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

[Strozzi]

Strozzi,

That is an excellent post.

I knew an economics professor at Northwestern University who calculated the costs of the Vietnam War. Lifetime costs for death, injuries and medical expense, young men's years wasted, military hardware, etc. I don't remember the total cost but it was in the trillions of dollars.

I don't know if he was able to calculate the costs to the Vietnamese people.

 

[Samson]

It is worth noting that on PMF they now regard it as very incriminating that Amanda was part of an April fools day prank, that could be seen as presaging the events in Perugia.
These same people require it as part of their hypothesis that Rudy's previous behaviour threw no light on the events.
This is as bizarre a display of cognitive dissonance as I have encountered in this case.
There are two specific theories about the window vandalism, only one is true, yet these people prefer the theory where there are no common physical elements to one where there is a one to one correspondence with every item.
1. The rock
2. The thefts, computers, then cellphones and money.
3. Threatening with a knife.
4. Stealing and carrying a knife.
5. Second story windows broken.
How could an april fools prank where no crime was committed trump this list?
I would love one of these people to attempt an answer on this thread, but I know there won't be one.

Ironically this odd development can be turned to Amanda's advantage by turning the spot light back on Rudy's previous form as a direct contrast to Amanda's in assessing the probabilities underlying each theory of the vandalism.

 

[kwill]

It is worth noting that on PMF they now regard it as very incriminating that Amanda was part of an April fools day prank, that could be seen as presaging the events in Perugia.
These same people require it as part of their hypothesis that Rudy's previous behaviour threw no light on the events.
This is as bizarre a display of cognitive dissonance as I have encountered in this case.There are two specific theories about the window vandalism, only one is true, yet these people prefer the theory where there are no common physical elements to one where there is a one to one correspondence with every item.
1. The rock
2. The thefts, computers, then cellphones and money.
3. Threatening with a knife.
4. Stealing and carrying a knife.
5. Second story windows broken.
How could an april fools prank where no crime was committed trump this list?

My comment on the highlighted sentence: And that's saying something in a case that's drenched in cognitive dissonance!

 

[acbytesla]

I just posted above a long itimized lists of costs that Rudy Guede has burdened three countries. What you cite are the profits a few authors and tabloids earn.

Unfortunately, you are making a classic mistake Strozzi. You have come under the impression that all this cost is actually ever considered or if it is, that is given the proper consideration.

While the citizens of Italy probably wouldn't want to pay to imprison an American for 30 years, the judiciary and the authorities are looking at this though different glasses. They are looking at a public trust. High profile cases in particular don't always result in sensible decisions.

These bureaucrats are often viewing this in terms of how they look to the public. They are trying to show to the world that they are doing things right and in some of their minds, a conviction of these two might prove that they were right.

The problem however is that in this case, the available evidence is widely disseminated and it's far harder for them to save face by securing a conviction. At least internationally.

But within Italy, the press has convinced much of if not most of the public that Amanda Knox is guilty and the only acceptable verdict for the uneducated peasants carrying the pitchforks is a guilty one. People like Machiavelli and others have convinced them any innocent verdict is the result of pressure from the US and not the actual evidence. So in a way, a guilty verdict to them demonstrates Italy's independence from the rich and powerful US interests.

Don't kid yourself, there are many people in Italy upset with the US because of incidents such as rendition or the gondola tragedy. They have been convinced that Amanda is just another American trampling through their country who believes she is above the law.

Internationally, I think a guilty verdict will confirm just how judicially bankrupt Italy is, but internally, I think it might be used to demonstrate the independence of the Italian judiciary.

 

[Antony]

True, but the issue is what will the US do, not what will Italy do? Knox is on US soil.... she enjoys those rights, right now. The burden will be on a court in the US to defend why DJ is not operative here...

Yes, and I think an objective view is that the ISC acted illegally in annulling the Hellman acquittals, in that they didn't address legal points, but revisited the evidence with their own findings of "fact" (indeed, made some facts up). So to call the new trial a part of the same process is not necessarily solid.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

My uninformed opinion is that Knox has an opportunity not to cooperate with Italian courts now that she's i the US. However, Raffaele has no such option.

I sometimes get the feeling that Knox is cooperating this time, because without Raffaele's steadfast refusal to pull an alibi from her, he's himself risking 25 years in jail..... for no other reason, really, other than that.

