexican
nationals arrested for murder, and convicted and sentenced to death in the United
States, had been advised following arrest about consular access. In that litigation,
the United States conceded non-compliance for the vast majority of the fifty-one
Mexican nationals named by Mexico.12
A perception abroad of a low level of compliance in the United States is
reflected in instructions that the Department of State has issued to its consuls
abroad. In advising consuls to seek access to U.S. nationals under arrest, the
Department provides guidelines on how to respond if foreign police, when asked to
facilitate access, object that police in the United States do not similarly comply.
U.S. consuls are instructed to explain that “two wrongs do not make a right”;
namely, that the receiving state is required to comply even if our own compliance
is spotty. They are instructed to explain further that the multiplicity of law
enforcement agencies in the United States makes it difficult to inform every
arresting official about consular access obligations.13

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/osjcl/Articles/Volume6_2/Quigley-FinalPDF.pdf

ETA2: I just realized that none of this is exactly on point. The issue raised is whether the statement of n individual could be used against him in the US if had not been informed of his right to consular notification. I tried to find something on that exactly and I didn't.

I did find that Patrick Leahy (US Senator) has introduced a bill to increase compliance with the Vienna Convention on Consular relations. http://www.humbertoleal.org/consular-notification-compliance-act.html You can sign a petition for it there.

 

[Grinder]

Wow, such tortured logic. So is it your belief that if there is evidence that makes it impossible for someone to have been at a murder scene, but this evidence contradicts their alibi, then you assume they can be guilty of the murder because they lied, even though the evidence proves they couldn't have committed the murder. Do I have this correct?

Stomach content analysis puts ToD between 9pm and 10pm. Curatolo's testimony, if you believe it, puts Amanda and Raffaele not at the cottage until "right up to midnight". This creates quite the conundrum for you; either you don't believe this witness and therefore their alibi is not being contradicted and they weren't at the murder scene when Meredith died, or you do believe this witness and therefore they weren't at the murder scene when Meredith died.

Not surprisingly, you seem to want to accept Curatolo's testimony, but in order to make things work, you wish to disbelieve stomach content analysis (i.e., adjust the ToD to your liking) and suggest Curatolo has the right people and the right day, but he's got the wrong time. Sorry, you can't customize evidence to suit your needs.

Wonder why Curatolo and Quintavalle weren't charged with calunnia or some related charge for lying to investigators?

Mach said it was normal for a shopkeeper to deny knowledge when asked about a crime. Wouldn't that be lying if he in fact knew something?

 

[Not Scooby]

Mach

I got interested in the case a few months ago. I can usually see where the guilters are coming from in any given case even if I disagree. This case is so weak I am utterly flabbergusted. It's not even a case. There's just no way I could start with a presumption of innocence and follow the evidence to even charge them, much less convict. I tried. No dice.

The Massei report reads like "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie." Google it.

 

[Antony]

I don't really think of heroin as a recreational drug, and certainly not as used by Curatalo. Be that as it may, Curatalo told Hellmann that he was on heroin at that time. No way on God's green earth could or would Hellmann use Curatalo's testimony.

I don't agree. You're actually focussing on the weakest reason for discounting Curatolo's testimony, which we'll agree doesn't stand scrutiny for a raft of other reasons (not least because there is every indication that he received inducements to make the claims).

Look at it this way: you seem to be saying that if someone is a heroin addict, then that's a reason not to accept their testimony - regardless of its value on its own merits. That's quite a dangerous road to go down.

No doubt you will say that it's not just that he is an addict, but that he was actually on heroin at the time of the claimed sightings - but that would miss the fact that being on heroin is normality for an addict; taking heroin allows them to function something like normal. An addict on withdrawal would probably be less reliable as a witness than one when he was doped-up.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Am really surprised to see PMF comparing Brittany Norwood conviction to Knox, as though this proves that Knox really ought to have been seen as guilty. There is no Rudy Guede or dna, for one thing; there is a confession stuck to, for another; and there is rock solid evidence. ah well.....

 

[TruthCalls]

Mach

I got interested in the case a few months ago. I can usually see where the guilters are coming from in any given case even if I disagree. This case is so weak I am utterly flabbergusted. It's not even a case. There's just no way I could start with a presumption of innocence and follow the evidence to even charge them, much less convict. I tried. No dice.

The Massei report reads like "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie." Google it.

Scooby, in my opinion it's really quite simple -- it's called media contamination combined with the reach of the Internet. Amanda Knox, right from the beginning, became a media creation of incredible evilness. Unsubstantiated accusations, distortion of facts, words taken out of context, cherry picked photos and videos designed to paint Amanda in the worst light possible. Foxy Knoxy, as we all know, was a nickname given a young child with great soccer skills. Mignini chose to exploit that nickname to promote the evil image and the media ate it up. The media never focused on the corrupt Mignini. They weren't interested in connecting the Preston/Spezi experience to what Amanda claimed happened. Evidence that began to peel the mask of evil off Amanda was conveniently swept under the rug. And during all this time, people formed their opinions of Amanda and of the case. Unfortunately for Amanda (and Raffaele) human nature is such that people don't easily let go of established opinions. Consider the attention Mach gives to Hellman's comment "They could also be responsible". This suggests to me he's more interested in holding on hope for a conviction than he is finding the truth in the case. If this wasn't so, then the completion of Hellman's comment, "but the proof isn't there.", would carry far more weight with him.

