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

[moije2]

Barbie Nadeau is making great hay out of this misstatement... I sometimes think Barbie could not care less about Meredith Kercher and whether or not Amanda is involved - Barbie is a bully, just wants to catch out Amanda looking stupid and then write something lurid about it.

I guess there's a small mercy - it's been a while since Barbie has written about student threesomes....

She (BN) tweeted "what not to say when you are a defendant" or words close to that. Typical negative baiting. I think she qualifies as a fraud of a reporter.

 

[AmyStrange]

Supreme Court?

-

There is a lot of room for discussion on the topic of double jeopardy. And it isn't so cut and dried. Food for thought: they don't like a decision at state court letting defendants off in politically charged case. So charges are brought in Federal court on essentially the same facts and alleged offense. Double jeopardy? Nope. We see this sort of thing all the time in the US. So ok we can't get someone on one charge and we later bring a related charge - but just not the same charge.

"they can walk like me, talk like me, cuss like me, but just not quite me!" (my paraphrasing by memory)

So the offense to the morality and meaning of our constitutional rights etc being used as an argument in potential extradition will need political momentum at minimum. IMO.

-

Also, should this be treated like a politically charged case? Probably not, but it is and unfortunately that's how you have to defend it. In my opinion.

If it's politically charged enough, this might actually go all the way to the Supreme Court. That's just my opinion, but that would be interesting to watch.

I too also believe a good lawyer could still make a good case for denial on the basis of Article 6 (Double Jeopardy), at least good enough to maybe get it to the Supreme Court, precedent and legislation be damned.

d

-

 

[moije2]

-


-

Also, should this be treated like a politically charged case? Probably not, but it is and unfortunately that's how you have to defend it. In my opinion.

If it's politically charged enough, this might actually go all the way to the Supreme Court. That's just my opinion, but that would be interesting to watch.

I too also believe a good lawyer could still make a good case for denial on the basis of Article 6 (Double Jeopardy), at least good enough to maybe get it to the Supreme Court, precedent and legislation be damned.

d

-

Agreed.

I actually worry that Italy might <not> pursue extradition should they get a guilty confirmation because then Amanda would be left in this permanent limbo of never knowing when they might decide to move on an eventual extradition request. Hopefully we will see a pleasant resolution Jan 30th though I wouldn't be surprised by anything they do.

I often reflect on LJ "schooling" Macchiavelli about the laws pertaining to the appeal to supreme court etc and the imminent confirmation of the acquittal. While I agreed with much of his analysis, it was proof that trying to predict based on applied logic would be a silly endeavor.

 

[Grinder]

-


-

Also, should this be treated like a politically charged case? Probably not, but it is and unfortunately that's how you have to defend it. In my opinion.

If it's politically charged enough, this might actually go all the way to the Supreme Court. That's just my opinion, but that would be interesting to watch.

I too also believe a good lawyer could still make a good case for denial on the basis of Article 6 (Double Jeopardy), at least good enough to maybe get it to the Supreme Court, precedent and legislation be damned.

d

-

If Hellmann had vacated the Massei guilty verdict and sent it to another court for another trial and that court found her guilty would that be DJ?

It usually isn't the case that 'good lawyers' ignore the law and precedent to win their cases.

The precedent set by not accepting another country's system would undo much of the international law regarding extradition as it exists.

If a person from Italy was charged with murder and convicted, but an appellate court found a mistake and sent it back to the lower court and the person was once again found guilty, would Italy be able to claim DJ or is that only for mighty Americans (North that is and not counting Canada or Mexico).

If a foreign national is found not guilty of murder but later is tried for denying a person's civil rights then what?

 

[Strozzi]

I am rather dispirited by all this talk about extradition. I still have hope all this will be moot. I was reading some of Bongiorno' s comments in the appeal and thought that :

" Amanda , however - continues Bongiorno - never pulls in Raffaele Sollecito , even when the investigators say he has accused her ." (La Nazione as google translated for a PGP site)

is really quite telling.

Toto, I agree with you that all this talk about extradition is dispiriting. I, too, read all of Machiavelli's tweets from the courtroom yesterday. The detail that Mach provided was very good, given the circumstances, and I look forward to reading an English translation of the full transcript. Thank you again, Machiavelli.

As for the content, I was surprised to see just how psychologically-collapsed Amanda was in the Nov 5/6 nighttime interrogation. Also, the psychic-like role of Anna Donnino, the translator, who exceeded her responsibilities as translator to be a shaper of Amanda's thoughts and statements. That is in addition to the role Donnino took in convincing Knox that she was there, but traumatized, and just did not remember it, and now needed to remember.

Please see The Guardian article that relates actual discussion of the above in court in March 2009: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/13/kercher-knox-trial

I have a relative who is a professional sign-language interpreter for the deaf, licensed to interpret in medical and, possibly, legal discussions. The professional code of ethics to which she subscribes and is bound to by her state professional license requires her to translate to/from her client - serving her deaf client - not serving the interests or particular wants or needs of others present. It makes no difference who is paying her.

She cannot withhold comments made by others in the room about the deaf person. For example, if a doctor or other family member present is discussing the deaf person, she must relate it all as precisely as she can. None of this "don't tell her, but ..." stuff. If such a request was voiced by someone in the room, my relative's responsibility is to sign to the deaf person that the doctor or relative just said "don't tell her, but . . . "

I suspect that Donnino's transgressions would be grounds in a U.S. court for the court to throw out any testimony obtained through Donnino. And possibly regard any effort by Donnino to shape (mislead?) Knox's memory of events and people allegedly involved as absolutely wrong. Possibly even regard it as witness-tampering.

 

[AmyStrange]

If Hellmann had vacated the Massei guilty verdict and sent it to another court for another trial and that court found her guilty would that be DJ?

It usually isn't the case that 'good lawyers' ignore the law and precedent to win their cases.
The precedent set by not accepting another country's system would undo much of the international law regarding extradition as it exists.
If a person from Italy was charged with murder and convicted, but an appellate court found a mistake and sent it back to the lower court and the person was once again found guilty, would Italy be able to claim DJ or is that only for mighty Americans (North that is and not counting Canada or Mexico).

If a foreign national is found not guilty of murder but later is tried for denying a person's civil rights then what?

-

You definitely make a good point, but that's why things like the stuff you said are called precedents, and mix in the emotional stakes, the outrage, and what will happen to Sollecito.

Mix all that together and it's stuff like that, that spark new laws (Caylee's Law for example), don't bet on something like that not happening.

That's all assuming Jan 30th is D Day and that it doesn't turn out good. I believe it will be good for both Amanda and Raffaele, but if I'm wrong, nothing ain't happening for a while, at least not until the Motivational Report. Am I right here? This might drag on for years, if I read some of the comments here correctly, and extradition is at least a year away or maybe Italy will choose not to extradite. That could happen also,

d

-

 

[Diocletus]

The precedent set by not accepting another country's system would undo much of the international law regarding extradition as it exists.

Let's not get too excited here. Italy and the US have a long history of extradition spats, and yet, for the most part, the sky has not fallen.

 

[yimyammer]

Timing isn't great, but oh well.

If she is convicted because of these remarks, then that judge has serious issues.

Given the logic displayed by the powers that be in Italy, isn't that a valid concern?

 

[AmyStrange]

Prediction

-

You definitely make a good point, but that's why things like the stuff you said are called precedents, and mix in the emotional stakes, the outrage, and what will happen to Sollecito.

Mix all that together and it's stuff like that, that spark new laws (Caylee's Law for example), don't bet on something like that not happening.

That's all assuming Jan 30th is D Day and that it doesn't turn out good. I believe it will be good for both Amanda and Raffaele, but if I'm wrong, nothing ain't happening for a while, at least not until the Motivational Report. Am I right here? This might drag on for years, if I read some of the comments here correctly, and extradition is at least a year away or maybe Italy will choose not to extradite. That could happen also,

d

-

-

I predict January 30th will end well for Amanda and Raffaele... and Meredith.

I do also predict though that if I'm wrong (or even if I'm not), and he never turns on Amanda, that Raffaele, will be held up as a hero. Oh sure some people might laugh at that and call him a patsy, but what if you're wrong?

Many people will look at his act as a chivalrous act, especially if he spends any more time in jail, it's the stuff of legends in my opinion.