I was wondering when somebody going to mention Raffaele Sollecito. Was he in court yesterday?

 

[Bill Williams]

I was wondering when somebody going to mention Raffaele Sollecito. Was he in court yesterday?

Yes. From what I know, he'll be in Italy until the decision.

It has been very wise for Knox not to have been there. The press would have gone nuts, and the actual evidence would have been shouted down.

The two are handling this well, under the circumstances.

 

[acbytesla]

I was wondering when somebody going to mention Raffaele Sollecito. Was he in court yesterday?

I don't know if he was there, but I could go and read Machiavelli's tweets and find out. I'm sure someone will answer your question.

I'm afraid that the Florence court will do the wrong thing and Raffaele will soon find himself behind bars. This will be incredibly unfair. Not that I think it would be any less unfair if Amanda was incarcerated in some Italian hell hole as well.

I have to say Coulsdon, this bothers me almost more than anything. I'm far more afraid for Raffaele than I am for Amanda. He has been the forgotten person in all of this. He's been little more than an afterthought. But truth be told, IMO, he has demonstrated more courage and grace than anyone involved in this farce. But I remain fearful of his freedom.

For whatever reason, the thread today has focused a great deal on extradition, which of course is not something that pertains to Raffaele. I assure you, that while many of the PIP may find themselves fighting against Amanda's extradition, most of these people are also concerned with what happens to Raffaele..

 

[RoseMontague]

Sure hope she showed the Ch. 5 window climb.

She mentioned the lawyer climb but did not present picture or video which based on the judges comments seemed to indicate the judge was not even aware of it. (Jeepers)

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Yes, and I think an objective view is that the ISC acted illegally in annulling the Hellman acquittals, in that they didn't address legal points, but revisited the evidence with their own findings of "fact" (indeed, made some facts up). So to call the new trial a part of the same process is not necessarily solid.

You continue to mention that the Italian Supreme Court has acted illegally, let’s assume Raffaele and Amanda appeal to the ECHR and win their appeal as far as I know ECHR cannot overturn the verdict, nor can they compel Italy to annul the verdict, do you believe such a scenario would be grounds to fight any extradition?

For the folks across the pond, what if the Italians requested Amanda sentence should be carried out in an American prison instead of extradition?

The above of course would only take place if Raffaele and Amanda are actually convicted.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes, and I think an objective view is that the ISC acted illegally in annulling the Hellman acquittals, in that they didn't address legal points, but revisited the evidence with their own findings of "fact" (indeed, made some facts up). So to call the new trial a part of the same process is not necessarily solid.

You continue to mention that the Italian Supreme Court has acted illegally, let’s assume Raffaele and Amanda appeal to the ECHR and win their appeal as far as I know ECHR cannot overturn the verdict, nor can they compel Italy to annul the verdict, do you believe such a scenario would be grounds to fight any extradition?

For the folks across the pond, what if the Italians requested Amanda sentence should be carried out in an American prison instead of extradition?

The above of course would only take place if Raffaele and Amanda are actually convicted.

Even though Antony prefaced his remark with it being "an objective view", it is very difficult to suggest that a nation-states' "Supreme Court" has acted "illegally."

It's a bit of a logical conundrum, because the Supreme Court of a country is the final arbiter of what is legal and illegal.

With that said, if the ECHR ruled against hypothetical convictions, upheld by the SISC, my uninformed opinion is that this would make it easier for Knox to fight extradition. Indeed, while theissue was in front of the ECHR one could imagine that an American court would hold their own proceedings in abeyance until that process was complete.

Then again, extradition is fundamentally a political act, not a legal one, really. An American court could perhaps rule that there were no legal roadblocks to extradition, but the decision (as I understand it) is up to the State Department.

As for Raffaele, he's the one who has to more directly live with the fact that the Italian Supreme Court, love it or leave it, is the final authority here; ECHR notwithstanding.

In a similar vein Vincent Bugliosi wrote a book on how the American Supreme Court acted "illegally" in handing the 2000 presidential race to George Bush.

The Betrayal Of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President

On December 12th, 2000, in a 5-4 decision, the U. S. Supreme Court put an end to the recounting of presidential votes in Florida, thus assuring that George W. Bush would win the election. This action by the Court's majority, argues trial lawyer and bestselling author Bugliosi, was a "judicial coup d'‚tat" that stole the election from U.S. citizens and simply handed the presidency over to the Court's guy, a conservative Republican like themselves. It was also treasonous, asserts Bugliosi, if not by statute it does not fit the legal definition of treason at least in spirit; the five justices are "criminals in the very truest sense of the word," he says, who have exhibited "the morals of an alley cat." The Florida recount, claimed the Court, was invalid because it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment; as different counties used different methods for determining voter intent, voters were being treated unequally. Bugliosi argues, in precise yet accessible language, on page after page, that this justification does not stand up to scrutiny; that it is an incorrect and unprecedented use of the equal protection clause, feebly applied and argued, and was simply the best excuse the Court majority could come up with.

Why does treason never prosper? Because if it prospers, none dare call it treason!

 

[acbytesla]

You continue to mention that the Italian Supreme Court has acted illegally, let’s assume Raffaele and Amanda appeal to the ECHR and win their appeal as far as I know ECHR cannot overturn the verdict, nor can they compel Italy to annul the verdict, do you believe such a scenario would be grounds to fight any extradition?

For the folks across the pond, what if the Italians requested Amanda sentence should be carried out in an American prison instead of extradition?

The above of course would only take place if Raffaele and Amanda are actually convicted.

Frankly, I think Americans would object to Amanda serving time in any prison, even a US prison as there is a large percentage of the population that believe in Amanda's innocence. The real question from my perspective is whether Amanda and Raffaele being convicted again in this latest trial (If you can call this process a trial) persuasive to the American public and judiciary.

If they are convicted again, Amanda's future will most likely be determined by public perception. If the conviction is viewed as unfair and a railroad job, I seriously doubt that Amanda will ever see the inside of a prison cell. If however, it is viewed as fair and judicially correct than Amanda will certainly be extradited.

That said, a conviction will certainly result in a massive effort by Amanda's supporters including Marriott to create public support for both Amanda and Raffaele. You can expect Amanda, John Douglass and others to be on Dateline, 48 Hours, 60 minutes and other news shows that will reexamine the case and almost certainly will come to the same conclusion that they already have. Which is, this is a railroad job from hell.

Whether that is enough to thwart any extradition is anyone's guess. Mine is there is no way in hell Amanda gets extradited. But of course I was wrong that the Italian Supreme Court would have confirmed Amanda's acquittal. So what the hell do I know? Probably not much.

 

[Antony]

That's right. Some people say that is the strategy -- keep at it until the defense runs out of money or the prosecution says uncle. But there is a possibility of Cassation agreeing with Assizes at some point. If they agree on innocence, then it's all over. If they agree on guilt, watch out.

Very much so; and the ISC have already shown, scandalously, which side they are on. If Nencini convicts, it's a racing certainty that the ISC will rubber-stamp the decision. If it's an acquittal, then the question is, will the ISC be so pig-headed as to anull the decision a second time?

 

[Antony]

Even though Antony prefaced his remark with it being "an objective view", it is very difficult to suggest that a nation-states' "Supreme Court" has acted "illegally."

It's a bit of a logical conundrum, because the Supreme Court of a country is the final arbiter of what is legal and illegal.

With that said, if the ECHR ruled against hypothetical convictions, upheld by the SISC, my uninformed opinion is that this would make it easier for Knox to fight extradition. Indeed, while theissue was in front of the ECHR one could imagine that an American court would hold their own proceedings in abeyance until that process was complete.

Then again, extradition is fundamentally a political act, not a legal one, really. An American court could perhaps rule that there were no legal roadblocks to extradition, but the decision (as I understand it) is up to the State Department.

As for Raffaele, he's the one who has to more directly live with the fact that the Italian Supreme Court, love it or leave it, is the final authority here; ECHR notwithstanding.

In a similar vein Vincent Bugliosi wrote a book on how the American Supreme Court acted "illegally" in handing the 2000 presidential race to George Bush.

The Betrayal Of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President

​

Why does treason never prosper? Because if it prospers, none dare call it treason!

Richard Nixon: "if the President does it, it's not illegal."

My point was that even though the ISC can rule however it chooses within Italy, a US court taking into account the nature of the reasons given, would be on solid ground in declaring it Double Jeopardy.