 

[Rolfe]

The USA doesn't seem that worried about double jeopardy when it suits it....

http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/2669/US_Megrahi_extradition_request_%22a_perversion_of_international_legality%22.html

"Abdelbaset Megrahi has already stood trial for the crimes in respect of which a US Federal indictment was obtained in 1991. The international warrant for that trial was a United Nations Security Council Resolution (1192 of 27 August 1998) passed at the instigation of the United States and the United Kingdom following a joint letter of 24 August 1998 to the Secretary General. That Security Council resolution required all UN member states (including the US) to cooperate.

"In the trial that followed at Camp Zeist, United States government lawyers formed part of the Lord Advocate's prosecution team.

"For the United States to seek Megrahi's extradition to be tried in the United States for the same crimes would be a perversion of international legality. Moreover, no US Federal Court with any respect for the rule of law and sensitive to governmental abuse of process would accept jurisdiction to retry him in these circumstances. However, if the US Department of State wants something badly enough, questions of legality are likely to count for little."

Meh.

Rolfe.

 

[Diocletus]

The USA doesn't seem that worried about double jeopardy when it suits it....

http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/2669/US_Megrahi_extradition_request_%22a_perversion_of_international_legality%22.html




Meh.

Rolfe.

Without knowing anything about this, I'll chime in and say that this appears to be a case of two different sovereigns pursuing charges, in which case double jeopardy would not apply. For example, with the Rodney King case, I believe that the federal government prosecuted the police officers for civil rights offenses after they had been acquitted by the state court. Federal and state courts would represent different sovereigns.

 

[Rolfe]

Megrahi was convicted by a legal process the USA co-operated with and indeed participated in. It was all done by legal, international agreement. He was (wrongly, by the way) convicted, and sentenced. He served and is still serving his sentence. He is released on licence, but required to notify East Renfrewshire council as to his place of residence, not move without notification, and stay in regular contact with the Scottish authorities.

The USA agreed to Scottish jurisdiction in this case, and fully participated in the process. There were US lawyers sitting with the Scottish prosecution team for the entire trial, and feeding them a pack of lies by the way. They got the result they wanted, although the verdict was even more perverse than that of the Massei report. Now ten years later they have an issue with the sentencing of the court they agreed to, and want to tear up the whole thing and start again. I'm not impressed.

This is another reason Knox will never be extradited. The USA does whatever the hell it likes, internationally, and the laws of other countries count for nothing.

Rolfe.

 

[Diocletus]

Megrahi was convicted by a legal process the USA co-operated with and indeed participated in. It was all done by legal, international agreement. He was (wrongly, by the way) convicted, and sentenced. He served and is still serving his sentence. He is released on licence, but required to notify East Renfrewshire council as to his place of residence, not move without notification, and stay in regular contact with the Scottish authorities.

The USA agreed to Scottish jurisdiction in this case, and fully participated in the process. There were US lawyers sitting with the Scottish prosecution team for the entire trial, and feeding them a pack of lies by the way. They got the result they wanted, although the verdict was even more perverse than that of the Massei report. Now ten years later they have an issue with the sentencing of the court they agreed to, and want to tear up the whole thing and start again. I'm not impressed.

This is another reason Knox will never be extradited. The USA does whatever the hell it likes, internationally, and the laws of other countries count for nothing.

Rolfe.

I see your point, but it still sounds like different sovereigns.

The simple reason that Knox won't be extradited is because such an extradition would violate her constitutional rights.

 

[Rolfe]

It's off topic, sorry, but it just came up today and it's extremely angering.

The USA agreed to cede the right to try the Lockerbie suspects to Scotland, where the crime took place. (The USA had no real jurisdiction other than US citizens being among the victims.) The USA fully co-operated with the trial to the point where they were de facto prosecuting the case, with the Scots lawyers as their sock puppets.

The defendant was convicted, and sentenced. He is still serving his sentence, according to the law of Scotland, which the USA agreed should deal with this case. Megrahi is still legally Scotland's prisoner. But because they think they see electoral advantage in appearing tough, US politicians think they can completely ignore the legal processes of a friendly state, whose processes they previously accepted. They don't approve of the sentence, so they want to re-try the convicted man.

They can probably do it too, because might makes right, and the USA is the biggest bully on the block. Which is why Knox will never be extradited.

Along with, because the Supreme Court will uphold the Hellmann verdict, of course....

ETA: Apart from the slander charge against Lumumba, which I can't understand and rather hope they reverse.

