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

[lionking]

This is a good point. Having to resort to character assassination rather than on the evidence is a clear sign the case against Amanda was weak.

If you think character assassination is coming from only one side, you haven't been following this thread.

 

[billyryan]

This is from the DM article “But if Italy makes an extradition request, Knox will be forced to remain in SeaTac detention centre, a 10 minutes' drive from her family home in Seattle, while the US government contests it.”
Is the above correct?

If they do arrest her she will become the most famous (and innocent)prisoner in the world,I think her friends in Seattle would gather around the perimeter of the prison and chant "Release Amanda she is innocent"though not what she desires this court decision has made her a star,I believe she can pick and choose what interview to do all networks are queing up to interview her,no coulsonUK the US authorities will never arrest Amanda Knox at the request of a fascist criminal justice system

 

[Welshman]

Do you think one factor which indicated problems with prosecution's case was the fact the prosecution constantly kept changing motives and scenarios and none of the motives stood up to scrutiny. For instance, it was argued Amanda killed Meredith for refusing to take part in group sex. Was it credible a woman who had shown no previous interest in group sex would kill someone for refusing to take part in an orgy.

 

[Grinder]

9-15.700

Foreign Extradition Requests

Foreign requests for extradition of fugitives from the United States are ordinarily submitted by the embassy of the country making the request to the Department of State, which reviews and forwards them to the Criminal Division's Office of International Affairs (OIA). The requests are of two types: formal requisitions supported by all documents required under the applicable treaty, or requests for provisional arrest. (Requests for provisional arrest may be received directly by the Department of Justice if the treaty permits. See USAM 9-15.230 for an explanation of provisional arrest.)
When OIA received a foreign extradition request, in summary, the following occurs:
OIA reviews both types of requests for sufficiency and forwards appropriate ones to the district.
The Assistant United States Attorney assigned to the case obtains a warrant and the fugitive is arrested and brought before the magistrate judge or the district judge.
The government opposes bond in extradition cases.
A hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3184 (Federal law is adjudicated in a Federal courthouse) is scheduled to determine whether the fugitive is extraditable. If the court finds the fugitive to be extraditable, it enters an order of extraditability and certifies the record to the Secretary of State, who decides whether to surrender the fugitive to the requesting government. In some cases a fugitive may waive the hearing process.
OIA notifies the foreign government and arranges for the transfer of the fugitive to the agents appointed by the requesting country to receive him or her. Although the order following the extradition hearing is not appealable (by either the fugitive or the government), the fugitive may petition for a writ of habeas corpus as soon as the order is issued. The district court's decision on the writ is subject to appeal, and the extradition may be stayed if the court so orders.
Satisfied??

No. Here is the Code referred to above:

§3184. Fugitives from foreign country to United States
Whenever there is a treaty or convention for extradition between the United States and any foreign government, or in cases arising under section 3181(b), any justice or judge of the United States, or any magistrate judge authorized so to do by a court of the United States, or any judge of a court of record of general jurisdiction of any State, may, upon complaint made under oath, charging any person found within his jurisdiction, with having committed within the jurisdiction of any such foreign government any of the crimes provided for by such treaty or convention, or provided for under section 3181(b), issue his warrant for the apprehension of the person so charged, that he may be brought before such justice, judge, or magistrate judge, to the end that the evidence of criminality may be heard and considered.​

Notwithstanding the parenthetical remark concerning federal law, to me it is clear that any judge of a court of record may issue the warrant and bring the person before that same judge.

In common law jurisdictions, a court of record is a trial court in which a court clerk or a court reporter takes down a record of proceedings

How do you interpret "court of record" as written in the law? Since the federal judges and authorized magistrates are specifically named in the law, what could a judge of a court of record be except a non federal judge?

 

[Wildhorses]

Google translated snippet of an article Christine posted upthread:

Interviewer: Yours was a narrow path, the Supreme Court was urged to 'remedy' in relation to the judgment of second instance that Perugia had acquitted the two defendants.

Nencini: "Not so, we had maximum accessibility. The only constraint was that in case of acquittal would have to give reasons in a logical manner. There was no stake."

Interviewer: Even with respect to the judgment entered against Rudy Guede?

Nencini: "In fact the peculiarity of the process was this: a person already convicted on summary judgment and a final competition for the same murder. The Supreme Court asked us to evaluate the role of competitors. We could say that there were two defendants, motivating convincingly. But we did not consider this to be the truth."
Is he saying the acquittal of both was impossible? Is he saying the SC ruled that he HAD TO ACCEPT that Guede had at least one accomplice?

I read the highlighted sentence as saying he could have ruled that two people killed Meredith (Guede and one other) -- and implying he could not have considered a scenario in which Guede acted alone.

P.S. I think it's reasonable to assume the word accomplices should be substituted for competitors.

 

[RoseMontague]

This is from the DM article “But if Italy makes an extradition request, Knox will be forced to remain in SeaTac detention centre, a 10 minutes' drive from her family home in Seattle, while the US government contests it.”
Is the above correct?

I don't think this particular media outlet has a very good record when it comes to accurate reporting.

 

[Bob001]

Question: Does citizenship enter into the extradition question? Does U.S. law treat an American citizen differently from,say, an Italian citizen who is present in the U.S. legally? I understand that some countries, including France, Germany and Japan, will not extradite their own citizens to other countries. Could the U.S. make the same distinction? Also, I understand that one of the thorns in the Italians' side is that the U.S. has refused to extradite U.S. soldiers and alleged CIA agents that Italy wants. Could the U.S. refuse to extradite Amanda on whatever grounds apply in those cases? (A blanket policy wouldn't prevent the U.S. from making an exception in exceptional cases. But the policy would be to NOT extradite unless there's a good reason to do so, rather than the other way around.)

 

[Kaosium]

christianahannah,

I cannot find the link so far. The document is definitely not the same as the letters to her lawyers, which make interesting reading in their own right.

Candace Dempsey knows where it is, she quoted from it in "Murder in Italy."

 

[acbytesla]

No. Here is the Code referred to above:

§3184. Fugitives from foreign country to United States
Whenever there is a treaty or convention for extradition between the United States and any foreign government, or in cases arising under section 3181(b), any justice or judge of the United States, or any magistrate judge authorized so to do by a court of the United States, or any judge of a court of record of general jurisdiction of any State, may, upon complaint made under oath, charging any person found within his jurisdiction, with having committed within the jurisdiction of any such foreign government any of the crimes provided for by such treaty or convention, or provided for under section 3181(b), issue his warrant for the apprehension of the person so charged, that he may be brought before such justice, judge, or magistrate judge, to the end that the evidence of criminality may be heard and considered.​

Notwithstanding the parenthetical remark concerning federal law, to me it is clear that any judge of a court of record may issue the warrant and bring the person before that same judge.

In common law jurisdictions, a court of record is a trial court in which a court clerk or a court reporter takes down a record of proceedings

How do you interpret "court of record" as written in the law? Since the federal judges and authorized magistrates are specifically named in the law, what could a judge of a court of record be except a non federal judge?

the fugitive may petition for a writ of habeas corpus as soon as the order is issued. The district court's decision on the writ is subject to appeal, and the extradition may be stayed if the court so orders.

Note that the "District court's decision" in bold.

This is from the United States Attorneys' Manual

 

[Darth Rotor]

Can't you count. This is thread number 8 in the continuing series. Stay tuned for more.

Oops, was I supposed to add one to seven, since continuation implies that the baseline thread was not called "continuation part one" in the title?

Thanks for the correction. (DOH! )
PS:
Not buying that line about ice maiden: young Rafaele would not have been engaging in consensual relations with her, is my guess, if she were this psycho ... wait a sec, she's pretty.

Belay my last.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

This is a good point. Having to resort to character assassination rather than on the evidence is a clear sign the case against Amanda was weak.

With respect, as an individual my ability or inability to argue the points of this case has had no bearing on its passage through the Italian justice system or indeed whether it will end with Italy requesting Amanda’s extradition. There are people who are either better qualified or have devoted a great deal of time going through the minutia of the case, nonetheless a fair question would be; why didn’t either defence team use or follow up on any of the information freely available in various sites?

 

[RoseMontague]

Google translated snippet of an article Christine posted upthread:

Interviewer: Yours was a narrow path, the Supreme Court was urged to 'remedy' in relation to the judgment of second instance that Perugia had acquitted the two defendants.

Nencini: "Not so, we had maximum accessibility. The only constraint was that in case of acquittal would have to give reasons in a logical manner. There was no stake."

Interviewer: Even with respect to the judgment entered against Rudy Guede?

Nencini: "In fact the peculiarity of the process was this: a person already convicted on summary judgment and a final competition for the same murder. The Supreme Court asked us to evaluate the role of competitors. We could say that there were two defendants, motivating convincingly. But we did not consider this to be the truth."
Is he saying the acquittal of both was impossible? Is he saying the SC ruled that he HAD TO ACCEPT that Guede had at least one accomplice?

I read the highlighted sentence as saying he could have ruled that two people killed Meredith (Guede and one other) -- and implying he could not have considered a scenario in which Guede acted alone.

P.S. I think it's reasonable to assume the word accomplices should be substituted for competitors.

My reading of this is that the defense would have had to show that these other attackers were not Amanda and Raffaele, whereas their strategy was to show that Rudy was the lone attacker. Rudy and his lawyers were happy to let the court believe in the multiple attacker theory that the prosecution advanced.