 

[Diocletus]

You continue to mention that the Italian Supreme Court has acted illegally, let’s assume Raffaele and Amanda appeal to the ECHR and win their appeal as far as I know ECHR cannot overturn the verdict, nor can they compel Italy to annul the verdict, do you believe such a scenario would be grounds to fight any extradition?

Of course, the ECtHR can order a new trial. So, let's see . . . hypothetically, the ECtHR determines that the Italian courts/process have violated Amanda Knox's human rights by conducting an illegal interrogation, and this is grounds for a new trial.

Could/would Italy enforce a jail sentence in a situation where its process has been ruled illegal? I think not. If not, then they would have no reason to seek extradition unless they wanted to compel attendance at trial, which as I understand is not mandatory anyway. Even if they did, seek extradition, they would need to make a probable cause showing, and they have already proved unwilling to try to do that.

So before answering the question whether an ECtHR ruling would be a defense against extradition, I think it's unlikely that there would be a request for extradition under those circumstances.

As to whether an ECtHR finding that Italy violated Knox's human rights "would that be grounds to fight any extradition," I think that of course this would be raised and would be considered by both the magistrate and the Secretary of State, and such an actual violation of human rights would be a significant consideration.

BTW, assuming there is a conviction, then an affirmance by the ISC, then a decision by the ECtHR that Knox's rights were violated . . . is a retrial even possible given the ECHR's speedy trial requirements? We're talking about a trial starting ten years after the fact.

 

[Diocletus]

When you cross the border and commit a crime in another country you US constitution doesn't protect you.

Unless you happen to be standing in a US courtroom, in which case the US Constitution does apply.

 

[JREF2010]

Very much so; and the ISC have already shown, scandalously, which side they are on. If Nencini convicts, it's a racing certainty that the ISC will rubber-stamp the decision. If it's an acquittal, then the question is, will the ISC be so pig-headed as to anull the decision a second time?

I hope you are wrong, and Florence ends this witch hunt.

Its so hard to tell with this case, whether or not the judge (and puppet judges), are believing in the evidence, or is the face -saving system, the fictional accusations, or actually listening to the independent experts like C&V.

If you look at the entire case and Judges reports, we could almost expect Nencini to write another report that includes a scenario never before heard.

I cant even guess about Nencini. I thought Massei would acquit and Hellman would convict.... so my guessing isnt working on this case.

 

[Diocletus]

Case One happens after a final verdict, Case Two before. The problem in Case One is that you're never actually free from the threat of conviction for a particular offence, whereas in the other case, you can't be retried once you're finally acquitted (key word being "finally").

Different countries have different systems - some allow for prosecution appeals and so on - and so inevitably the point where a person is finally acquitted or convicted differs between countries.

"Finality" isn't the inquiry in the double-jeopardy analysis under US law (which is what my original quote refers to); the proper inquiry is the attachment of jeopardy. In both situations, jeopardy attached and there was a jury verdict of acquittal. A subsequent conviction is double jeopardy under US standards.

I think that the quote about the Senate's expectations about double jeopardy inquiries tells us (i) that double jeopardy will not be determinative of extradition at the magistrate level, but (ii) the Secretary of State is expected to seriously consider the issue.

 

[Grinder]

One of the ironies is that the only person who might come out of this making money, other than the lawyers, is Barbie Nadeau.

Marriott, Follain, Burleigh, Garafano, Ch.5 producers, Perugian hospitality industry, Dailly Beast, Lifetime producers...

and of course Hamburger Helper .

 

[Diocletus]

As Grinder says, denying extradition on the basis of double jeopardy would be precedent-setting, and would potentially affect extradition to any other country where prosecution appeals are allowed (like Canada).

I don't see it that way. The ISC, in its own opinion, acknowledged that it was exercising an extraordinary power in this case. That appellate court then went on to contradict the trial court's determinations concerning the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. It then issued an opinion that can be construed as directing a new trial court to reach the opposite conclusion. It endorsed pseudo-scientific evidence that would be thrown out of a US court as "junk science."

This type of procedure goes to the heart of the reason for double jeopardy protection. Not only that, but it seems highly unusual as acknowledged by even the ISC, itself.

I think that the circumstances of this case are unlikely to be repeated, and a refusal to extradite under these circumstances would effectively create no significant precedent.