Rolfe.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Of course Pilot did not take kindly to the advice given to try and defuse his anger. Instead he ran over to PMF and spit out more anger. It is kind of sad to see people self destruct.

Of course I never said that I spoke to an Italian lawyer about extradition. For Amanda, the US law is all that matters now. I spoke to an attorney that is familiar with US law.

With regard to my contact, I was not referring to Donnie, and I was certainly not making any claims to make myself feel good. It is not a "feel good" feeling to talk to anyone at PMF, but it has enlightened me as to just how delusional the group is.

 

[Rolfe]

I saw that. The bile and hatred spewed out on that site against both Amanda Knox and her family, and anyone at all who has looked at the evidence closely enough to make the rational deduction that she is an innocent woman, is completely dysfunctional.

I can only commend Greggy, who seems to have gone away after he realised how delusional they'd all been. One can only hope that it might start to dissipate once the motivations report comes out.

Rolfe.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I saw that. The bile and hatred spewed out on that site against both Amanda Knox and her family, and anyone at all who has looked at the evidence closely enough to make the rational deduction that she is an innocent woman, is completely dysfunctional.

I can only commend Greggy, who seems to have gone away after he realised how delusional they'd all been. One can only hope that it might start to dissipate once the motivations report comes out.

Rolfe.

Bravo. I second that.

 

[Didaktylos]

I've only had a brief look at the PMF sites - I've no intention of registering; and it really is ghoulish the way they deify this image they have of Meredith.

 

[katy_did]

The United States recognizes Italy's legal system, however it does not surrender Amanda Knox's rights to them wholesale, nor for that matter Raffaele Sollecito's were he to choose to come to America. Look at it this way, many countries consider it within their rights to deny extradition to the United States if the defendant would face the death penalty, a violation of their human rights that some states in the US don't agree with. The United States considers double-jeopardy a violation of their human rights, and the ECHR agrees:

Yet none of the above changes the central issue: at which point is a defendant to be considered definitively convicted or acquitted in an Italian court (or when does the U.S. considers that to be the case)? That's clearly a matter of interpretation, not something which is clear-cut - the article is worded loosely enough to allow either argument to be made.

The question of double jeopardy itself is not at issue, since not only do the U.S. and the ECHR consider double jeopardy a violation of human rights, but so does Italy. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (of which Italy is a member) includes the paragraph:

No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.

So the issue is not whether someone should be tried again for the same offence; it's that under the Italian system, a person is held to be innocent until definitively convicted, and this definitive conviction/acquittal occurs only at Supreme Court level - and whether the U.S. recognizes that fact or not. Double jeopardy being a Bad Thing is a given which all parties accept.

Why would anyone ask if they knew the answer would be 'no?'

This might have been what Comodi was referring to when she said there was no 'extradition agreement between Italy and the US.' There simply isn't in a case like this.

I have no idea whether there have been previous extradition attempts in which the double jeopardy rule has been an issue. Hence my question.

From yours and other responses, I assume an extradition has never been denied on the grounds of double jeopardy, although as CDHost says, this is no doubt mainly due to there having been few extradition cases in general.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest this is what Comodi was referring to when she said there was no extradition treaty, to be honest (it was a fairly unambiguous statement!). I think she was simply either wrong or lying.

It recognizes the stages, but also the dangers inherent. The ECHR currently makes an allowance for a prosecution appeal in the Trial of the First Instance, such as happened to the Moldavian woman who was Amanda's roommate and convicted after being acquitted initially in the Trial of the First instance, but convicted by the Trial of the Second Instance. This would be an entirely different situation, as the Supreme Court is not a finder of fact, but merely of law, it could only require that the case be remanded to the lower courts for yet another trial, which would be a violation of the double jeopardy clause.

Otherwise what is to stop the prosecution from admitting to procedural 'mistakes' on its part to force another trial regardless of the outcome of the Trial of the Second Instance?

I'm curious when you say that the "ECHR currently makes an allowance for a prosecution appeal in the Trial of the First Instance" - do they really make an "allowance" for this aspect of the Italian system, in the sense that it's almost an exception to the rule? Or is it just that the ECHR recognizes Italy's final verdict as that given by the Supreme Court, and the double jeopardy rule wouldn't come into play until after that point?

I know that the ECHR has given Italy a hard time over the length of time its trials take, but I'm not aware it has ever challenged it on the grounds that its system is in violation of the double jeopardy principle which Italy signed up to.

Incidentally, I don't think it's necessary that the Supreme Court order a retrial following an annulment of the second degree judgment; as I understand it they can also just let the first degree judgment stand, which in this case would be Massei's (perhaps Machiavelli can correct me if I'm wrong on this). Presumably no double jeopardy argument could be made in that case.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I've only had a brief look at the PMF sites - I've no intention of registering; and it really is ghoulish the way they deify this image they have of Meredith.

I agree. It is so overstated, that it is almost insulting to the victim. It is a compensation for human respect; the way some men used to deify women as they could not view them as fully and robustly human.