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

[Desert Fox]

Good point.

The reason why I brought up Spc. Mario Lozano is that there is a lot of political rumbling going around and that likely effects attitudes. Humans are humans after all.

The funny thing is as far as extradition is if somebody in Italy was wanted for murder in the US especially somewhere like Texas or one of the other death penalty states, I would not blame Italy for resisting especially if it was a questionable case.

 

[Mary_H]

I agree with this. I've heard some people claim that they didn't do a good defense because they didn't want to buck the system. If that's the case they are part of the problem. If that's not the case they are clearly incompetent. The truth is probably some from column a and some from column b. Incompetent and scared.

I wonder how much defense preparations were influenced by financial constraints. Perhaps there was not sufficient money to pay for more prep time, and defense counsel had to "wing it" in court.

They were and are part of the system. If you subconsciously accept that the first trial will end in guilt, your approach will differ from that of someone who has full confidence in a win.

 

[Mary_H]

I am talking about the facts pertaining to her case and details which have been mis-used to seek to incriminate her (such as: why did you call before anything had happened?) are not trivia. I do not think the dialogue with the guilters should be taking place. That really is trivia.

Trivia is all the prosecution has. I'm not sure that blowing it out of proportion in order to misuse it to incriminate Amanda makes it any less trivial. Although I understand the judges see things differently from the way I do.

 

[anglolawyer]

Trivia is all the prosecution has. I'm not sure that blowing it out of proportion in order to misuse it to incriminate Amanda makes it any less trivial. Although I understand the judges see things differently from the way I do.

Maybe we aren't using the word the same way. If something can land you in jail unless you rebut it, it doesn't seem trivial to me, and properly getting to grips with these details (which she has not done in all cases - a failing at least as much of those representing her as Amanda herself) is a necessary element of the rebuttal.

 

[Mary_H]

Maybe we aren't using the word the same way. If something can land you in jail unless you rebut it, it doesn't seem trivial to me, and properly getting to grips with these details (which she has not done in all cases - a failing at least as much of those representing her as Amanda herself) is a necessary element of the rebuttal.

I am still idealizing. I am still thinking that if something is trivial, it will be recognized as such by all concerned. But they want to put ten jigsaw pieces together osmotically to make a 200-piece puzzle. When I think about the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, I just want to cry.

 

[anglolawyer]

I am still idealizing. I am still thinking that if something is trivial, it will be recognized as such by all concerned. But they want to put ten jigsaw pieces together osmotically to make a 200-piece puzzle. When I think about the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, I just want to cry.

I think so. Jail is horrible. I know. I read WTBH. It is worth straining every sinew not to go there. Things that might land you there are not trivial. Of course, most of this is too late now. The fact-finding part of the process is all but over. So in that sense it might be trivial - but I am not sure as Diocletus keeps digging things up which suggest the ECHR might actually want to take a look at the facts for itself.

 

[Desert Fox]

Maybe we aren't using the word the same way. If something can land you in jail unless you rebut it, it doesn't seem trivial to me, and properly getting to grips with these details (which she has not done in all cases - a failing at least as much of those representing her as Amanda herself) is a necessary element of the rebuttal.

While I don't entirely disagree with you, I will argue that you never know what the prosecutor and/or judges are going to pull out next in this case

 

[Desert Fox]

I think so. Jail is horrible. I know. I read WTBH. It is worth straining every sinew not to go there. Things that might land you there are not trivial. Of course, most of this is too late now. The fact-finding part of the process is all but over. So in that sense it might be trivial - but I am not sure as Diocletus keeps digging things up which suggest the ECHR might actually want to take a look at the facts for itself.

Right now, her best chance is coming up with good arguments why the US should not extradite her. Would any of this help her?

 

[RoseMontague]

Right now, her best chance is coming up with good arguments why the US should not extradite her. Would any of this help her?

I think that right now her best bet is to get new representation that will destroy the Nencini verdict and present a strong appeal to the ISC. A lot will depend on the new ISC panel and the actual motivation document, in my opinion.

 

[Desert Fox]

I think that right now her best bet is to get new representation that will destroy the Nencini verdict and present a strong appeal to the ISC. A lot will depend on the new ISC panel and the actual motivation document, in my opinion.

The ICS told Nencini "You will find them guilty."
The trial was never actually about guilt or innocence but what kind of new and inventive spin can they put on it.
Having read part of the ICS document, I have to agree with the others than was the whole thing here.

 

[katy_did]

I think that right now her best bet is to get new representation that will destroy the Nencini verdict and present a strong appeal to the ISC. A lot will depend on the new ISC panel and the actual motivation document, in my opinion.

I agree, I think that's where the focus has to be at the moment. Raffaele's team will probably put forward a strong appeal I would think (though even there, it would be better if they brought in someone who specialized in Cassation appeals to help out), but Amanda's team shouldn't just be riding on their coattails the whole time, as they seem to have been doing up to now. She wouldn't need to fire her current team (probably a bad idea so late on) but at least get someone more experienced involved. Of course, that costs money.

I think looking to extradition at this point is pointless and premature. Anything useful that might be done in that respect can only be done behind the scenes at this stage; any public action is only likely to backfire.

 

[RoseMontague]

The ICS told Nencini "You will find them guilty."
The trial was never actually about guilt or innocence but what kind of new and inventive spin can they put on it.
Having read part of the ICS document, I have to agree with the others than was the whole thing here.

Not in so many words and I think part of the appeal will deal with the original ISC ruling and how much of it was based on merit rather than legal issues. The things they did in so many words ask for went the way of the defense and the question of the respective roles of the multiple attackers was pretty much ignored by the prosecution. I have doubts that Nencini can really put anything together that will make any sense at all. I also think that the additional computer evidence that was admitted and then ignored by Nencini will be a major issue.

 

[anglolawyer]

Right now, her best chance is coming up with good arguments why the US should not extradite her. Would any of this help her?

You get different answers according to whether you ask Diocletus or me. TBH I don't really know, but I am taking the extreme position that the treaty settles everything just to get to the bottom of all of this.

 

[Caper]

Wow... Main story on CNN right now. Poor girl.

 

[Desert Fox]

You get different answers according to whether you ask Diocletus or me. TBH I don't really know, but I am taking the extreme position that the treaty settles everything just to get to the bottom of all of this.

I don't think small items are going to bbe a good argument as far as extradition.
I think best to argue unfair trial / burden of proof, political motivations (even if they did not start that way, it is that way now), and police abuse of power.

 

[Bill Williams]

The reason why I brought up Spc. Mario Lozano is that there is a lot of political rumbling going around and that likely effects attitudes. Humans are humans after all.

The funny thing is as far as extradition is if somebody in Italy was wanted for murder in the US especially somewhere like Texas or one of the other death penalty states, I would not blame Italy for resisting especially if it was a questionable case.

To heck with even questionable cases.

It's not in the treaty between US and Canada, but Canada routinely seeks a guarantee from the relevant US jurisdiction that either the death penalty is off the table, or there is no extradition. Period.

There may be an exception to this, but I cannot think of one.

The US could similarly extradite with terms attached, like with what Canada did in reverse with Bembenek.

What terms would you want attached to any potential extradition of Knox? One might be that she be held outsude of detention until a full inquiry of the misconduct of the PLE was taken.

 

[anglolawyer]

I don't think small items are going to bbe a good argument as far as extradition.
I think best to argue unfair trial / burden of proof, political motivations (even if they did not start that way, it is that way now), and police abuse of power.

Small items may be what you make those arguments with. You need straw to make bricks.

 

[Desert Fox]

To heck with even questionable cases.

It's not in the treaty between US and Canada, but Canada routinely seeks a guarantee from the relevant US jurisdiction that either the death penalty is off the table, or there is no extradition. Period.

There may be an exception to this, but I cannot think of one.

The US could similarly extradite with terms attached, like with what Canada did in reverse with Bembenek.

What terms would you want attached to any potential extradition of Knox? One might be that she be held outsude of detention until a full inquiry of the misconduct of the PLE was taken.

I think a simple "No thanks" with the reasons I gave two three posts ago would be best.

 

[Desert Fox]

To heck with even questionable cases.

It's not in the treaty between US and Canada, but Canada routinely seeks a guarantee from the relevant US jurisdiction that either the death penalty is off the table, or there is no extradition. Period.

There may be an exception to this, but I cannot think of one.

The US could similarly extradite with terms attached, like with what Canada did in reverse with Bembenek.

What terms would you want attached to any potential extradition of Knox? One might be that she be held outsude of detention until a full inquiry of the misconduct of the PLE was taken.

California did tell Canada with Charles Ng "If you want him so badly, keep him" when they wanted a promise of no death penalty.
While I am against the death penalty, I don't feel much sympathy for him.

 

[anglolawyer]

Wow... Main story on CNN right now. Poor girl.

To people who don't know much about the case - and to the ghouls - this will be a big deal maybe but I don't really think he says anything new.