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

[Ampulla of Vater]

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.

But in a way this is huge. It indicates the Kerchers are actively going after supporters. Add that to the recent revelation that Kercher Jr. is allegedly posting hate all over the place and it creates quite a different picture of them. Suddenly they are not the grieving family who has been misled by Maresca anymore. They are possibly active in the hate campaign.

 

[katy_did]

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.

The problem is that the scope of inquiry for an extradition court is extremely limited. A treaty violation would obviously be within their remit, but she'd have to specify exactly what part of the treaty had been violated.

Have a look at the Shrien Dewani case for an idea as to how limited an extradition court's powers really are. The evidence might well be weak in that case, but that's not an issue the court is able to deal with. This case would be slightly different in that Italy would have to show probable cause, but as I said all that means is they have to show that a conviction happened - they don't need to show any evidence as to why it happened.

The principle behind all this (and other international treaties like the Hague Convention) is that the other country can be trusted to carry out legal proceedings fairly, and any issues with the proceedings (e.g. double jeopardy) should be dealt with in that country. In return other countries assume the same of the U.S.

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.

The magistrate wouldn't have any choice about it; he or she would have to follow the treaty. I doubt a Daubert hearing would even be possible as part of an extradition case.

 

[Diocletus]

The problem is that the scope of inquiry for an extradition court is extremely limited. A treaty violation would obviously be within their remit, but she'd have to specify exactly what part of the treaty had been violated.

Have a look at the Shrien Dewani case for an idea as to how limited an extradition court's powers really are. The evidence might well be weak in that case, but that's not an issue the court is able to deal with. This case would be slightly different in that Italy would have to show probable cause, but as I said all that means is they have to show that a conviction happened - they don't need to show any evidence as to why it happened.

The principle behind all this (and other international treaties like the Hague Convention) is that the other country can be trusted to carry out legal proceedings fairly, and any issues with the proceedings (e.g. double jeopardy) should be dealt with in that country. In return other countries assume the same of the United States.


The magistrate wouldn't have any choice about it; he or she would have to follow the treaty. I doubt a Daubert hearing would even be possible in an extradition hearing.

This isn't going to play out so simply.

The arguments about ECHR violations, international law and treaty violations, mistreatment, torture, abuse, misconduct and fundamental unfairness are going to be made.

The magistrate will make his/her own decision about whether she got jobbed. Then, there will be some possibilities:

1) Decide that she was convicted in Italy and nothing else matters, and send the papers on to the State Department and/or the habeaus corpus court.

2) Decide that she was jobbed, but then defer that extradition law ties the court's hands and send the papers on to the State Department and/or the habeaus corpus court.

3) Decide that she was jobbed, write an opinion blasting the whole process eight ways from yesterday, and tell the girl to go home and forget about it all.

Point being, there is enough leeway and discretion in the process, that automatic extradition is by no means guaranteed.

ETA: Point number two is the most interesting. The magistrate could really tee this up by writing an opinion that says "she got screwed outrageously. But, the law says I have to send this on to State. So, here you go. By the way, did I mention that she got screwed?"

 

[Diocletus]

I doubt a Daubert hearing would even be possible as part of an extradition case.

Definitely available if there is a probable cause inquiry.

 

[Grinder]

Well, Hellmann said he would have done the same things. He said "exactly the same things". He also said "they did nothing wrong". Not just that thet they were in good faith, but that they made no mistake; not that he would have done something that he thought it was right, but he would have done exactly the same things they did.

I thought Hellmann was an idiot that was paid off and nothing in his ruling stands. This reminds me of another poster that completely disagrees with Massei's opinion on guilt or innocence and on most issues but cherry picks a few statements to prove his points.

Another curious thing, if you like, is that Hellmann-Zanetti (I just don't forget the second guy) they uttered this opinion prior to and not after the trial. In fact Hellmann mentioned art. 530 § 2 before the opening of the discussion (something that should have urged Galati to call for judge impeachment), and Zanetti made his announcement about what he thought "the only sure thing" was, before the opening of the discussion.
These are not the only "curious" procedure step made by Hellmann Zanetti, so much that they were bashed the way you see by the SC.

Too late. You are not allowed to complain about the past. They didn't object so that means it wasn't wrong of Hellmann or Zanetti.

Note this is like asking for a semen stain to be tested or an independent DNA analysis.

No, I found nothing strange in what De Felice said (he is a parson, not "they"). Also because, he did not say exactly that. I recall him saying somethign slightly different, as I already explained on this forum.

As police chief he speaks for the department. You have never provided the transcript of what he said and all reports were that they knew what was correct and they questioned her until she told what they knew to be correct. I suppose he could have said that they beat her and told them about Patrick because they needed to arrest the killer right away and then you would say what?

The crux of the six-year debate is not whether various personnel had the legal right to make certain decisions, it is whether their decisions were moral, logical and rational. (Although they broke some laws, too.)

Yes there are two issues, legal and your points.

I would very much like Mach to give us a concise report on how and when decisions on investigations are made.

-

I totally agree with you about that highlighted part, and that is because what will be almost impossible for Italy to overcome is the "double jeopardy" part of our constitution.

Once Italy decided that Amanda was "Not Guilty" and let her leave, extraditing her back to Italy would involve ignoring that part of our constitution, which will not happen.

d

-

There have been several cases where that defense against extradition was tried and failed.

Hi Snook1,

"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...

There is no record of this alleged complaint on the WA Bar site. There does appear to be an online way to file a complaint. I would urge Doug to publish a copy of the complaint or rescind his remark.

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.

Definitely there is no disciplinary record against Anne. Until I see a copy of this alleged complaint, I don't believe it. This is an instance where I support the old English libel laws.

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

Until it is proven, I don't think these sorts of characterizations should be made.

 

[katy_did]

This isn't going to play out so simply.

The arguments about ECHR violations, international law and treaty violations, mistreatment, torture, abuse, misconduct and fundamental unfairness are going to be made.

The magistrate will make his/her own decision about whether she got jobbed. Then, there will be some possibilities:

1) Decide that she was convicted in Italy and nothing else matters, and send the papers on to the State Department and/or the habeaus corpus court.

2) Decide that she was jobbed, but then defer that extradition law ties the court's hands and send the papers on to the State Department and/or the habeaus corpus court.

3) Decide that she was jobbed, write an opinion blasting the whole process eight ways from yesterday, and tell the girl to go home and forget about it all.

Point being, there is enough leeway and discretion in the process, that automatic extradition is by no means guaranteed.

ETA: Point number two is the most interesting. The magistrate could really tee this up by writing an opinion that says "she got screwed outrageously. But, the law says I have to send this on to State. So, here you go. By the way, did I mention that she got screwed?"

There isn't that discretion at the level of the extradition court, though. If you look at the treaty, they have to decide whether the person is extraditable - whether they're charged or convicted with an offense which is punishable in both countries (obviously murder qualifies); where the sentence is more than a year; where the person hasn't already been tried or convicted for the same offense in the U.S.; and where the prosecution isn't barred by lapse of time (according to Italy's laws).

If all those things apply then Italy would have to provide information about the identity of the person convicted, a brief statement of the facts of the case, the text of the relevant laws, and in the case of a person who's been convicted proof of their identity and a copy of the conviction (the latter to satisfy probable cause). Nothing more.

The Secretary of State on the other hand might have more discretion, which is why I said extradition might be blocked at that level, but I don't know enough about what actions they're able to take to know how likely that is. As I said earlier though, I doubt it'll ever get to the point of an extradition request.

 

[katy_did]

Definitely available if there is a probable cause inquiry.

Like I said, I really doubt that because an extradition court isn't a trial court; they don't decide whether a person is guilty or innocent, only whether the conditions for extradition have been met. As I understand it, a Daubert hearing deals with admissibility of evidence in a U.S. criminal trial, and so has nothing to do with extradition.