What if you're wrong about Raffaele? What if he really is innocent and just a victim of circumstance, just like Amanda, but more so because I can kind of understand why you think Amanda is evil.

When the story first broke here in Seattle. The video I remember seeing was her and Raffaele outside the house hugging and kissing. I saw Raf and I thought Harry Potter, but Amanda (the way the shadow filled out her eyes) I thought Ice Queen.

When I saw other pictures of her, she looked like a normal next door neighbor kind of girl. It reminded me of that Seinfeld episode where Jerry was going out with this girl who was evil looking in the shadows.

Anyway, I can kind of understand, but think about this. Just what if Raf really is innocent? Just think about that for a minute. Debate the question. Someone from the PGP camp should try this as a debate and take Raf's side for a minute. You consider yourself critical thinkers don't you? Well, prove it. Take Raf''s side for a minute.

If he is innocent, he is being a boyfriend on a level up there with the greatest Italian that ever lived. I need help from Italy for this one, but just imagine.

He could save himself by saying he doesn't remember if Amanda was home all night. Sure the bra has his DNA, but he could say he thinks he remembers Amanda wearing it one day or maybe it was in her laundry bag and Meredith needed a bra one day, or vice versa.

I have seen women borrow each other's bras and sometimes unasked. It's not unheard of.

My point being that Sollecito doesn't do any of that and sticks by Amanda and if he really is innocent, in my mind anyway, he is a hero of historic and legendary proportions.

In my opinion,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Let's not get too excited here. Italy and the US have a long history of extradition spats, and yet, for the most part, the sky has not fallen.

-

I love you Grinder, but I think Dio is right. You are taking this a wee bit out of whack, just a wee bit.

Hell, the US might deny it just because forensic evidence collection, storage, and interpretation weren't up to international standards. That would send a clear enough message to Italy about "teaching the world forensics" and be treaty friendly too, in my opinion

d

-

 

[Grinder]

-


-

I love you Grinder, but I think Dio is right. You are taking this a wee bit out of whack, just a wee bit.

Hell, the US might deny it just because forensic evidence collection, storage, and interpretation weren't up to international standards. That would send a clear enough message to Italy about "teaching the world forensics" and be treaty friendly too, in my opinion

d

-

Likewise but you were the one that had the Supreme Court of the United States of America deciding that the extradition treaties and international law regarding the sanctity of sovereigns is null and void.

Now if the Federal District court were to rule that the evidence was so tainted or that the trial was not fair based on the facts or factoids of the trial that would be different than what I was responding to which was the SC overturning the verdict based on DJ.

I quoted the international rule regarding DJ above and your SC suggestion would undo that and bring much of extradition law into question. Would an Italian be extradited after raping and American 14 year old or could he claim that age on consent is 14?

Letting each country decide what is a crime is and how the system is allowed to work in other countries would undo the system of international law regarding extradition.

I doubt that this case is that big on the national stage.

The 72 signatories and 166 parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognise, under Article 14 (7):

No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.

 

[Diocletus]

I quoted the international rule regarding DJ above and your SC suggestion would undo that and bring much of extradition law into question. Would an Italian be extradited after raping and American 14 year old or could he claim that age on consent is 14?

Ask Roman Polanski.

But I see your point. We would never be able to extradite any Italian rapists because they would just say that they were in "love," or, failing that, that the victim was wearing jeans.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

The biggest problem with these cases are the confessions. They are the back up evidence that never goes away. No matter how much you prove the other stuff wrong, that is what everyone then turns to as proof positive she did it. Why would you lie? Why would you accuse other people wrongfully if you're not the murderer? The hypocrisy of believing only half her lie as a lie will never dawn on them.

Most of the false confession cases I've studied are filled with stories of promises to stop if you they confess. Some people can't handle that kind of stress and will do anything to make it stop. Especially, if you are really innocent and and believe authority is always right. Amanda even said something similar after her release (I think) that she understood why the prosecution did what it had done to her.

That confession will haunt her forever.

Her and Raffaele.

