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

[Diocletus]

Nencini it seems is saying the motive is that they had nothing better to do. The question about Raffaelel's statements is addressed as well with the judge saying he has never been questioned and even his statements in front of Matteini are not usable.

http://goo.gl/e35HfV

Wait. What happened to the sex and poop motives? Now the motive is the absence of preferrable activities . . . for example watching movies, having sex, eating dinner and smoking joints?

 

[Diocletus]

Nencini it seems is saying the motive is that they had nothing better to do. The question about Raffaelel's statements is addressed as well with the judge saying he has never been questioned and even his statements in front of Matteini are not usable.

http://goo.gl/e35HfV

I'm more interested in the motive for the crime that nencini just committed.

 

[RoseMontague]

Almost 150 people world-wide want Killer Knox safeguarded from serving her 28.5 year sentence.

I think you're having a premature expectation.

There are several petitions and letter/e-mail campaigns going on, one with 800+ signatures already. These will continue to increase, most are just getting started the day after the verdict.

 

[RoseMontague]

Bearing in mind the ECHR is quite capable of overturning this entire farce solely because of the deprivation of this one right, this question has profound importance. I would even suggest that, if he pretends to intellectual honesty, Mach should support the inevitable ECHR appeal even if he retains his irrational belief in guilt since a decent, intelligent, civilised person should be able to see that everybody, guilty and innocent alike, is entitled to a fair trial.

* to save time, my answer to this question is:

- to ascertain brief particulars of the offence of which my client is suspected and, if possible, gain some idea of the supporting evidence
- to take instructions (i.e. get the client's story)
- to explain to the client the nature of their situation
- to explain the client's rights, including the right to silence and the desirability (or otherwise) of exercising it
- to witness the interrogation
- to guide the client during the interrogation
- to ensure fair play and/or record and react to foul play
- to ascertain the intentions of the police after the interview
- to explain the further course of proceedings to the client, especially if detained
- to obtain contact details of friends and family to alert them to the client's status, if detained
- to maintain a record of all of the above and be ready to testify if necessary.

I am sure Mach will give his standard response that Amanda had not been "officially" named a suspect, even at the point where they come from Raffaele and tell her that the alibi no longer holds water.

I think the ECHR will have no problem seeing that she was indeed a suspect at this point despite the tap-dance the Italian cops allow themselves to entrap people.

Good questions.

 

[RoseMontague]

I'm more interested in the motive for the crime that nencini just committed.

I do recall some saying that Hellmann speaking out in the media after his ruling was illegal. I will have to check on that. Perhaps it is only wrong if you found them innocent under Italian law.

 

[Diocletus]

But, under the treaty, from which I listed extracts yesterday, extradition is a question for the executive. Apart from the legal controversy about which Diocletus posted yesterday, which only concerned bail, the court is not involved.

I suppose the all-embracing habeus petition can be lobbed into the works at any time after she is taken into custody. Any idea?

You Brits are always trying to disregard the constitution.

Anyway, this treaty, together with a number of other treaties with EC members, does appear to omit reference to some traditional extradition practices, but I have serious doubt that the US government has unfettered power to snatch citizens off the street at the whim of some foreign government. I think that there was an assumption that the traditional practice was not as important, because there was an assumption that these EC members would be acting in accordance with the standards set forth in, e.g., the ECHR, which Italy clearly has not done here.

If I were the US executive, I would be pushing hard behind the scenes to have the ECHR pick this case up so that I could maybe avoid having to deal with this whole mess and/or to give me some cover if I do decide to extradite.

 

[RoseMontague]

Good to see Mach flip-flop back to Migi's opinion that Curatolo is full circle stop reliable. He does provide them something of an alibi if his testimony is to be believed at all. He has them at the basketball court from 9:25/26 continuously until shortly before midnight. Despite the lie of the fake pro-guilt wiki that he says he saw them leave and come back, using his court testimony as a cite for this claim, despite the fact that he does not say that in the testimony they link to.

 

[Kaosium]

Nencini it seems is saying the motive is that they had nothing better to do. The question about Raffaelel's statements is addressed as well with the judge saying he has never been questioned and even his statements in front of Matteini are not usable.

http://goo.gl/e35HfV

"The motive is a problem that will face the judgment. In general, when an act of violence is born within a criminal organization, it's easy. Here was born and matured in an evening with the boys. There is a prevailing motive that might be inferred from the context. Up to 8 and a quarter of the evening of November 1, Amanda had to go to work at the pub Lumumba, Raffaele and had to go to the station to take the suitcase from a friend. Then the situation changed. The episode was born in a night that no one had to do. "

So six days after they met, having gotten the night off unexpectedly they watched the rest of their chick flick, put on a cartoon, and went out into the night for no definable reason. They somehow ran into Rudy Guede who Raffaele had never seen before and Amanda had barely met to murder someone because they were bored.

From Mark Olshaker on John Douglas' site:

"Now is the time to tell it like it is, straight and unvarnished by niceties: The conviction of Amanda and Raffaele at their retrial in Florence is a scandalous corruption of justice that should wrap the Italian nation in shame.
This decision, overturning Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann’s meticulously considered and reasoned appeals court decision, has nothing to do with logic or evidence. It has nothing to do with jurisprudence or due process. It is only about covering mistakes, saving face and desperately attempting to salvage the prestige of the various officials who have perpetrated this travesty. It is about maintaining the fiction of a story that is far more enthralling and titillating than what really happened. And if you read the pronouncement of the Supreme Court of Cassation in Rome that ordered the retrial, it is essentially a roadmap to re-conviction, devoid of all facts and logic.

It is no surprise that Italy, far and away, has the most overruled supreme court in the European Union. This process was a farce, and the verdict is a disgrace. The facts show that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, and Guede committed the murder on his own. The truth will not change, and the authorities will never salvage their credibility by denying it."

 

[Wildhorses]

"if Amanda had gone to work, probably the murder would never have happened"

-- Alessandro Nencini

Makes my head explode.

Yeah, yeah, American babes: give 'em fifteen idle minutes and they murder someone.

 

[RoseMontague]

Original charges were
A. Murder
B. Transporting a large knife
C. Sexual assault
D. Theft of money, credit cards, and cell phones
E. Staging a burglary
F. (Amanda only) Accusation of Patrick

 

[Diocletus]

As I mentioned yesterday Amanda's book is continuing to rise. Here are the rankings for the eBook...


Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #313 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#3 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Biographies & Memoirs > Specific Groups > Women
#4 in Books > Biographies & Memoirs > Specific Groups > Women
#7 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Biographies & Memoirs > Memoirs

Don't mention this, Rose. There are guilters here and they might have a stroke. On the other hand, now that Amanda is convicted by nencini, maybe the Kerchers will snatch up all of the book royalties, so maybe guilters will feel ok buying the book, since it's really just the same as making a contribution in memory of Meredith.

 

[syllogism]

ECHR can not overturn convictions, so even if they pickup the case and find that there was a violation of e.g. the right to fair trial, the national court's decision would still stand. Obviously such judgement could, however, be used to justify refusal to extradite.

 

[anglolawyer]

You Brits are always trying to disregard the constitution.

Anyway, this treaty, together with a number of other treaties with EC members, does appear to omit reference to some traditional extradition practices, but I have serious doubt that the US government has unfettered power to snatch citizens off the street at the whim of some foreign government. I think that there was an assumption that the traditional practice was not as important, because there was an assumption that these EC members would be acting in accordance with the standards set forth in, e.g., the ECHR, which Italy clearly has not done here.

If I were the US executive, I would be pushing hard behind the scenes to have the ECHR pick this case up so that I could maybe avoid having to deal with this whole mess and/or to give me some cover if I do decide to extradite.

It would be good, and pretty easy to bring about, if she had a live ECHR appeal in progress at the time of any extradition request. Then the US might simply defer any decision pending the outcome. The treaty does not impose a time limit for dealing with a request.

 

[anglolawyer]

ECHR can not overturn convictions, so even if they pickup the case and find that there was a violation of e.g. the right to fair trial, the national court's decision would still stand. Obviously such judgement could, however, be used to justify refusal to extradite.

Not directly, true, but the parties to the treaty have agreed to give effect to decisions of the ECHR. A ruling that the process had infringed the fundamental right to a fair trial would effectively undermine the challenged conviction and require the defaulting to state to release, retry and/or compensate the individual.

 

[Diocletus]

It would be good, and pretty easy to bring about, if she had a live ECHR appeal in progress at the time of any extradition request. Then the US might simply defer any decision pending the outcome. The treaty does not impose a time limit for dealing with a request.

If there's one thing our executive branch is good at, it's delay.

 

[anglolawyer]

I am sure Mach will give his standard response that Amanda had not been "officially" named a suspect, even at the point where they come from Raffaele and tell her that the alibi no longer holds water.

I think the ECHR will have no problem seeing that she was indeed a suspect at this point despite the tap-dance the Italian cops allow themselves to entrap people.

Good questions.

I covered this in my post, in the part you did not quote. I asked for an explanation that might make sense to a non-fascist. I see you are suggesting Mach's standard rebuttal (which you correctly frame) might not pass muster with the ECHR. What an interesting thought! It would be really funny if Italy's case is that although they knew she did it they hadn't formally classified her a suspect by signing the right piece of paper and were thus entitled to scream at her throughout the night.