 

[Grinder]

But in a way this is huge. It indicates the Kerchers are actively going after supporters. Add that to the recent revelation that Kercher Jr. is allegedly posting hate all over the place and it creates quite a different picture of them. Suddenly they are not the grieving family who has been misled by Maresca anymore. They are possibly active in the hate campaign.

Both emanate from the same post by Doug. There is no proof.

There is as much proof of this as there was that Amanda participated in a 'rape prank'.

Anne is more than a supporter. She was a TV spokesperson for Amanda (FOA).

People here have bashed Maresca for years as well as all the prosecutors and most of the judges. I wouldn't blame them as much as the Italian system for allowing them to participate in the trial before final conviction.

We are not aware of what 'facts' they have that have not been made public.

 

[Diocletus]

There isn't that discretion at the level of the extradition court, though. If you look at the treaty, they have to decide whether the person is extraditable - whether they're charged or convicted with an offense which is punishable in both countries (obviously murder qualifies); where the sentence is more than a year; where the person hasn't already been tried or convicted for the same offense in the U.S.; and where the prosecution isn't barred by lapse of time (according to Italy's laws).

If all those things apply then Italy would have to provide information about the identity of the person convicted, a brief statement of the facts of the case, the text of the relevant laws, and in the case of a person who's been convicted proof of their identity and a copy of the conviction (the latter to satisfy probable cause). Nothing more.

Sure, that's the standard for somebody convicted in person.

But I'm telling you, they're not going to say: "Yeah, I attended the trial, and was convicted and I'm Amanda Knox."

They're going to say, "I was convicted in abstentia, and that was because they made it impossible for me to have a fair trial if I attended."

And that's when it all hits the fan, and the judge is going to make an inquiry into that, and that inquiry could result in a probable cause hearing.

My point being, that there is plenty of room for a magistrate to decide that s/he wants to impact the process beyond deciding the simple issues that you mention. The arguments are going to be made and the options will be there.

If I'm the magistrate, I have a real problem extraditing someone to effectively serve life in prison, when it appears to me that that there is a good chance the person has been convicted unfairly. I would do more than check off a few boxes and send the person to jail. At the very least, I would raise a huge red flag even if I think my hands are tied.

 

[Diocletus]

Like I said, I really doubt that because an extradition court isn't a trial court; they don't decide whether a person is guilty or innocent, only whether the conditions for extradition have been met. As I understand it, a Daubert hearing deals with admissibility of evidence in a U.S. criminal trial, and so has nothing to do with extradition.

"Probable cause" requires "evidence." If it doesn't pass Daubert scrutiny, then it ain't "evidence." It's actually a constitutional requirement (due process, fundamental fairness and all of that stuff).

Example: A witch doctor's statement that the defendant is guilty because he has a birthmark would be tossed out of a probable cause hearing.

Think of Stefanoni as the witch doctor, which she would be after the Daubert hearing.

 

[Briars]

Both emanate from the same post by Doug. There is no proof.

There is as much proof of this as there was that Amanda participated in a 'rape prank'.

Anne is more than a supporter. She was a TV spokesperson for Amanda (FOA).

People here have bashed Maresca for years as well as all the prosecutors and most of the judges. I wouldn't blame them as much as the Italian system for allowing them to participate in the trial before final conviction.

We are not aware of what 'facts' they have that have not been made public.

True Amanda has cleared up the rape prank on her blog. It was in fact a staged robbery prank that she played on her roommates.

 

[Bill Williams]

True Amanda has cleared up the rape prank on her blog. It was in fact a staged robbery prank that she played on her roommates.

On what basis would a guilter believe Knox on anything?

 

[Mary_H]

True Amanda has cleared up the rape prank on her blog. It was in fact a staged robbery prank that she played on her roommates.

Can you provide a link to that?