What a system.

 

[acbytesla]

To Grinder. What you are missing is that the moment the extradition request is forwarded to the Office of International Affairs to have an arrest warrant for Amanda Knox. Her attorneys will file a writ of habeas corpus and then the hearing will take place in the US District Court House where ever that writ is issued.

 

[Grinder]

I have read it, but I know as a matter of procedure that it will be turned over to the Feds. That the State and the local municipalities who might arrest Amanda, will still transport her to the holding facility at the Western District Court house and the extradition hearing will take place at the US District (Western) Court, not a State or Municipal court.

I think there are a lot of variables. It starts with the US State Department, then it goes to the The Office of International Affairs. Which then processes the paper work. The Government as a matter of procedure opposes all bond of Foreign extradition. But that doesn't mean that the US District Judge can't award bond and release Amanda.

The Seatac detention center is the local "Federal Detention center" which is fairly close to West Seattle. I've actually been there. I visited a Federal prisoner there once. If she is to be incarcerated while awaiting the result of the appeal hearing, I believe that is the most likely place.

Which one is it? I think you don't know much about this.

 

[anglolawyer]

Grinder & acbytesla

WTF are you two talking about? Just curious. Is it something that actually matters or just which judge gets to deal with issuing a warrant for arrest?

 

[acbytesla]

Oops, was I supposed to add one to seven, since continuation implies that the baseline thread was not called "continuation part one" in the title?

Thanks for the correction. (DOH! )
PS:
Not buying that line about ice maiden: young Rafaele would not have been engaging in consensual relations with her, is my guess, if she were this psycho ... wait a sec, she's pretty.

Belay my last.

So the penis over rides the survival instinct? Is that what you think?

Hey, I'll get involved in a murder to satisfy my lust? And this of course if after a week of having sex? I like Nencini's comment that if Amanda had to work that night the murder wouldn't happen. LMAO. Never mind, that there isn't a single thing to connect Rudy with Amanda or Raffaele.

Never mind that incredibly important fact.

 

[acbytesla]

Which one is it? I think you don't know much about this.

It's in a pretty non-descript bulding Grinder. I've only been there once and that was to visit a friend of mine who was eventually convicted of white collar crime involving a Federal crime for selling counterfeit Hewlett Packard equipment. He actually did a year in prison.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I think there are a lot of variables. It starts with the US State Department, then it goes to the The Office of International Affairs. Which then processes the paper work. The Government as a matter of procedure opposes all bond of Foreign extradition. But that doesn't mean that the US District Judge can't award bond and release Amanda.

The Seatac detention center is the local "Federal Detention center" which is fairly close to West Seattle. I've actually been there. I visited a Federal prisoner there once. If she is to be incarcerated while awaiting the result of the appeal hearing, I believe that is the most likely place.

If they do arrest her she will become the most famous (and innocent)prisoner in the world,I think her friends in Seattle would gather around the perimeter of the prison and chant "Release Amanda she is innocent"though not what she desires this court decision has made her a star,I believe she can pick and choose what interview to do all networks are queing up to interview her,no coulsonUK the US authorities will never arrest Amanda Knox at the request of a fascist criminal justice system

I don't think this particular media outlet has a very good record when it comes to accurate reporting.

I asked whether process as described in the article is accurate, if Italy requested extradition would this trigger Amanda’s detention? I agree given that it is the Daily Mail I assumed it was wrong, maybe someone more in the know could clarify

 

[Grinder]

To Grinder. What you are missing is that the moment the extradition request is forwarded to the Office of International Affairs to have an arrest warrant for Amanda Knox. Her attorneys will file a writ of habeas corpus and then the hearing will take place in the US District Court House where ever that writ is issued.

Well they may it certainly isn't required.

In some cases a fugitive may waive the hearing process.
OIA notifies the foreign government and arranges for the transfer of the fugitive to the agents appointed by the requesting country to receive him or her. Although the order following the extradition hearing is not appealable (by either the fugitive or the government), the fugitive may petition for a writ of habeas corpus as soon as the order is issued. The district court's decision on the writ is subject to appeal, and the extradition may be stayed if the court so orders.​

So after the judge (local or federal) rules on the extradition THEN the fugitive may petition for habeas corpus.

 

[acbytesla]

Grinder & acbytesla

WTF are you two talking about? Just curious. Is it something that actually matters or just which judge gets to deal with issuing a warrant for arrest?

Grinder is nitpicking, trying in his mind expose me as someone who doesn't know what I am talking about. I'm certainly not an expert, but my understanding of this is much different than his.

My point is that I don't think he is wrong legally. But I'm very confident that it doesn't work that way. Pretty much any jurisdiction can arrest Amanda, but they won't oversee the extradition hearing. This will take place in a Federal Court house.