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

[GreyFox]

Did the Court examine the endless stomach arguments promulgated in prolific rambling diatribes here ??

Did the Court ever get a timeline that FOA fanatics incessantly whined about wanting from any poster who had dared dish up doubts about "the Angel's" innocence.

Did the Court overlook the absolute credibility of each of the many varied (and endlessly varying) explanations that Knox and Raffie proffered for their innocence ??

Did the Court pay any heed to the pricey public relations avalanche paid for by FOA ?

As I glance over recent posts here today, the significant silence from all the previously most verbose FOA fanatics seems to say all that needs to be said.

Finally, too bad Raffie's 'hiking trip' to the border of a Country he hope to escape to was interrupted by Police.
And his hope to have a quickie green card marriage was also foiled.
Those efforts also speak volumes, don't they?

Your right ....the court didn't look at any of these key points and that's why the wrongful conviction continues. Most of us in here knew they wouldn't be fair and review these details to determine the truth. Hollow victory for you pilot.
You won a case based on a turd in the toilette . That's your trophy. So take your turd and go.
In the end nothing has changed . Amanda will still get up in her own bed today. Same as yesterday. The killer (Guede) still awaits your help to get him free from prison. I'm sure you'll have success there too.

 

[Matthew Best]

Your humour escapes me.

You think this is a joke? A woman was brutally murdered, you're blaming her for being in the wrong place, and now you think it's funny?

 

[Diocletus]

Bill, did you read my post? The part about the decision to extradite being an executive decision? While that may well be subject to judicial oversight, the grounds available are likely to be very narrowly confined. In order for the judiciary not to be in a position to subvert the executive, or usurp its authority, my guess would be (American jurists please comment) that only if the exercise of the discretion to extradite is unreasonable in a high degree, or affected by fundamental procedural irregularity, or something of that kind, would a court interfere.

In entering into the treaty the US has conferred a priori validity on convictions secured in Italy. The plain words of the treaty require nothing more than the filing of certain documents. On what grounds have such executive decisions been challenged before? Have you any relevant case law you can cite?

If the intention of the treaty was that a probable cause test should apply to requests both of convicted as well as merely suspected persons there would have been no reason not to give discretion to the judiciary, but in case of convicted persons the judiciary has no role and there is no probable cause requirement. It may be case law has placed a gloss on this interpretation but, if so, I don't see it cited in your post.

I am highly suspect that the Constitution would permit the US government to seize, hold and deport a US citizen without probable cause, notwithstanding whatever treaty obligations the US has entered into.

That said, probable cause isn't that hard to establish. Probable cause typically is determined in a probable cause hearing, although it seems that in the case of a foreign conviction, the probable cause requirement is deemed satisfied by the fact of the foreign conviction (which I think is odd and potentially open to Constitutional attack). I believe that there could be special circumstances where the court would have a probable cause hearing even in the case of a foreign conviction, and those circumstances might apply here: politicized process, human rights violations, fraud on the court, fundamental unfairness such that the defendant was "forced" to remain in abstentia during the trial, etc. I think that the US assumes when it enters into extradition treaties that the foreign judicial system is sufficient safeguard against these things, but if they can be shown to have happened to the satisfaction of a US judge, then bets are off.

To me, the key is to at least argue for a probable cause hearing, and I think that in that case the US court will order some discovery. That's where the rubber will hit the road. The worse the foreign process looks to a US judge, the broader the discovery will be, and this case the process will look very, very bad to a US judge. The DNA and the interrogation will likely not be admitted in a US court, and the question will be whether there is sufficient "other" evidence to establish probable cause. I could easily see a judge writing an opinion that throws out the DNA and interrogation, savages the underlying case, but nonetheless says that there is enough for probable cause. This opinion would be subject to Habeaus Corpus review and discretionary appeal to the US Supreme Court.

The point of all of the above is not really whether probable cause would be found, but rather, what the "record" would look like when the papers get to the State Department. The record could be very, very bad for Italy, and if I were Knox's lawyer I would be doing everything I can to put the Italian process on trial in the context of the extradition process. Not to mention, by that time, we could have some sort of ECHR ruling on the calunnia, which, if negative for Italy, would be a very serious consideration, maybe determinative, for both the court and the State Department, since it is obvious that the calunnia conviction has been used to pull the murder conviction up by the bootstraps.

