• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Any judge of general jurisdiction of any State may issue the warrant and hear the evidence of criminality.

Such a judge would be found at 516 3rd Ave, Seattle, WA in the King County Courthouse.
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.
Some "E" getting inserted into the JREF, even in a Foxy Knoxy thread! Many thanks.
Funny how when she was acquitted we hear that the process is not completed. Verdict not final. Best 3 out of 5 scenario.

Now she's back to being a convicted murderer. Wanna go 4 out of 7 ?
Just FYI, here in the US there are often multiple layers of appeal, so I'll suggest we are not all that different.
Politics in America arent the same as the Biased Italian court system.
Heh, politics in America are filthy.
The Italian justice system was designed to uphold an authoritarian regime. ... snip ...

Perhaps someday the Italian justice system will change to fit Italy's status as a modern industrialized democracy. But as of today they are far from that standard.
kestrel, can you elaborate on that point? What's behind it, stuff having nothing to do with the Knox/Kercher/Scollito/Guede case?
Hellman says they violated the law.
Interesting read, thanks.
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?
Well, there's always a first time, but supporting that assertion (bolded) would seem to me to fit under the theme of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
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."
P.S. I think it's reasonable to assume the word accomplices should be substituted for competitors.
That's the part that has always puzzled me: the impression that the two trials were not better linked ... given that it was the same murder. However, as I am not deeply familiar with Italian law, I can see any number of ways that various defendants might be advised by counsel to seek a separate trial in a related case ...
 
Last edited:
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.

The theory that Amanda and Raffaele were doomed because of the SC decision in the Guede case (multiple attackers) has been around for years, and probably came from Machiavelli.

Perhaps I need to apologize to him for thinking this was nonsense the entire time. I don't recall if I actually articulated it, but I don't think any of the PIP thought it was possible to find people guilty in a trial in which they weren't on trial or even represented. My take on this is essentially it puts the burden of proof on Amanda and Raffaele to prove they weren't the other attackers who were declared to exist by the ISC.
 
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

I don't think their request alone would trigger it.

Here is process.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/15mcrm.htm#9-15.700

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.
(As I understand it Coulsdon, The US Attorney will automatically oppose bond, which means that Amanda would be held until the decision is made (...if the US attorney gets his way with the judge.) I don't know if the judge can tell the government no and release Amanda on bail.

A hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3184 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.
612

Role of the Department of State in Foreign Extradition Requests

All extradition treaties currently in force require foreign requests for extradition to be submitted through diplomatic channels, usually from the country's embassy in Washington to the Department of State. Many treaties also require that requests for provisional arrest be submitted through diplomatic channels, although some permit provisional arrest requests to be sent directly to the Department of Justice. The Department of State reviews foreign extradition demands to identify any potential foreign policy problems and to ensure that there is a treaty in force between the United States and the country making the request, that the crime or crimes are extraditable offenses, and that the supporting documents are properly certified in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3190. If the request is in proper order, an attorney in the State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser prepares a certificate attesting to the existence of the treaty, etc., and forwards it with the original request to the Office of International Affairs.
[cited in USAM 9-15.700]
 
Last edited:
.....
why didn’t either defence team use or follow up on any of the information freely available in various sites?

A lot of commenters have said a lot about that. Some people seem to think that the lawyers were not well-experienced criminal attorneys, some seem to think that the lawyers thought the prosecution case was so weak that an aggressive defense wasn't necessary and might even offend the judges, and some seem to think that a guilty verdict was a foregone conclusion, and they expected to win on appeal (as they did, once). Any lawyers care to comment?
 
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.

You translated that incorrectly. It says they could have said there were 2 other defendants, but they didn't think that was the truth. I've been working on translating this interview today.
 
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?

It isn't just the arrest warrant. It is the extradition hearing. According to the law any judge of record can hear the extradition part and make an order. If that reading of the actual law is correct then a King County Superior Judge could theoretically hear the case.

I'm basing my opinion on reading the referenced law. It could be the case that the feds never let that happen.

I would be pleased to have a legal beagle make a comment.
 
Why? You seem to believe that it is ok for a 60 year old to have sex with an 11 year old and not serve time for it. Seems like an apologist to me.

What does it matter who or what he is? He is anonymous.

The relevant point is that that Italian Supreme Court is made up of child-rape apologists, degenerates who think it's understandable and acceptable for a 60-year-old man to gratify his lust with a pre-teen girl.

Which at this point does not surprise me in the least. It goes hand-in-hand with their disgraceful stance on the Kercher murder and the fact that their "honorary president" is a full-bore 9-11 truther. Andrea Vogt can screech about brave magistrates risking their lives against the mafia, but the facts speak for themselves. The Italian justice system is a refuge for fanatics, and it is a cesspool of depravity.
 
You translated that incorrectly. It says they could have said there were 2 other defendants, but they didn't think that was the truth. I've been working on translating this interview today.