I wonder how history will treat them? I think now, that's the only question really left to ask,

d

-

 

[Grinder]

Amanda's fugitive comments and her 'clarification' seem beyond stupid to me and totally without concern for Raf. Today she clarified that if convicted again she would then be considered a fugitive. She wouldn't be considered a fugitive until she was convicted finally and then refused to return to Italy and not even then if she surrendered to US authorities and fought the extradition.

fu·gi·tive adjective \ˈfyü-jə-tiv\
: running away to avoid being captured

I'll bet Raf's dad had a few choice words to describe how he felt about her inability to STFU.

 

[Strozzi]

-


-

I love you Grinder, but I think Dio is right. You are taking this a wee bit out of whack, just a wee bit.

Hell, the US might deny it just because forensic evidence collection, storage, and interpretation weren't up to international standards. That would send a clear enough message to Italy about "teaching the world forensics" and be treaty friendly too, in my opinion

d

-

Suppose the U.S. Secretary of State, in considering Italy's request for extradition, asks the U.S. Attorney General for for professional advise on the issue of extradition, and the Attorney General tasks the FBI crime lab for an expert opinion on the validity of the physical evidence, evidence collection techniques, evidence analysis, etc. (I'm sure the defense counsel can provide a copy of the documents). Perhaps the FBI crime lab might ask to see all the data documents and ask "where are the rest".

Maybe the U.S. Attorney General will advise the Secretary of State that, per review by the FBI crime lab, the forensic evidence is scientifically unreliable and fell short of acceptable standards.

What do you think the Secretary of State will do then?

.

 

[Grinder]

Ask Roman Polanski.

But I see your point. We would never be able to extradite any Italian rapists because they would just say that they were in "love," or, failing that, that the victim was wearing jeans.

Isn't pulling out Polanski akin to pulling out Hitler

On 11 March 1977, Polanski, then 43 years old, was arrested in Los Angeles for the sexual assault of 13-year-old Samantha Geimer during a photo shoot for French Vogue magazine. Polanski was indicted on six counts of criminal behavior, including rape.[101][103] At his arraignment he pled not guilty to all charges. Many executives in Hollywood came to his defense.[104]

Geimer's attorney next arranged a plea bargain in which five of the six charges would be dismissed and Polanski accepted.[105] Because Polanski fled the country before final sentencing, the charges were not dismissed and still remain pending.

As a result of the plea bargain, Polanski pled guilty to the charge of "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a minor,"[106][107] and was ordered to undergo 90 days of psychiatric evaluation at Chino State Prison.[108] On release from prison after 42 days, Polanski understood that at the final sentencing he would be put on probation. However, he learned that the judge was planning to renege on his promise of no further jail time,[109] and might even deport him.[107][110] Polanski's attorney suggested that despite the fact that the prosecuting attorneys recommended probation, "the judge could no longer be trusted . . ." and the judge's representations were "worthless."[111]

Upon learning of the judge's plans, Polanski fled to France on 1 February 1978, just hours before sentencing.[112] As a French citizen, he has been protected from extradition and has lived mostly in France since then.[113]

In an interview with Larry King, Geimer said that the police and media had been slow at the time of the assault to believe her account, which she attributed to the climate of the era.[114] In 1988 she sued Polanski. Among other things, the suit alleged sexual assault, false imprisonment, seduction of a minor, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In 1993 Polanski agreed to settle with Geimer. In August 1996 Polanski still owed her $604,416; Geimer and her lawyers later confirmed that the settlement was completed.[114][115]

On 26 September 2009, Polanski was arrested while in Switzerland at the request of US authorities.[116] The arrest brought renewed attention to the case and stirred controversy, particularly in the US and Europe.[109] Polanski was defended by many prominent individuals, including Hollywood celebrities and European artists and politicians, who called for his release.[117] American public opinion was reported to run against him, however,[118][119] and polls in France and Poland showed strong majorities favored his extradition to the US.[120][121]

Polanski was jailed near Zürich for two months, then put under house arrest at his home in Gstaad while awaiting decision of appeals fighting extradition.[122] On 12 July 2010 the Swiss rejected the US request, declared him a "free man" and released him from custody.[123] Polanski remains the subject of an Interpol red notice issued in 2005 at the request of the United States.[124]

During a television interview on 10 March 2011, Geimer blamed the media, reporters, the court, and the judge for causing "way more damage to [her] and her family than anything Roman Polanski has ever done," and stated that the judge was using her and a noted celebrity for his own personal gain from the media exposure


A little more nuanced a case and not a decision based on a basic like DJ.

 

[Bill Williams]

-

The biggest problem with these cases are the confessions. They are the back up evidence that never goes away. No matter how much you prove the other stuff wrong, that is what everyone then turns to as proof positive she did it. Why would you lie? Why would you accuse other people wrongfully if you're not the murderer? The hypocrisy of believing only half her lie as a lie will never dawn on them.

Most of the false confession cases I've studied are filled with stories of promises to stop if you they confess. Some people can't handle that kind of stress and will do anything to make it stop. Especially, if you are really innocent and and believe authority is always right. Amanda even said something similar after her release (I think) that she understood why the prosecution did what it had done to her.

That confession will haunt her forever.

Her and Raffaele.

I wonder how history will treat them? I think now, that's the only question really left to ask,

d

-

The trouble is, without the video or transcript of the interrogation, they cannot be regarded, really, as confessions.

First is the self-confessed role of Anna Donnini, who said she acted as a mediator, because on her arrival the interrogation was in chaos. And why not - Ficarra spoke no English, Knox spoke broken Italian.

What Knox needed was both a translator AND lawyer, so that she could understand that her confused, exhausted imaginings could be used against her.

Key is that nothing she "confessed" to was true. Guilters see that as cunning... really? In truth the whole session is a classic episode of false confession.... what Knox confessed to was being confused and not knowing.

Then the typed something up in perfect Italian legalese and she signed it. If she'd had a lawyer, the lawyer would never have allowed that, which was the point of depriving her of one.

 

[AmyStrange]

Likewise but you were the one that had the Supreme Court of the United States of America deciding that the extradition treaties and international law regarding the sanctity of sovereigns is null and void.

Well, if you recall I was using it as a barometer as to how high the political and public outcry would be.

It could happen and you know it. ha ha, that's why I love you Grinder, you are definitely a very interesting debater?

Have you ever done debating on a stage, live? Like in High School or College? I've done a little of that and one thing I know is, a good debater can take both sides of a question. I think sometimes in your heart you believe the opposite, but your logical side sees it different and wants to fight about it and you let it.

Deep in your heart of hearts you want to see Amanda fight extradition and win with double jeopardy or anyway she can but your logical side won't let you, especially the double jeopardy part.

But hey, that's just my opinion, I kind of agree with you on, but I like fighting for the underdog, and I like dreaming about proving authority wrong, because sometimes they are.

They don't call Washington State the EverGREEN State for nothing you know, emphasis on the "green" part. Us and Colorado (and anyone else who joins us) are going to prove the US federal government wrong,

d

-

 

[Grinder]

-

The biggest problem with these cases are the confessions. They are the back up evidence that never goes away. No matter how much you prove the other stuff wrong, that is what everyone then turns to as proof positive she did it. Why would you lie? Why would you accuse other people wrongfully if you're not the murderer? The hypocrisy of believing only half her lie as a lie will never dawn on them.

Totally agree and think that going after them as GB did was the most important single point to fight.

I would have tried to get De Felice on the stand to explain what he meant by the famous 'she told us what we knew to be correct after we mad eher buckle' ? I would have spent about 25% of my effort on that. I would have given a lot of effort to showing that the evidence was only compatible and that without the prior assumption of guilt that evidence isn't evidence at all. I would have shown the video of rock climber.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

The trouble is, without the video or transcript of the interrogation, they cannot be regarded, really, as confessions.

First is the self-confessed role of Anna Donnini, who said she acted as a mediator, because on her arrival the interrogation was in chaos. And why not - Ficarra spoke no English, Knox spoke broken Italian.

What Knox needed was both a translator AND lawyer, so that she could understand that her confused, exhausted imaginings could be used against her.

Key is that nothing she "confessed" to was true. Guilters see that as cunning... really? In truth the whole session is a classic episode of false confession.... what Knox confessed to was being confused and not knowing.

Then the typed something up in perfect Italian legalese and she signed it. If she'd had a lawyer, the lawyer would never have allowed that, which was the point of depriving her of one.

-

True Bill, but none of that will matter to the public which is why she will be hated forever and Raffaele will be thought of as a lap dog.

Hopefully, history will not reflect that, but history is a fickle...

d

-