There is another factor here that must be considered. There is a US Senator, who it appears to me, is going to go to bat for Knox. That's a big deal, and I have no doubt that that would be very, very significant to the Secretary of State's decision, and may even play into any court proceedings.

 

[Welshman]

Since the verdict the haters have been crawling out of the wood work and gloating about the guilty verdict. There is a question I would like to ask the haters. If the prosecution had a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele, how do you explain the massive level of misconduct which ocurred in this case? If the prosecution had a mountain of solid irrefutable evidence and a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele, why did the the prosecution have to resort to supressing evidence and lying? In addition, the prosecution had an entire year to prepare their case. If the prosecution had a strong case, why is it that with all the time available to prepare their case a knife which did not match the wounds was the best evidence the prosecution could come up with.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Maybe I am missing something

After *full* legal process, just verdict and a reasonable sentence was rendered

Are you now suggesting that all law abiding citizens throughout the world should now rejoice with you about extradition technicalities ??
Rejoice that a twice convicted murderess will possibly escape the reasonable jail term that she was rightfully sentenced to ??
Rejoice that a drug addled spoiled brat goes unpunished for horrendously murdering Meredith Kercher?

Really ??

Hey Pilot, perhaps you can do something for me that I have been asking for from people since I started looking at this case, and have never received to this date.

Provide a list of scientifically sound evidence that shows that AK and RS were involved. Give a time line that explains all of the evidence in a logical manner. Use that time line to construct a narrative that makes sense. Since you are of the belief that they are clearly guilty and there is a heap of evidence, this should be totally and absolutely easy for you.

 

[Caper]

BTW..., this topic needs it's own subform. This is far to confusing a thread. Newbies don't stand a chance.

 

[Antony]

An African-American man I know made the following observation:

The Amanda Knox case marks the only time in history white police officers caught a drug-dealing, working-class, low-life black man with a criminal record and charged him with committing rape, robbery and murder...before deciding "Nah. He did it?! Come on now. Not buying it. Let's railroad two middle-class, educated and attractive young white people for what he did and let him off easy!"

Usually when you hear a story of a grave miscarriage of justice and de facto public lynching, the races are reversed in the above scenario.

That's a fair comment to make, provided it doesn't blind anyone to the solid proof that this is indeed what has happened in this case. It's a huge irony, but in itself no key to understanding what's been going on.

 

[anglolawyer]

I am highly suspect that the Constitution would permit the US government to seize, hold and deport a US citizen without probable cause, notwithstanding whatever treaty obligations the US has entered into.

That said, probable cause isn't that hard to establish. Probable cause typically is determined in a probable cause hearing, although it seems that in the case of a foreign conviction, the probable cause requirement is deemed satisfied by the fact of the foreign conviction (which I think is odd and potentially open to Constitutional attack). I believe that there could be special circumstances where the court would have a probable cause hearing even in the case of a foreign conviction, and those circumstances might apply here: politicized process, human rights violations, fraud on the court, fundamental unfairness such that the defendant was "forced" to remain in abstentia during the trial, etc. I think that the US assumes when it enters into extradition treaties that the foreign judicial system is sufficient safeguard against these things, but if they can be shown to have happened to the satisfaction of a US judge, then bets are off.

To me, the key is to at least argue for a probable cause hearing, and I think that in that case the US court will order some discovery. That's where the rubber will hit the road. The worse the foreign process looks to a US judge, the broader the discovery will be, and this case the process will look very, very bad to a US judge. The DNA and the interrogation will likely not be admitted in a US court, and the question will be whether there is sufficient "other" evidence to establish probable cause. I could easily see a judge writing an opinion that throws out the DNA and interrogation, savages the underlying case, but nonetheless says that there is enough for probable cause. This opinion would be subject to Habeaus Corpus review and discretionary appeal to the US Supreme Court.

The point of all of the above is not really whether probable cause would be found, but rather, what the "record" would look like when the papers get to the State Department. The record could be very, very bad for Italy, and if I were Knox's lawyer I would be doing everything I can to put the Italian process on trial in the context of the extradition process. Not to mention, by that time, we could have some sort of ECHR ruling on the calunnia, which, if negative for Italy, would be a very serious consideration, maybe determinative, for both the court and the State Department, since it is obvious that the calunnia conviction has been used to pull the urder conviction up by the bootstraps.

There is another factor here that must be considered. There is a US Senator, who it appears to me, is going to go to bat for Knox. That's a big deal, and I have no doubt that that would be very, very significant to the Secretary of State's decision, and may even play into any court proceedings.

Thanks Diocletus

The thing is that the text of the treaty expressly requires probable cause to be shown to a judge where there has been no conviction but just the filing of papers with the executive where there has been one. Just looking at the text of the treaty, I am not encouraged. Is there any relevant case law out there?

I wonder what a thoroughgoing discovery process might look like. Let's look at the treaty again. This is article X 2:



Pretty straightforward. Then there is article X 3(b) which applies to a person who has not been convicted:



Again, pretty clear. That paragraph does not apply to convicted persons. The parties to the treaty (which applies equally in both directions) must have decided to recognise each other's convictions as sound without the need for enquiry, as is probably the case between individual US states and between the US and other countries too. So have you got anything more than faith in American justice to go on? Because, on the face of it, it looks to me as though it's just a matter of filing the right papers and not much at that.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I can answer this as I have lived in many countries in Africa and Asia and have observed broken police and legal systems. Raffaele has been falsely convicted for a crime he did not commit in a legal system that disregards basic legal rights. The Italians just put up a better facade than I saw in places like Congo and China. Raffaele will suffer like millions of others in societies with corrupt legal systems.

• Withholding or destruction of exculpatory evidence (computers, video from store, pillowcase).
• Mishandling/damage of evidence (bra clasp).
• False analysis of evidence (footprint, shoeprint, knife, bra clasp, knife stain on bed sheet! Parking lot video times, cell phone connection times and locations).
• Physical threats and striking in police interrogation.
• Denial of access to an attorney.
• Detention in solitary for 6 months before being formally charged with a crime.
• False testimony by police (stefanoni, Biondo) in court.
• Police and prosecutor attempt to falsify court record.
• Right to an honest translator in police interrogation.
• and more.

Okay far enough. Do you believe either defence teams really pushed any of the points you raised above?

Do you agree with LondonJohn that the defence team underperformed.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the CSC motivations report is the key

CoulsdonUK,

I am not as sure as LondonJohn is that the defense underperformed. But the question is moot; the Court of Supreme Cassation made it painfully clear in their motivations report that they expected a conviction. A decision to acquit would have been a snub to the CSC. There was simply no way to win this case without directly addressing all the ways in the which the CSC was wrong.

 

[Poppy1016]

I thought the comment was clearly pointing out that like the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese, which was a military blunder of disastrous consequence for Japan, the verdict today is seen as a victory for the Italians but will end up quite differently after Mignini presents his case to an American court and ends up swimming back to Italy holding his briefcase in his teeth, hopefully staying in front of some pursuing great whites just long enough for a photo-op before they catch him.

Please explain why that analogy is "disgusting" as Tofufighter depicted above. Perhaps I jumped when I shouldn't have, but I thought the comment was with regard to his having the audacity to mention the Japanese, and my point was there is plenty more to talk about.

My comment about"waking the sleeping giant" was certainly not to imply that we should go to war with Italy. It was meant to remind people that when Americans are wronged, they usually rise up with a strong and effective response.

 

[lionking]

Since the verdict the haters have been crawling out of the wood work and gloating about the guilty verdict. There is a question I would like to ask the haters. If the prosecution had a strong case against Amanda and Raffaele, how do you explain the massive level of misconduct which ocurred in this case? If the prosecution had a mountain of solid irrefutable evidence and a slam dunk case against Amanda and Raffaele, why did the the prosecution have to resort to supressing evidence and lying? In addition, the prosecution had an entire year to prepare their case. If the prosecution had a strong case, why is it that with all the time available to prepare their case a knife which did not match the wounds was the best evidence the prosecution could come up with.

And I'd like to ask you why the "slam dunk" evidence about time of death repeated in this thread ad infinititum didn't feature in the defence's case?

Perhaps the case for innocence isn't as strong as you think.

 

[JREF2010]

Yet another non-story. This has been the hallmark of the wrongful conviction - factoids somehow become facts.

Billions to be made from trash media, look at National Enquirer.

Raffaele is screwed, imo. People here can witness injustice of an innocent kid going to prison soon. Its only a TV show to most of us anyway, reality tv show nightmare as Raffaele calls it.

I had a coworker , one of the rare ones who knew I followed this odd case. He said "hey!!! saw your Foxy Knoxy is going to prison! Guilty!"
I thought..."wow?" But then I thought he is probably more inline with the depth of the Judges in the Nencini courtroom. Of all the trials of Massei adn Hellman, Nencini's courtroom had the least evidence to witness and learn. Instead they were given the "fast food" trial, the headlines only you could say.

Did this courtroom really read the Massei report? Did they really understand what DNA RFU charts mean, did they become DNA experts in a few weekends?

 

[Diocletus]

So have you got anything more than faith in American justice to go on? Because, on the face of it, it looks to me as though it's just a matter of filing the right papers and not much at that.

I start here:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

US Constitution, 5th Amendment. I think that the minimum standard for "due process" would be a showing of probable cause.

Can a treaty with Italy, that makes no specific mention of due process in the applicable provision trump this requirement? I think not.

I do believe that when push comes to shove, there is some sort of rebuttable presumption that a foreign conviction is sufficient grounds upon which to premise a finding of probable cause. I believe that a good argument can be made here that there is no probable cause, at least an argument that is good enough to convince the right judge to open up discovery.

Again, I think that the ultimate goal would not be to refute probable cause, but rather, to create a record that is politically destructive towards Italy. In my view, a stupid place for Italy to put itself and one that I'm sure the US doesn't want to have to deal with.

 

[bolint]

In any event, the "Raffaele fleeing" story is not what it seems. He made no attempt to flee the country. The police needed to find him to endorse his passport according to law as well as EU documents. Raffaele cooperated with that process and did not try to hamper or evade police.

After a lunch in Venice their car (actually her girlfriend's father's car) was seen at about 15:00 going north towards Austria. Later he said that they did leave Italy.
It seems that it was before the verdict. The announcement was delayed for 5 hours and they spent all this time in Austria. Then they came back.
Was it a night visit of a skiing resort?

 

[anglolawyer]

And I'd like to ask you why the "slam dunk" evidence about time of death repeated in this thread ad infinititum didn't feature in the defence's case?

Perhaps the case for innocence isn't as strong as you think.

There could be a lot of reasons. One is money (the lack thereof) another is mis-judgment and yet another is bad strategy. The point is not necessarily bad just because the defence teams did not major on it.

 

[GWCarver]

My comment about"waking the sleeping giant" was certainly not to imply that we should go to war with Italy. It was meant to remind people that when Americans are wronged, they usually rise up with a strong and effective response.

Yeah, I know. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[Dan O.]

Perhaps the case for innocence isn't as strong as you think.

What is the case for guilt lionking?

 

[anglolawyer]

I start here:



US Constitution, 5th Amendment. I think that the minimum standard for "due process" would be a showing of probable cause.

Can a treaty with Italy, that makes no specific mention of due process in the applicable provision trump this requirement? I think not.

I do believe that when push comes to shove, there is some sort of rebuttable presumption that a foreign conviction is sufficient grounds upon which to premise a finding of probable cause. I believe that a good argument can be made here that there is no probable cause, at least an argument that is good enough to convince the right judge to open up discovery.
Again, I think that the ultimate goal would not be to refute probable cause, but rather, to create a record that is politically destructive towards Italy. In my view, a stupid place for Italy to put itself and one that I'm sure the US doesn't want to have to deal with.

Hmm. No case law?

I don't get the highlighted paragraph. Say Italy submits the right paperwork to the executive, none of which concerning the merits of the case, but just formal certificates of conviction, documents identifying the person subject to the request etc. In what forum is the question of probable cause open to challenge and under what provision of the treaty can Italy be required to act as though she were not a convicted person? Also, does the constitution not provide the executive with sovereign power to override or modify provisions like the 5th amendment? Your rebuttable presumption suggests it might. Has the relevant part of this treaty or any similar treaty been challenged? If so, with what result?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

I am not as sure as LondonJohn is that the defense underperformed. But the question is moot; the Court of Supreme Cassation made it painfully clear in their motivations report that they expected a conviction. A decision to acquit would have been a snub to the CSC. There was simply no way to win this case without directly addressing all the ways in the which the CSC was wrong.

Chris

I guess given yesterday’s verdict, it is moot. However, I don’t understand why either defence teams didn’t go out with all guns blazing, maybe as you and others said last year they already knew the outcome, yet all defence lawyers stated they were going to appeal yesterday’s verdict.