The problem for Italy and the one that brought Mach to make his stunning admission (received with amusing incredulity at the loony sites, where it was thought that I had said it rather than their hero) is that the guilters attach weight to all the suspicious things they did on and around the 1st and 2nd - weird behaviour, mops, phone calls, etc - and these force them into an impossible conflict. If these things are so suspicious, how could they not be suspects? There is no solution to this puzzle.

 

[Diocletus]

Not directly, true, but the parties to the treaty have agreed to give effect to decisions of the ECHR. A ruling that the process had infringed the fundamental right to a fair trial would effectively undermine the challenged conviction and require the defaulting to state to release, retry and/or compensate the individual.

As I think this through, it occurs to me that a primary US assumption in entering into this group of EC extradition treaties is likely that the ECHR and ECtHR is an effective structure for assuring basic rights of US citizens, if not at the individual state level, then at the supranational level.

Let's see what Europe's got.

 

[LondonJohn]

So six days after they met, having gotten the night off unexpectedly they watched the rest of their chick flick, put on a cartoon, and went out into the night for no definable reason. They somehow ran into Rudy Guede who Raffaele had never seen before and Amanda had barely met to murder someone because they were bored.

From Mark Olshaker on John Douglas' site:

"Now is the time to tell it like it is, straight and unvarnished by niceties: The conviction of Amanda and Raffaele at their retrial in Florence is a scandalous corruption of justice that should wrap the Italian nation in shame.
This decision, overturning Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann’s meticulously considered and reasoned appeals court decision, has nothing to do with logic or evidence. It has nothing to do with jurisprudence or due process. It is only about covering mistakes, saving face and desperately attempting to salvage the prestige of the various officials who have perpetrated this travesty. It is about maintaining the fiction of a story that is far more enthralling and titillating than what really happened. And if you read the pronouncement of the Supreme Court of Cassation in Rome that ordered the retrial, it is essentially a roadmap to re-conviction, devoid of all facts and logic.

It is no surprise that Italy, far and away, has the most overruled supreme court in the European Union. This process was a farce, and the verdict is a disgrace. The facts show that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, and Guede committed the murder on his own. The truth will not change, and the authorities will never salvage their credibility by denying it."

Olshaker's comments pretty much exactly mirror my own thoughts.

I would add that, even though Knox and Sollecito should clearly have been acquitted based on the prosecution and defence cases as presented, I think that the defence lawyers made it far easier for the wrongful convictions to happen. I think the defence teams were extremely poor - and I think that most of the damage was done in the first (Massei) trial. I think the defence teams were always fighting an uphill battle once they had performed so dreadfully in the trial that mattered the most - the Massei trial that imposed the original convictions.

I also think that Knox and Sollecito themselves did various things that did neither of them any favours. I think that some of their words, actions and choices were poor and ill-advised. I think that they should essentially have remained silent and under the radar pending the culmination of the judicial process, and that instead they should have issued statements (including attacking the prosecution case) through their lawyers only. I think that this was yet another failing on the part of their lawyers. I wonder if Knox and Sollecito (and their families) had lost faith in their lawyers outside the courtroom, and therefore felt justified in taking matters into their own hands?

But I reiterate that even in spite of these (in my opinion) mistakes and poor performances from the defence lawyers and the defendants, there should never have been convictions.

 

[LondonJohn]

It would be good, and pretty easy to bring about, if she had a live ECHR appeal in progress at the time of any extradition request. Then the US might simply defer any decision pending the outcome. The treaty does not impose a time limit for dealing with a request.

I think it's almost inevitable that Knox will have ECHR applications pending at the time of any potential extradition hearings.

To me, therefore, the issue of what (if any) effect pending ECHR applications might have on the granting of extradition will be absolutely central. Personally, I don't believe that pending ECHR applications would constitute sufficient grounds to refuse extradition in and of themselves. However, if the US Justice Dept examines the case and decides for itself that there's prima facie evidence of a breach of Knox's human rights, then that might be the swaying factor.

 

[Diocletus]

I think it's almost inevitable that Knox will have ECHR applications pending at the time of any potential extradition hearings.

To me, therefore, the issue of what (if any) effect pending ECHR applications might have on the granting of extradition will be absolutely central. Personally, I don't believe that pending ECHR applications would constitute sufficient grounds to refuse extradition in and of themselves. However, if the US Justice Dept examines the case and decides for itself that there's prima facie evidence of a breach of Knox's human rights, then that might be the swaying factor.

A pending ECHR could definitely trigger a hard look and a slow walk at any of several different junctures in the extradition process.

On the other hand, Technically, I'm not sure that even a ruling against Italy by the echr would require a denial of an extradition request, but boy oh boy would that present an interesting issue.