If you don't mind, would you elaborate on the difference between the quote highlighted in yellow and your correction? The only difference I see is the former includes "motivating convincingly", but I don't know what that means.
 
This is my really loose/work-in-progress translation of parts of the interview which I have done so far. It takes me a long time to investigate the various uses of each word to figure out the probable context. It is not official, nor even close to correct, probably. Add it to Google translate and you might be able to figure out what he said!

“I feel myself freed because the moment of the decision is most difficult. I also have children and to inflict sentences from 25 and 28 years to two young people is one with much emotional difficulty.” To the 10 of the day after the judge Alexander Nencini it is in its office. The president of the Criminal Court of Appeal of Florence, who two evenings ago has declared Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito guilty of the homicide of Meredith Kercher, is aware that “the sentence will open a new debate, above all a media circus.” but just for this ?? to explain how he arrived at the verdict.

You have been twelve hours in Council Chamber, was the college was divided?
“The actions of this process occupy average room, we had 30 reports (findings). The popular judges, than are not assigned to the jobs, had to understand the issues in order to arrive at a shared decision, like must be that one of one Court of assizes. We must examine documents, and discuss reasonings. We took all the time necessary time holding account that also the victim was one girl.”

Was it unanimous?
“I have spoken about shared decision. I can say that in all these months and in particular at the moment of the decision we have perceived the gravity of a sentence that involved young persons and entire families. This is a vicissitude that has twisted many vines.”

You had a narrow path, Cassation put pressure “to place remedy” regarding the sentence of second degree that to Perugia had acquitted the two of the charges.
“It is not therefore, we had maximum [conformity to standards]. The obligation was only that in case of acquittal, we would have had to motivate in logical way. There were not any limits.”

Not even regarding the sentence emitted in the trial of Rudy Guede?
“Effectively the particularity of the process was just this: one person was already condemned with a fast-track trial and in a definitive way for participation in the same homicide. The Cassation asked us to estimate the role of the defendants. We could have said that they were not the two you charged, motivating it in a convincing way. But we did not think this was the truth”.

Why did you decide not to interrogate Guede?

“For what purpose? He has never confessed and even if we had questioned him, he had the right not to say anything. We did not think it necessary. Instead it seemed important to us to analyze other aspects and in fact we have evaluated and listened to the witnesses on which there were doubts. It is the role of the appeal judges. In four months we have succeeded in arriving at a resolution.”
 
If you don't mind, would you elaborate on the difference between the quote highlighted in yellow and your correction? The only difference I see is the former includes "motivating convincingly", but I don't know what that means.

Well, it's just that they didn't mean there was no truth to the 2 defendants part (in his opinion), just that there was no truth to the 2 defendants being people other than RS and AK. Does that make sense? There are so many negatives involved it becomes difficult to explain!
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
If you don't mind, would you elaborate on the difference between the quote highlighted in yellow and your correction? The only difference I see is the former includes "motivating convincingly", but I don't know what that means.

Well, it's just that they didn't mean there was no truth to the 2 defendants part (in his opinion), just that there was no truth to the 2 defendants being people other than RS and AK. Does that make sense? There are so many negatives involved it becomes difficult to explain!

A very different translation of this from Vogt. She's probably correct.
 
Anglo here is the section of the law:

§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
.

The law is the definition of nitpicking. It clearly states that any judge of record may issue the arrest warrant and hear the case. A later sentence says that after the order is issued a writ habeas corpus may be filed. That case goes to a federal district judge.

Tesla first claimed that the fugitive would be taken to the federal courthouse on Stewart and then when it was pointed out that it was the facility at SeaTac he made claim that the building is nondescript, whatever that means. He also said the SeaTac facility is close to Amanda's but as if that's why there instead of the courthouse on Stewart but in reality the Stewart location is closer to her parents' home.

It is certainly possible that local judges never hear these cases, but I would like something more than a statement from someone that actually visited someone that was convicted for doing something to HP.

The law clearly states any judge in a court of record may issue the warrant and hear the case to the end that the evidence of criminality may be heard and considered.
 
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 would like Italy to seek extradition of Knox because I believe it will become a charged issue and public relations disaster for Italy in the US. The news coverage and publicity will inform more Americans of the case. Americans who have not paid much attention or even heard of it will learn of it.

The facts or "factoids" (I put that in for Grinder) that will come to public attention are the sorts of acts that anger the average Joe: physical abuse of a young American in police custody; midnight interrogation; withholding or destruction or tampering of evidence; corrupt police or prosecutor; dishonest political judges; double jeopardy.
 
Well, it's just that they didn't mean there was no truth to the 2 defendants part (in his opinion), just that there was no truth to the 2 defendants being people other than RS and AK. Does that make sense? There are so many negatives involved it becomes difficult to explain!

Yes, that makes sense. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom