Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[acbytesla]

Do you mean despite the offence not being recognised as a crime in the UK? I wonder whether we have the text of the US-Italian treaty somewhere. I'll go look.

I know that the US will not extradite a citizen to a foreign country for a crime that has no similar equivalent in the US. For example, there is no way that the US would extradite someone for "calunnia".

 

[acbytesla]

I thought that too, that he was "acting" as a Guilter to drive a harder questioning interview. But it also could be due to the SC ruling of another trial, the media plan has changed and been re-written to include more prosecution perspective to the interviews. Someone posted he was an ex-prosecutor so that might have been it? Nancy Grace has a prosecution perspective that everyones guilty or shes not interested in the case. Nancy, like Cuomo, dont seem to put Rudy Guede in their words enough.


off Cuomo topic.. in relate to "what could happen in another trial, and specifically what more DNA work can be done with the knife testing?"
Is there need for concern, the prosecution having access to the knife all this time? (corruption again possibly? magical new Meredith DNA shows up on the knife, for example.) Whats your take on this "storage of evidence" ?

They of course could test the knife again, but it has been tested by Stefanoni as well as Conti and Vechiotti. They could in theory keep testing it until they find something on it..

 

[anglolawyer]

I know that the US will not extradite a citizen to a foreign country for a crime that has no similar equivalent in the US. For example, there is no way that the US would extradite someone for "calunnia".

Yes, I just dug this up from In re Moglia:

4. The Dual Criminality Requirement Has Been Satisfied

The Treaty at Article II defines "extraditable offenses." According to its provisions, an offense is extraditable only if it is a felony offense under the laws of both Italy and the United States, i.e. punishable by more than one year imprisonment. In addition to making all criminal acts extraditable if they are felonies in both Italy and the United States, the treaty also provides that any type of association or conspiracy to commit such felony is an extradiable offense. Article II, P 2.

Article II is a standard provision that is contained in most extradition treaties. It represents a maxim of international law known as "dual criminality." The rule of dual criminality means that extradition will not take place unless the offense charged is a crime in both the demanding and the requesting country.

I suspect the case Coulsdon referenced was one which showed this rule does not apply to extradition from the UK to the US.

 

[anglolawyer]

They of course could test the knife again, but it has been tested by Stefanoni as well as Conti and Vechiotti. They could in theory keep testing it until they find something on it..

It would raise all kinds of interesting questions if they found more of her DNA on the knife. One thing that continually puzzles me and which should be shouted from the rooftops is how come they need another test? Isn't this just an admission that Stefanoni's work was dung?

 

[Dan O.]

Yes, I just dug this up from In re Moglia:


I suspect the case Coulsdon referenced was one which showed this rule does not apply to extradition from the UK to the US.

The real stickler is when you get to the fifth element: "Probable Cause".

 

[anglolawyer]

The real stickler is when you get to the fifth element: "Probable Cause".

Yes. One wonders just how that hurdle will be overcome. Course it's not proof BARD but something less. Alrighty! Let's wheel Stef onto the stand plus interpreter (no cuffing please and no stories about how you imagined things as a child) and get to it.

Now then, Dottore, let's start with that scratch on the blade - here, catch!

...

Moving right along, we come to this here little 'ole bra clasp. Let's all sit down and watch a pretty film and then there will be some questions

 

[Grinder]

Here's the treaty

Although we don't have calumnia we must have a crime for a false accusation and most likely it would be a felony.

ETA - Article 2 also follows the practice of recent United States extradition treaties in indicating
that the dual criminality standard should be interpreted liberally in order to effectuate the
intent of the Parties that fugitives be brought to justice. Article 2 further provides that, if extradition is granted for an extraditable offense, it may also be granted for offenses which
are punishable by less than a year's imprisonment.

 

[acbytesla]

Here's the treaty

Although we don't have calumnia we must have a crime for a false accusation and most likely it would be a felony.

ETA - Article 2 also follows the practice of recent United States extradition treaties in indicating
that the dual criminality standard should be interpreted liberally in order to effectuate the
intent of the Parties that fugitives be brought to justice. Article 2 further provides that, if extradition is granted for an extraditable offense, it may also be granted for offenses which
are punishable by less than a year's imprisonment.

Really Grinder? Defamation is a civil offense not a criminal one. There is nothing even remotely similar to callunia.

 

[acbytesla]

The real stickler is when you get to the fifth element: "Probable Cause".

Exactly, there would be a probable cause hearing. There is no DNA and the interrogation is suspect. Where is the probable cause??

 

[Grinder]

Really Grinder? Defamation is a civil offense not a criminal one. There is nothing even remotely similar to callunia.

You don't think false reporting of a crime is a crime or making a false police report is a crime. It could also be perjury if the form says that what I am signing is the truth under penalty of perjury for example or a statement is made under oath.

 

[GWCarver]

Here's the treaty

Although we don't have calumnia we must have a crime for a false accusation and most likely it would be a felony.

ETA - Article 2 also follows the practice of recent United States extradition treaties in indicating
that the dual criminality standard should be interpreted liberally in order to effectuate the
intent of the Parties that fugitives be brought to justice. Article 2 further provides that, if extradition is granted for an extraditable offense, it may also be granted for offenses which
are punishable by less than a year's imprisonment.

Hey Grinder, I'm sorry about asking you if Mignini was lying. I just wasn't thinking that it could possibly get someone into trouble for answering a question like that. No harm intended, and thanks for not answering.

 

[Dan O.]

Here's the treaty

Although we don't have calumnia we must have a crime for a false accusation and most likely it would be a felony.

Sorry Grinder, that accusation against Patrick was made under duress and immediately retracted. The retraction completely obliterates the evidentiary value from the interrogation.

 

[Grinder]

Sorry Grinder, that accusation against Patrick was made under duress and immediately retracted. The retraction completely obliterates the evidentiary value from the interrogation.

Sorry Dan O but that wasn't the issue. The point discussed was could Italy extradite someone convicted of calumnia since we don't have the same law. The treaty clearly states that the same crime need not exist in the state being asked for extradition. I do believe we have similar crimes that I described.

 

[Grinder]

ARTICLE X
Extradition Requests and Supporting Documents
1. Requests for extradition shall be made through the diplomatic channel.
2. All requests for extradition shall be accompanied by:
(a) documents, statements or other information which set forth the identity and probable
location of the person sought, with, if available, physical description, photographs and
fingerprints;
(b) a brief statement of the facts of the case, including the time and location of the offense;
(c) the texts of the laws describing the essential elements and the designation of the offense
for which extradition is requested;
(d) the texts of the laws describing the punishment for the offense; and
(e) the texts of the laws describing the time limit on the prosecution or the execution of the
punishment for the offense.
3. A request for extradition which relates to a person who has not yet been convicted shall
also be accompanied by:
(a) a certified copy of the arrest warrant or any order having similar effect;
(b) a summary of the facts of the case, of the relevant evidence and of the conclusions
reached, providing a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offense
[*13] for which extradition is requested; in the case of requests from Italy such a summary
shall be written by a magistrate, and in the case of requests from the United States it shall be written by the prosecutor and shall include a copy of the charge; and
(c) documents establishing that the person sought is the person to whom the arrest warrant or
equivalent order refers.
4. A request for extradition which relates to a person who has been convicted shall, in
addition to those items set forth in paragraph 2 of this Article, be accompanied by:
(a) a copy of the judgment of conviction, or, in the case of the United States, if the person has
been found guilty but not yet sentenced, a statement by a judicial officer to that effect;
(b) if the penalty has been pronounced, a copy of the sentence and a statement as to the
duration of the penalty still to be served; and
(c) documents establishing that the person sought is the person convicted.
5. If the person sought has been convicted in absentia or in contumacy, all issues relating to this aspect of the request shall be decided by the Executive Authority of the United States or the competent authorities of Italy. In such cases, the Requesting [*14] Party shall submit such documents as are described in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this Article and a statement regarding the procedures, if any, that would be available to the person sought if he or she were extradited. 6. The documents which accompany an extradition request shall be made available in English
and Italian by the Requesting Party.
7. The documents which accompany an extradition request shall be admissible into evidence
when:
(a) in the case of a request from the United States, they are certified by a judge, magistrate or
other United States official and are sealed by the Secretary of State;
(b) in the case of a request from Italy, they are signed by a judge or other Italian judicial
authority and are certified by the principal diplomatic or consular officer of the United States
in Italy.

 

[anglolawyer]

Here's the treaty

Although we don't have calumnia we must have a crime for a false accusation and most likely it would be a felony.

ETA - Article 2 also follows the practice of recent United States extradition treaties in indicating
that the dual criminality standard should be interpreted liberally in order to effectuate the
intent of the Parties that fugitives be brought to justice. Article 2 further provides that, if extradition is granted for an extraditable offense, it may also be granted for offenses which
are punishable by less than a year's imprisonment.

You call that a link? Ah, sorry, I thought it was still Attack Grinder Day

Thanks for digging this up. I see these as key paragraphs, both in article X

3. A request for extradition which relates to a person who has not yet been convicted shall also be accompanied by:
(a) a certified copy of the arrest warrant or any order having similar effect;
(b) a summary of the facts of the case, of the relevant evidence and of the conclusions reached, providing a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offense [*13] for which extradition is requested; in the case of requests from Italy such a summary shall be written by a magistrate, and in the case of requests from the United States it shall bewritten by the prosecutor and shall include a copy of the charge; and
(c) documents establishing that the person sought is the person to whom the arrest warrant or equivalent order refers.


5. If the person sought has been convicted in absentia or in contumacy, all issues relating to this aspect of the request shall be decided by the Executive Authority of the United States or the competent authorities of Italy. In such cases, the Requesting [*14] Party shall submit such documents as are described in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this Article and a statement regarding the procedures, if any, that would be available to the person sought if he or she were extradited.

As I read that, if she is convicted in her absence on 2nd appeal Italy could request extradition and the request would be handled by President Obama. And even though paragraph 3 does not normally apply to someone not yet convicted it does apply when they are convicted in their absence or in contumacy (which means by virtue of disobedience). So all would depend on politics.

 

[anglolawyer]

Sorry Dan O but that wasn't the issue. The point discussed was could Italy extradite someone convicted of calumnia since we don't have the same law. The treaty clearly states that the same crime need not exist in the state being asked for extradition. I do believe we have similar crimes that I described.

What are they?

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, I just dug this up from In re Moglia:

I suspect the case Coulsdon referenced was one which showed this rule does not apply to extradition from the UK to the US.

Dan O writes: The real stickler is when you get to the fifth element: "Probable Cause".

There would be a huge difference for an extradition hearing for Amanda Knox. Unlike the Moglia extradition hearing. Amanda would be represented by competent council not the Public Defender and they would attack the probable cause with a vengeance. Remember that in the US, Stefanoni's methodology would not be acceptable. Imagine a US judge reading Massei, and Hellmann and Conti and Vechiotti. Imagine A Defense council bringing in their own DNA experts and introducing countless documents from experts such as Ron Hendry, Greg Hampikian, Steve Moore and others.

There is substantial reason for a judge to refuse extradition based on the lack of probable cause. I do think it is double jeopardy but that isn't why I think the US court would turn down the request.

 

[acbytesla]

You don't think false reporting of a crime is a crime or making a false police report is a crime. It could also be perjury if the form says that what I am signing is the truth under penalty of perjury for example or a statement is made under oath.

Amanda did not seek the police out and make a false report. She was being interrogated. It is also not perjury. The statement was not made under oath and does not fall under the definition of perjury.

Next question

 

[Grinder]

You call that a link? Ah, sorry, I thought it was still Attack Grinder Day

No worries, every day is attack Grinder day - in fact it's stated in the Book of Grinder.

Thanks for digging this up. I see these as key paragraphs, both in article X
As I read that, if she is convicted in her absence on 2nd appeal Italy could request extradition and the request would be handled by President Obama. And even though paragraph 3 does not normally apply to someone not yet convicted it does apply when they are convicted in their absence or in contumacy (which means by virtue of disobedience). So all would depend on politics.

Are you saying Obama will serve a third term ?

What are they?

Here's a state by state list of penalties for false reporting of a crime

The treaty states specifically that the crime need not be a felony in the requested state.

Did the spontaneous statement have a under the penalty of perjury or the equivalent clause?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

There would be a huge difference for an extradition hearing for Amanda Knox. Unlike the Moglia extradition hearing. Amanda would be represented by competent council not the Public Defender and they would attack the probable cause with a vengeance. Remember that in the US, Stefanoni's methodology would not be acceptable. Imagine a US judge reading Massei, and Hellmann and Conti and Vechiotti. Imagine A Defense council bringing in their own DNA experts and introducing countless documents from experts such as Ron Hendry, Greg Hampikian, Steve Moore and others.

There is substantial reason for a judge to refuse extradition based on the lack of probable cause. I do think it is double jeopardy but that isn't why I think the US court would turn down the request.

Steve Moore - Really......... why not Bruce Fisher and Mary H, or are they included in the 'others'