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

[acbytesla]

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


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.

You nailed it, but Executive authority does not necessarily mean the President. In the US it would mean the Executive Branch which the President has authority. The US State Department is part of the Executive Branch.

So the State Department all the way up to the Secretary of State could refuse the extradition request and of course, ultimately it is up to the President if he wants to exercise his discretion in the matter.

It would definitely be a political issue.

 

[acbytesla]

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

No Steve Moore was an FBI detective. He is an expert with qualifications and credentials.

 

[Grinder]

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

seeking the police out isn't a requirement. She signed a "spontaneous" statement after being interviewed is what they will claim. I doubt calumnia will be at issue as it will only be for murder that she would be extradited.

As I explained they don't have to have the exact same crime.

 

[acbytesla]

delete

 

[acbytesla]

seeking the police out isn't a requirement. She signed a "spontaneous" statement after being interviewed is what they will claim. I doubt calumnia will be at issue as it will only be for murder that she would be extradited.

As I explained they don't have to have the exact same crime.

I agree that they don't have to be exact same crime, but I don't think a US judge would extradite anyone for callunia. Neither of us actually knows, but if you have a precedent for it, please cite it.

The real question is how far do you stretch the term "liberally"? I also agree that any "requested extradition would be for "murder" which as I have said would be refused because of the lack of probable cause.

 

[Grinder]

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

Yes the list is quite suspect.

Hampikian maybe.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hiya Grinder,
There are at least 6 books written and published about this case we discuss:
Murder in Italy, Angel Face, Darkness Descending, The Fatal Gift of Beauty, and a book written by 2 defendants in this brutal, bloody slaying+murder trial we discuss, 1 from Raffaele Sollecito: Honor Bound: My Journey to Hell and Back with Amanda Knox, and the 2nd, from Amanda Knox: Waiting to Be Heard: A Memoir.

I have read 3 of these books.
and will soon read the memoirs of Raf+Amanda.

Grinder,
is it true that you still have not read a single book on this tragic murder case we discuss, years after it happened?
Really?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No Steve Moore was an FBI detective. He is an expert with qualifications and credentials.

Expert in what exactly, do you believe everyone who works for the FBI is an expert in crime scene forensics, I believe he was a helicopter pilot and a sharp shooter, nothing to do with forensics though, but FBI does sound good.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dr. Hampikian's credentials

Yes the list is quite suspect.

Hampikian maybe.

Here is a link to his professional qualifications. Scroll down for a list of selected publications.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Steve Moore

Expert in what exactly, do you believe everyone who works for the FBI is an expert in crime scene forensics, I believe he was a helicopter pilot and a sharp shooter, nothing to do with forensics though, but FBI does sound good.

He worked as an interrogator and is familiar with appropriate versus inappropriate methods of interrogation.

 

[acbytesla]

Delete

 

[Chris_Halkides]

John Douglas was also in the FBI

John Douglas has positive things to say about Mr. Moore in the book "Law and Disorder." Of course Mr. Douglas might be even a better choice.

 

[RWVBWL]

An expert?

No Steve Moore was an FBI detective. He is an expert with qualifications and credentials.

Expert in what exactly, do you believe everyone who works for the FBI is an expert in crime scene forensics, I believe he was a helicopter pilot and a sharp shooter, nothing to do with forensics though, but FBI does sound good.

Hiya Sherlock,
Expert in what, exactly?

Here's a question backatcha:
Do you believe that PM mignini is an expert in anything?
What is his job, exactly?
Is it something other than make believe story-telling?


For a person, like I am, who posts on a skeptical forum,
I must wonder why PM Mignini told sooo many variations of what he believed happened the night Miss Meredith Kercher was murdered with a knife slicing open her throat.

Did Amanda do it?
Take that huge knife that she carried around town "for protection" and slice open her housemates throat because "She was always behaving like a saint and now we will make you have sex"?

Or was she standing outside,
in the hallway, orchestrating the killing of her housemate?


Which way was it, PM Mignini?
Aren't you an 'expert'...


Sherlock,
care to weigh in and give me any clue?...
Thanks in advance,
RWVBWL


PS: Mignini's bull crap kinda reminds me of that Jody story,
ya know, the chick on trial for killin' her boyfriend in Arizona:
Let me make up a story, ok, cool: "An intruder killed him."
A coupla years later, it's a different story:
"Hey wait, let me tell ya what really happened: I killed him, BUT it was in self defense."
Bull Crap...
Like Mignini....

 

[acbytesla]

John Douglas has positive things to say about Mr. Moore in the book "Law and Disorder." Of course Mr. Douglas might be even a better choice.

I agree. My point is that an extradition hearing for Amanda Knox wouldn't be typical. She could easily introduce significant expert testimony severely damaging anything the Italians could introduce.
Steve Moore and John Douglass could both provide expert testimony about the crime scene and the interrogation. Greg Hampikian's qualifications are substantial when it comes to DNA.
Normally a judge wouldn't want to "try" the case, but what constitutes "probable cause"? There is a tremendous amount of discretion available if a judge wishes to use it. And frankly, considering both the Hellmann decision and even the Massei decision, the Conti Vechiotti report, the prosecution's case is extremely weak.

While I believe another trial constitutes "double jeopardy", it would be far easier and less suspect IMO to have extradition rejected on probable cause. Unfortunately, "the double jeopardy" might appear to many people as some kind of technicality as opposed to a decision based on the lack of probable cause.

While I would hope that the Italians would get their house in order and get it right. There is a part of me that would like to see a US judge write a lengthy scathing decision rejecting extradition and admonishing the Italians for pursuing Amanda Knox and Raffaele based on the lack of a probable cause .

But that is only a small part of me, because of the ramifications of another idiot Italian decision on Raffaele.

 

[anglolawyer]

Here's[/URL] 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?

That's helpful. Are you arguing they could seek extradition on calunnia alone?

 

[acbytesla]

That's helpful. Are you arguing they could seek extradition on calunnia alone?

Well, Grinder is arguing that, but he also is saying that Amanda won't be. In fact, Grinder knows that she won't be. Not only wouldn't the US extradite her on that offense, the Italians wouldn't seek to extradite her on that offense. Add into account that Amanda has "served" that sentence.

No Grinder is just playing Grinder's "devil's advocate" game that he always plays.

No, any extradition request would be on the capitol offense. My bet is that even if it got that far that the Italians wouldn't muddy the water including that in the extradition request.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, Grinder is arguing that, but he also is saying that Amanda won't be. In fact, Grinder knows that she won't be. Not only wouldn't the US extradite her on that offense, the Italians wouldn't seek to extradite her on that offense. Add into account that Amanda has "served" that sentence.

No Grinder is just playing Grinder's "devil's advocate" game that he always plays.

No, any extradition request would be on the capitol offense. My bet is that even if it got that far that the Italians wouldn't muddy the water including that in the extradition request.

LOL - I had forgotten she has done the time. I guess the wicked Italians could still try to extradite her for the aggravated version of the crime. She hasn't served her time for that. But that one would require the whole schmozzle since she has to be guilty of murder too.

 

[acbytesla]

LOL - I had forgotten she has done the time. I guess the wicked Italians could still try to extradite her for the aggravated version of the crime. She hasn't served her time for that. But that one would require the whole schmozzle since she has to be guilty of murder too.

Precisely.

Grinder is just arguing a hypothetical. I can't imagine Italy making an extradition request on Callunia of any kind, aggravated or not. Now this "aggravating circumstance" could theoretically be added into the extradition request. But I could see a US judge allowing Amanda to be extradited on the murder charge alone. It really depends on the judge. If the judge chooses to just act as a rubber stamp of the Italy's proceedings and is not interested in a review any of the evidence, that Amanda could be in trouble. But judges often want to make a name for themselves, and what better way than to hold a mini trial in the US and tell the Italians to go screw themselves.

Given how slow justice proceeds, we are looking at probably at least another 3 years minimum before there could be an extradition hearing...maybe a hell of a lot longer. Let's hope a court in Florence also declares Amanda innocent. But given how poisoned the atmosphere has been made against Amanda in Italy, I wouldn't feel safe there if I was Amanda.

 

[Supernaut]

"I don't recall" is very popular in legal cases in the United States. It's a legal term that means, "I recall, but if I tell the truth, I will incriminate myself. Rather than incriminate myself, I have chosen to pretend that saying 'I don't recall' is not a lie. Pretend along with me, if you will."

There's a specific word for this; 'prevarication'.

 

[anglolawyer]

Precisely.

Grinder is just arguing a hypothetical. I can't imagine Italy making an extradition request on Callunia of any kind, aggravated or not. Now this "aggravating circumstance" could theoretically be added into the extradition request. But I could see a US judge allowing Amanda to be extradited on the murder charge alone. It really depends on the judge. If the judge chooses to just act as a rubber stamp of the Italy's proceedings and is not interested in a review any of the evidence, that Amanda could be in trouble. But judges often want to make a name for themselves, and what better way than to hold a mini trial in the US and tell the Italians to go screw themselves.

Given how slow justice proceeds, we are looking at probably at least another 3 years minimum before there could be an extradition hearing...maybe a hell of a lot longer. Let's hope a court in Florence also declares Amanda innocent. But given how poisoned the atmosphere has been made against Amanda in Italy, I wouldn't feel safe there if I was Amanda.

This would be unlawful. A review of the evidence is mandatory. The evidence is non-existent. I think this is the best reason for not seeking extradition. Note this useful provision in article XI

1. If the Requested Party considers that the documentation furnished in support of a request for extradition is incomplete or otherwise does not conform to the requirements of this Treaty, that Party shall request the submission of necessary additional documentation. The Requested Party shall set a reasonable time limit for the submission of [*15] such documentation, and shall grant a reasonable extension of that time limit upon an application by the Requesting Party setting forth the reasons requiring the extension.

Uh-oh. Proper disclosure. Not disclosure Italian style but the common law version. The treaty also contains another safeguard in article XXI:

The Requesting Party shall pay the expenses related to the translation of documents and the transportation of the person sought from the city where confined to the Requesting Party. The Requested Party shall pay all other expenses related to the provisional arrest, extradition request and proceedings. Any expenses related to transit under Article XIX shall be borne by the Requesting Party.

Italy will be flat stony broke by the time any request is made. All the US has to do is demand payment up front and it will be case closed. In fact, I might buy Italy (net worth - one dollar) before then and put a cork in the whole charade.