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

Status
Not open for further replies.
anglolawyer said:
Gosh, where to begin demolishing that crap? How about the very end? The feather quilt which was soaked with blood which would not have been the case had hours gone by before it covered her. Rudy's DNA on the handbag? Amanda's and Raffaele's magical evidence-free involvement? Where did Rudy get the knife cuts to his fingers, still evident weeks later? Thank goodness motive is irrelevant. And the pointless hanging around in Piazza and the weird arrival on the scene of Guede. It's madness. Thanks for posting this Samson. They forgot to mention the lamp.
Click to expand...

What amazes me is they want to accept Curatolo as a viable witness, yet they completely contradict the fact he said he saw them until nearly midnight.
 
Poppy1016 said:
What amazes me is they want to accept Curatolo as a viable witness, yet they completely contradict the fact he said he saw them until nearly midnight.
Click to expand...

Grinder has a huge (and justified) beef with this. He observed that Massei used the timing of the departures of the disco buses to 'correct' Toto's end-time from midnight back to 11.30 p.m. and that this correction somehow survived the discovery that there were no disco buses. WTF!

I really should read Curatolo's examination at first instance to see if I agree with the criticisms made here of the defence teams but that this witness ever gained a moment's credibility is truly amazing to me. Demolishing him ought to have been easy.
 
Slide1.jpg

This is a first draft at an attempt to make the timeline of undisputed facts visible. Should be self-explanatory . . . I took the times from the PMF translation of Massei and from Dan O's long-ago timeline over at IIP.
 
kwill said:
View attachment 30314

This is a first draft at an attempt to make the timeline of undisputed facts visible. Should be self-explanatory . . . I took the times from the PMF translation of Massei and from Dan O's long-ago timeline over at IIP.
Click to expand...

That's a nice, clear graphic, Kwill. A tiny suggestion - make the lines that divide the hours fainter, or dotted, so as to make the event lines stand out more. This kind of visual aid is excellent.
 
-

anglolawyer said:
That's a nice, clear graphic, Kwill. A tiny suggestion - make the lines that divide the hours fainter, or dotted, so as to make the event lines stand out more. This kind of visual aid is excellent.
Click to expand...
-

I agree, except instead of lines I would use light yellow shading from between 6 to 8 and between 10 to 12,

d

-
 
Last edited:
As far as the ECHR, don't they refuse to look at something like 95% of cases brought before them?
Isn't there a serious concern they might not even look at the case?
 
Desert Fox said:
If the bra hook is an innocent contamination, I think my bet would be on the Door handle > investigator's gloves > bra clasp
Reading the interesting statement that Amanda's DNA was found on a cigarette smoked by Raffaele.
Click to expand...

I don't recall reading this,but was the question ever asked in court about how the bra clasp moved across the room if the cottage was sealed.
 
Poppy1016 said:
I don't recall reading this,but was the question ever asked in court about how the bra clasp moved across the room if the cottage was sealed.
Click to expand...

Could it have gotten kicked around from when the pictures were taken and when they sealed the place?
 
anglolawyer said:
I have a 'separation of powers' alert going off now. The UK courts are just courts. They don't make or break treaties. They adjudicate requests according to the terms of the relevant treaty and/or legislation. They do not act with the interests of the UK in mind. There is no 'interests of UK' defence to extradition. Some residual political discretion to refuse extradition must remain because we have had some recent cases in which the Home Secretary has blocked extradition but the courts will have played no part in that.

And sorry to be even more pedantic but your 'strictly speaking' thing sounds wrong too. England and Wales has not made any extradition treaties with anyone. All such treaties are between the UK and somebody. An application for extradition made against a Scottish resident will be made in Scotland but the applicable law will be the same (I venture to suggest, not having actually looked it up yet :D) as E & W.
Click to expand...


But it's up to courts in a particular jurisdiction to rule on extradition. If the person whose extradition was being requested lived in Scotland, I presume that it would be Scottish courts who would adjudicate. If the person lived in England or Wales, the extradition request would be adjudicated under E&W jurisdiction. The jurisdiction in question would be governed by the UK's extradition treaties.

I believe, for example, that Shrien Dewani's extradition hearings have been held in Westminster Magistrates' Court. This comes under E&W jurisdiction, not UK-wide jurisdiction. The district judge sitting at Westminster magistrates' Court is bound to uphold the law within his/her jurisdiction, which is E&W. When considering the Dewani extradition, (s)he will have taken note of a) the UK extradition agreement with RSA (which obviously also falls within the jurisdiction of E&W), b) the RSA extradition request, c) Dewani's defence against extradition. The court will then adjudicate on whether to grant extradition.