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>There is no record of this alleged complaint on the WA Bar site. There does appear to be an online way to file a complaint. I would urge Doug to publish a copy of the complaint or rescind his remark.

Definitely there is no disciplinary record against Anne. Until I see a copy of this alleged complaint, I don't believe it. This is an instance where I support the old English libel laws.

Until it is proven, I don't think these sorts of characterizations should be made.

Do you really think John Kercher cares if someone accuses him of making a complaint against Anne Bremner? How would such an accusation hurt him in any way?

 

[Dan O.]

It's pointless to ask guilters for links. If Briars could provide the link she would have.


http://www.amandaknox.com/2013/12/18/with-respect-to-the-kercher-family/

Amanda says:
JANUARY 7, 2014 AT 13:02
Rob,

I played part in a April’s Fools prank that involved making a mess – moving and hiding stuff in the house I shared with friends – to make it seem like we had been robbed when we weren’t there. The ruse was immediately revealed after the initial shock. We – all of the mutual friends of my housemates who participated in the prank with me – apologized for the distress caused.

There was no harm to property or persons. Like so many things, this event has been exaggerated for the sake of sensationalism.
​

 

[Briars]

On what basis would a guilter believe Knox on anything?

For this simple reason. Staging a burglary with friends to frighten her roommate is strange enough. They did apologize for the distress caused and no one was hurt So apparently it was never a fake rape attempt with masks only a staged robbery without "costumes" as she says. Its all explained on her blog under with respect to the Kerchers.

 

[Bill Williams]

For this simple reason. Staging a burglary with friends to frighten her roommate is strange enough. They did apologize for the distress caused and no one was hurt So apparently it was never a fake rape attempt with masks only a staged robbery without "costumes" as she says. Its all explained on her blog under with respect to the Kerchers.

Well, that doesn't answer the question, but you were decent enough to reply. Still, not sure what the original point was. Seemed like an opportunity to say something negative for no apparent reason other than that it's fun to pick on people.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's pointless to ask guilters for links. If Briars could provide the link she would have.


http://www.amandaknox.com/2013/12/18/with-respect-to-the-kercher-family/

Amanda says:
JANUARY 7, 2014 AT 13:02
Rob,

I played part in a April’s Fools prank that involved making a mess – moving and hiding stuff in the house I shared with friends – to make it seem like we had been robbed when we weren’t there. The ruse was immediately revealed after the initial shock. We – all of the mutual friends of my housemates who participated in the prank with me – apologized for the distress caused.

There was no harm to property or persons. Like so many things, this event has been exaggerated for the sake of sensationalism.
​

You mean THIS is part of "all the other evidence" that she's guilty?

Surely there has to be SOMETHING in that "mountain of osmotic evidence" which amounts to something more than this?

 

[Mary_H]

It's pointless to ask guilters for links. If Briars could provide the link she would have.


http://www.amandaknox.com/2013/12/18/with-respect-to-the-kercher-family/

Amanda says:
JANUARY 7, 2014 AT 13:02
Rob,

I played part in a April’s Fools prank that involved making a mess – moving and hiding stuff in the house I shared with friends – to make it seem like we had been robbed when we weren’t there. The ruse was immediately revealed after the initial shock. We – all of the mutual friends of my housemates who participated in the prank with me – apologized for the distress caused.

There was no harm to property or persons. Like so many things, this event has been exaggerated for the sake of sensationalism.
​

Thank you, Dan.

 

[Diocletus]

For this simple reason. Staging a burglary with friends to frighten her roommate is strange enough. They did apologize for the distress caused and no one was hurt So apparently it was never a fake rape attempt with masks only a staged robbery without "costumes" as she says. Its all explained on her blog under with respect to the Kerchers.

Once when I was in college, I had a friend who shot a bb gun out of a dorm window and hit another friend, who was in front of his window in his bedroom in an apartment across the street. Man was that funny.

AFAIK, the shooter has never actually killed anyone, though.