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

[Mary_H]

This is not actually true. The standard for extradition is quite low. If there's an extradition treaty, the court will simply look at whether the convicted person is extraditable. If they make that finding, it's up to the Secretary of State to decide to extradite the person. Of course, Italy first has to request the extradition, and it's not a guarantee that they will. I can think of several reasons not do so.<snip>

And they are?

Unfortunately, it may be the individual's rights that are sacrificed to political expediency.

Yikes. Do you think it could happen?

 

[Mary_H]

Hi Snook1,
Although I'm more than a few days behind on the debate,
I noticed this interesting bit of info from Doug Bremner's website that you linked above:
"John Kercher, Sr., also lodged a complaint against my sister with the Washington State Bar,
apparently for the crime of representing someone he, mistakenly, thinks is guilty and does not deserve representation."

Meredith Kercher's Dad is lodging complaints here in the U.S.A.?
Interesting...

A lot of guilters have lodged a lot of complaints against a lot of supporters all over the dang place. Since this is the first we've heard about this one (at least it's the first time I've heard of it), probably nothing came of it.

 

[RoseMontague]

2. moreover I have a theory which I call from cooking experience, theory of the "house baked bread" . The girls ate a hand made pizza, they made the bread themselves in their kitchen oven and this may easilly lead to results which are somehow unsatisfactory as for the digestibility of the bread. Yeast, leavening kneading and cooking (includes oven quality) determine the digestibility of bread or lack thereof. I think their bread was raw or insufficiently leveaned. New York baker Jim Lahey is one of my "bibles" about that, but he has a receip for pizza which has not enough leavening, he likes it like that but to me it is undigestible. I think the bread is the point.

This is right up there with Massei's large bag theory and Crini's poop theory. A real keeper.

 

[Rolfe]

Also the "Amamda could decide not to sleep so she was fresh and rested to manipulate these seasoned mafia-interrogators in the middle of the night" theory.

There are some absolute doozies in this thread.

Rolfe.

 

[Diocletus]

Hi Snook1,
Although I'm more than a few days behind on the debate,
I noticed this interesting bit of info from Doug Bremner's website that you linked above:
"John Kercher, Sr., also lodged a complaint against my sister with the Washington State Bar,
apparently for the crime of representing someone he, mistakenly, thinks is guilty and does not deserve representation."



Meredith Kercher's Dad is lodging complaints here in the U.S.A.?
Interesting...

Makes him seem like a vindictive creep, doesn't it?

 

[LondonJohn]

Incidentally, the verdict in the appeal will be delivered on the 30th. The 20th is for prosecution closing (rebuttal) arguments:

Il presidente della Corte d'assise d'appello di Firenze, Alessandro Nencini, ha calendarizzato le prossime udienze: il 20 gennaio sono previste le repliche e il 30 gennaio la camera di consiglio e la sentenza.

Translation:

The President of the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Florence, Alessandro Nencini, has scheduled the next hearings: January 20 is provided for the rebuttals, and January 30 for the judgment and sentencing.

http://www.ilmessaggero.it/UMBRIA/p...firenze_appello_sentenza/notizie/434662.shtml


That's how I always interpreted the earlier announcement on court dates* - that deliberation would only start after the 20th date, and that the verdict would therefore be delivered some days after the 20th (though I didn't think it would be as much as 10 days later). It seems that Vogt and pretty much the entire media (and of course all of the pro-guilt commentators) got it badly wrong.


* Not wishing to blow my own "trumpet of critical thinking" of course.......

 

[katy_did]

The only issue would be the element of probable cause, which again is a pretty low standard as well.

Not only that, but whether they have to produce any evidence at all to show probable cause depends on whether the trial is considered to have been 'in absentia' or not, which in very similar cases it hasn't been (i.e. cases where the defendant left voluntarily in the middle of the process, knowing it was still ongoing). If it isn't in absentia then all that would be needed is evidence of a conviction.

I agree with you that Italy may well not ask for extradition in the first place though. Perhaps most of all because I think a straightforward endorsement of Massei is quite unlikely: if there's a conviction at all then I think more likely it would be for a lesser crime/sentence (at the very least in Amanda's case, given the lack of anything showing she was in the room), which would very conveniently make extradition not worth requesting.

 

[katy_did]

Incidentally, the verdict in the appeal will be delivered on the 30th. The 20th is for prosecution closing (rebuttal) arguments:

Looking back at the last appeal, I think it's actually all sides that have rebuttal arguments LJ. From memory I think they were done by the 'second-string' defence lawyers last time (i.e. not Bongiorno/Maori in Sollecito's case).

 

[Matthew Best]

This is right up there with Massei's large bag theory and Crini's poop theory. A real keeper.

We've had some half-baked theories from the guilt side before, but this one is literally "half baked". I'd say you couldn't make this stuff up, except that somebody already has made it up.

 

[Strozzi]

This is right up there with Massei's large bag theory and Crini's poop theory. A real keeper.

Machiavelli's new theory should be called "The unleaven bread digestion theory". I tried to find scientific research papers that show the time differences between digestion of leaven bread and unleaven bread, but found nothing. His next theory will focus on burnt crust digestion times.

Does anyone know what temperature the pizza was baked at?

 

[Diocletus]

Machiavelli's new theory should be called "The unleaven bread digestion theory". I tried to find scientific research papers that show the time differences between digestion of leaven bread and unleaven bread, but found nothing. His next theory will focus on burnt crust digestion times.

Does anyone know what temperature the pizza was baked at?

Don't laugh at Machiavelli's theory. I had some motza a couple of years ago and I'm pretty sure it hasn't reached my duodendum yet.

 

[Strozzi]

Makes him seem like a vindictive creep, doesn't it?

It is an indication that Mr. Kercher is grieving and suffering psychologically. This is a reason why family members of victims of crime should not be allowed to influence trials. Their ability to think and behave rationally is compromised. The PLE and Maresca have falsely convinced Mr. Kercher that his daughter was betrayed by her housemate/friend, which is more traumatizing than understanding the rational truth that she encountered a knife-carrying burglar in her flat when she returned home that evening.

 

[Diocletus]

Not only that, but whether they have to produce any evidence at all to show probable cause depends on whether the trial is considered to have been 'in absentia' or not, which in very similar cases it hasn't been (i.e. cases where the defendant left voluntarily in the middle of the process, knowing it was still ongoing). If it isn't in absentia then all that would be needed is evidence of a conviction.

I don't think it's going to be that simple. We already see the bases for an argument that it was effectively necessary for her to stay away from the proceedings--in effect, she was driven away from the proceeding.

Also, we can see the bases for arguments concerning torture, prisoner mistreatment and quasi-political persecution.

If they get there, then there are problems with probable cause. The knife results will not be admissible in a US court, and the Italian Supreme Court has already ruled the interrogation inadmissible. The other scientific evidence is probably subject to effective preliminary challenge as well (footprints, etc). Yoga, pizza-eating and underwear-buying isn't probable cause.

One more thing. There are serious process issues here that will color, and could drive, the entire extradition decision. Prosecution non-transparency, violation of interrogation laws, denial of counsel, collateral use of someone else's conviction, etc. These issues will be anathema to a US judge and will be viewed very seriously by a magistrate, whether or not they are a part of the technical extradition analysis.

 

[Diocletus]

It is an indication that Mr. Kercher is grieving and suffering psychologically. This is a reason why family members of victims of crime should not be allowed to influence trials. Their ability to think and behave rationally is compromised. The PLE and Maresca have falsely convinced Mr. Kercher that his daughter was betrayed by her housemate/friend, which is more traumatizing than understanding the rational truth that she encountered a knife-carrying burglar in her flat when she returned home that evening.

Well, I guess it's hard to put oneself in his shoes. That said, if what happened to him ever happened to me, I would hope and trust that I would choose a different way to conduct myself. I think I would choose dignified silence.

 

[Strozzi]

Don't laugh at Machiavelli's theory. I had some motza a couple of years ago and I'm pretty sure it hasn't reached my duodendum yet.

OK. Let me know when it finally hits your duodenum.

 

[Diocletus]

Newsflash

Our Italian lawyers have just advised us that Rudy Guede has filed a new appeal against his rape conviction. His new defenses are (i) Meredith was wearing jeans and (ii) Rudy really, truly loved Meredith.

These defenses are viewed as a slam-dunk, since they are absolute defenses to rape as established by the esteemed Cassazione. It is expected that Rudy will be released from jail tomorrow, and Amanda Knox will be required to pay him damages for all of the unnecessary time he spent in jail.

 

[katy_did]

I don't think it's going to be that simple. We already see the bases for an argument that it was effectively necessary for her to stay away from the proceedings--in effect, she was driven away from the proceeding.

How so? I can't see any reason why she couldn't have attended; Raffaele has done, after all.

Also, we can see the bases for arguments concerning torture, prisoner mistreatment and quasi-political persecution.

If they get there, then there are problems with probable cause. The knife results will not be admissible in a US court, and the Italian Supreme Court has already ruled the interrogation inadmissible. The other scientific evidence is probably subject to effective preliminary challenge as well (footprints, etc). Yoga, pizza-eating and underwear-buying isn't probable cause.

One more thing. There are serious process issues here that will color, and could drive, the entire extradition decision. Prosecution non-transparency, violation of interrogation laws, denial of counsel, collateral use of someone else's conviction, etc. These issues will be anathema to a US judge and will be viewed very seriously by a magistrate, whether or not they are a part of the technical extradition analysis.

The problem is that if there's a conviction, the evidence most likely wouldn't be considered at all, or not by the extradition court at any rate. All they would need to do to show probable cause is to prove that there'd been a conviction; the evidence is neither here nor there.

If there is a conviction, and if an extradition request follows, then I think the place where it could possibly be blocked (if at all) would be by the Secretary of State rather than by the extradition court, which has very limited powers to look at the evidence and any procedural questions.

 

[Diocletus]

Has this illegal testing ever been brought up in the courtroom?

No idea. In the grand scheme of illegal actions, this is a pretty small and inconsequential one. But interesting, nonetheless, and perhaps useful later.

Here is was Stefanoni said:

On November 12 we started the technical assessments and then we have given notice to the parties on that date because it was already present say the suspects, so we had to give, of course, as the Code of Criminal Procedure, the start of operations laboratory, which, of course, attended by consultants, lawyers, which are reported in the minutes.” (Testimony dated 5/22/09, google translated at page 23).

OK, well, there were also "suspects" as of 11/6. So where was the notice and opportunity to observe for the events of 11/6 and maybe 11/7?

Stampa 11/7: In that room, were found in it dozens of tracks. CSU is now trying fingerprints and DNA profiles compatible with those of the suspects. Matter of hours.

Republicca 11/8: And the first results of the findings of the forensic confirm the assumptions made by the prosecutor in Perugia for the murder of Meredith Kercher: "In the scene there were two of them and Raffaele Sollecito."

Meanwhile, investigators are trying to figure out if a fourth person has helped the kids to clean the house.

 

[Diocletus]

How so? I can't see any reason why she couldn't have attended; Raffaele has done, after all.

She's going to argue that the human rights and treaty violations, the prosecutorial misconduct and the actions of the press effectively compelled her to stay away, lest she be subjected to further violations. It's an easy argument to make, and to credit if the magistrate wants to get into the merits. Raffaele is obviously a different situation.

I'm not convinced that the extradition magistrate will ignore probable cause issues under the circumstances of this case.

A Daubert hearing on the knife results alone could potentially be fatal to the entire extradition proceeding, and would certainly be hugely embarrassing for the Italian authorities, and for that reason they might decide not to even proffer the knife as a part of a showing of probable cause.

 

[Diocletus]

OK. Let me know when it finally hits your duodenum.

Will do. It may take a while, though--I'm trying to turn it into a diamond.