Regarding the highlighted sentence in particular, how do you think that a court reaches its decision? In whose interests do you think it is acting? Let's take the Dewani extradition hearings as an example. When the courts originally blocked his extradition, do you think they were acting "on behalf" of RSA or "on behalf" of Dewani? When they finally considered that his mental incapacitation was no longer a reason to avoid extradition, do you think they were acting "on behalf" of Dewani or RSA?

No, the courts were acting on behalf of UK plc (to use that cliche). I think you're totally misunderstanding the situation, and my argument that pertains to it. Bluntly put, if the courts believe that the UK national interest is better served by blocking extradition than granting it, they will block it. It's not particularly about Dewani's (in this example) personal interest: he will (presumably) always be against his extradition. Neither is it in the interest of RSA (who will by definition always be in favour of his extradition).

Let me perhaps ask you another question: in whose "interests" does a regular criminal court in E&W operate? When someone is on trial for (say) assault, in whose interests is the court arriving at a verdict and handing down a sentence (if applicable)? Is it in the interests of the prosecutor? No. Is it in the interests of the defendant? No. It is acting - and ruling - in the (perhaps-intangible) interests of the United Kingdom. Or, if you want to be more holistic about it, it is acting in the interests of justice as justice is defined within the United Kingdom.

So, if you like (or prefer), I can modify my argument about extradition to say this: a UK court handling an extradition request from a foreign power has only one interest in which it is acting: that of justice, as justice is understood within the United Kingdom.
 
Desert Fox said:
As far as the ECHR, don't they refuse to look at something like 95% of cases brought before them?
Isn't there a serious concern they might not even look at the case?
Click to expand...


Yes, there is.

But then again,the overwhelming majority of applications to the ECHR are risibly bound to fail and have zero merit. So the 95% statistic is rather misleading when one would need to strip out all of the utterly ridiculous applications to get to a more applicable rate of refusal.

However, it's certainly fair to say that passing the "first look" hurdle will be an extremely important and significant step. It will indicate (not least to US extraditing authorities perhaps) that the ECHR considers the application(s) to have at least prima facie merit. But even this step may take time counted in years rather than months.........
 
Poppy1016 said:
I don't recall reading this,but was the question ever asked in court about how the bra clasp moved across the room if the cottage was sealed.
Click to expand...

From the Nencini Appeal, here is Bongiorno on the bra clasp, courtesy of PGP Inc.:

She addressed the bra clasp, emphasizing that it has become the pivotal piece of evidence against Sollecito. She said it "materialized" on the night of November 3 but was not collected because the police forgot to place a tag letter. She produced pictures to show that objects had been moved around in Meredith's room, and stated that the clasp was originally under the pillow, but had moved under a mat by the time it was collected. She said that the fabric was touched 14 times with one glove, then touched by other gloves, describing these touchings as being "within a contaminated environment". She showed a magnified photograph showing the dirt on a police glove and mentioned the presence of other DNA contributors on the bra clasp.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Nencini_Appeal
 
LondonJohn said:
Yes, there is.

But then again,the overwhelming majority of applications to the ECHR are risibly bound to fail and have zero merit. So the 95% statistic is rather misleading when one would need to strip out all of the utterly ridiculous applications to get to a more applicable rate of refusal.

However, it's certainly fair to say that passing the "first look" hurdle will be an extremely important and significant step. It will indicate (not least to US extraditing authorities perhaps) that the ECHR considers the application(s) to have at least prima facie merit. But even this step may take time counted in years rather than months.........
Click to expand...

It seems like we also have not even any similar cases to draw from. . .
Cases where there is is an extradition against somebody in the US who is either well known or appears to have been convicted under very questionable evidence. Don't know if there are even any cases as far as western European countries over the last decade and what was done.

Got a few side questions related to this case - kind of directed to anybody
Let us say you were in the same circumstances
1. I guess she should have immediately either grabbed a lawyer and stayed with that lawyer, flew to Seattle, or taken temporary refuge in the US embassy and had all interviews there. Guess if you even think there is a possibility of being involved in a crime, one needs to lawyer up.
2. Always assume all of your phones are bugged, meaning if you want to go do any of the above, you don't discuss it on your phone. Can imagine they might even be watching you browse so use a library / cafe connection, not your own home or mobile broadband. Don't use a place you have used before either.
3. I have seen with Raffaele, he was effectively blocked from having his lawyer. I also know that one of the Norfolk Four, he requested a lawyer. Instead, Ford just kept questioning him. What the hell do you do in such cases?
4. If you are being interrogated, not allowed a lawyer, and they will not leave you alone, and might even be being struck / hit - What the hell do you do? How do you keep from confessing?
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
But it's up to courts in a particular jurisdiction to rule on extradition. If the person whose extradition was being requested lived in Scotland, I presume that it would be Scottish courts who would adjudicate. If the person lived in England or Wales, the extradition request would be adjudicated under E&W jurisdiction. The jurisdiction in question would be governed by the UK's extradition treaties.

I believe, for example, that Shrien Dewani's extradition hearings have been held in Westminster Magistrates' Court. This comes under E&W jurisdiction, not UK-wide jurisdiction. The district judge sitting at Westminster magistrates' Court is bound to uphold the law within his/her jurisdiction, which is E&W. When considering the Dewani extradition, (s)he will have taken note of a) the UK extradition agreement with RSA (which obviously also falls within the jurisdiction of E&W), b) the RSA extradition request, c) Dewani's defence against extradition. The court will then adjudicate on whether to grant extradition.


Regarding the highlighted sentence in particular, how do you think that a court reaches its decision? In whose interests do you think it is acting? Let's take the Dewani extradition hearings as an example. When the courts originally blocked his extradition, do you think they were acting "on behalf" of RSA or "on behalf" of Dewani? When they finally considered that his mental incapacitation was no longer a reason to avoid extradition, do you think they were acting "on behalf" of Dewani or RSA?

No, the courts were acting on behalf of UK plc (to use that cliche). I think you're totally misunderstanding the situation, and my argument that pertains to it. Bluntly put, if the courts believe that the UK national interest is better served by blocking extradition than granting it, they will block it. It's not particularly about Dewani's (in this example) personal interest: he will (presumably) always be against his extradition. Neither is it in the interest of RSA (who will by definition always be in favour of his extradition).

Let me perhaps ask you another question: in whose "interests" does a regular criminal court in E&W operate? When someone is on trial for (say) assault, in whose interests is the court arriving at a verdict and handing down a sentence (if applicable)? Is it in the interests of the prosecutor? No. Is it in the interests of the defendant? No. It is acting - and ruling - in the (perhaps-intangible) interests of the United Kingdom. Or, if you want to be more holistic about it, it is acting in the interests of justice as justice is defined within the United Kingdom.

So, if you like (or prefer), I can modify my argument about extradition to say this: a UK court handling an extradition request from a foreign power has only one interest in which it is acting: that of justice, as justice is understood within the United Kingdom.
Click to expand...

I linked to the most recent judgment LJ. If you can find any reference there, or in any of the earlier judgments on Dewani's various applications for review, to the UK national interest, please quote. Alternatively, anything in The Extradition Act 2003 requiring the court to have regard to the national interest would settle the point. I predict (as with so many things, I prefer to use theory in place of actual leg work) there will be found nothing in there and I make that prediction with confidence because if there was anything you can bet it would have been argued by his lawyers already, but it hasn't.

What we find with Dewani is that SA enjoys a particular status as a party seeking extradition - it does not have to make out a case in an English court. It shares this status (perhaps undeservedly) with a bunch of countries whose legal systems have been judged as sufficiently sound as to warrant it. Thus, in his case, his defence to extradition has not been based on the (many) weaknesses in the case against him but rather on arguments about his fitness to plead, abuse of process etc. The national interest of the UK is not in play at all.

The law in this respect will likely be (I have not checked) the same across all three UK jurisdictions (Northern Ireland is separate from Scotland and England & Wales as I am sure you know) and harmony in its application can be achieved in the Supreme Court should the need arise.
 
LondonJohn said:
Yes, there is.

But then again,the overwhelming majority of applications to the ECHR are risibly bound to fail and have zero merit. So the 95% statistic is rather misleading when one would need to strip out all of the utterly ridiculous applications to get to a more applicable rate of refusal.

However, it's certainly fair to say that passing the "first look" hurdle will be an extremely important and significant step. It will indicate (not least to US extraditing authorities perhaps) that the ECHR considers the application(s) to have at least prima facie merit. But even this step may take time counted in years rather than months.........
Click to expand...

While I usually eschew predictions, I am pretty confident her calunnia appeal will pass the first hurdle, unless it has been atrociously drafted. I think I read the other day that if it does then she gets funding. That is enormously important, far more than critics here of her defence so far perhaps realise. I believe she has a very strong appeal against the calunnia conviction, which is right in the middle of the ECHR's 'sweet spot', to use your phrase from earlier.
 
If anyone knows about US law; I wonder how far discovery could be taken in an extradition hearing? Could AK lawyers insist on disclosure of full electronic records etc. on the grounds they need to show that there is no sufficient valid evidence to make a prima facie case (or what ever us equivalent might be).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom