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

[platonov]

Groundhog ageing – and not too gracefully.

You have to go back in the archives more than 4 years to find where this was first discussed. Link from April 2010

IIRC it was after 2 girls 1 bra, sneezing, borrowed pillows, door handles , RS sniffing her underwear and predated an equally imaginative list of reasons.

Given that 'we all know' the DNA was planted as part of the conspiracy these various confabulations seem a tragic waste of energy.

And yet - in the unthinking fervour they betray - funny none the less.

 

[Bill Williams]

IIRC it was after 2 girls 1 bra, sneezing, borrowed pillows, door handles , RS sniffing her underwear and predated an equally imaginative list of reasons.

Given that 'we all know' the DNA was planted as part of the conspiracy these various confabulations seem a tragic waste of energy.

And yet - in the unthinking fervour they betray - funny none the less.

You have a fondness for saying sluttified things about people with no basis for saying them.

What about venturing an opinion about Meredith's time of death, and then trying to fit known facts around that.

I thought not.

 

[Bill Williams]

The wiki by Edward McCall was recently discussed on this board. This wiki was riddled with falsehoods and the members of IIP had to create a wiki to counter it. A common pattern among those who argue for guilt is lying. The guilters spread lies on Amazon reviews and the comments sections of articles about the case eg bleach was purchased, mixed blood, a clean up in Meredith's room, female thumbprints on Meredith's neck. John Kercher's book Meredith was riddled with lies. The BBC three documentary was full of false information. Do you feel that if the case for guilt can not be argued without resorting to lying, this indicates a lack of evidence and a weak case against Amanda and Raffaele?

I'm waiting for a case for guilt to be presented by platonov, instead he makes up stories about RS sniffing women's underwear.

All for Meredith, I suppose.

 

[Diocletus]

You have a fondness for saying sluttified things about people with no basis for saying them.

What about venturing an opinion about Meredith's time of death, and then trying to fit known facts around that.

I thought not.

But how did all of the other guys' DNA get there?

Also, how did the DNA get into Stefanoni's negative control?

 

[Diocletus]

I just read a law professor's opinion about whether or not Amanda is extraditable. He says the law is quite unclear as it pertains to this case.

Here is the link

His conclusion is that she will not be extradited.

This is really kind of fascinating, I just read it again.

I haven't paid that much attention to most of the blogs about extradition, but here we have the guy who literally wrote the book about extradition saying that it's not going to happen.

In addition, he seems to be suggesting that there is something amiss in the procedure here. It turns out that Italy does have a prohibition on double jeopardy, and the ECHR does, too, and might have a problem with the procedure as applied in this case: it turns out that it might not be such a great idea for Italy to be having repetitive proceedings over a period of years, with contradictory verdicts based on the same facts. Who knew? Oh that's right . . . everybody knew that.

Anyway, this guy is a legit legal scholar, so I'll take this seriously.

 

[kwill]

This is really kind of fascinating, I just read it again.

I haven't paid that much attention to most of the blogs about extradition, but here we have the guy who literally wrote the book about extradition saying that it's not going to happen.

In addition, he seems to be suggesting that there is something amiss in the procedure here. It turns out that Italy does have a prohibition on double jeopardy, and the ECHR does, too, and might have a problem with the procedure as applied in this case: it turns out that it might not be such a great idea for Italy to be having repetitive proceedings over a period of years, with contradictory verdicts based on the same facts. Who knew? Oh that's right . . . everybody knew that.

Anyway, this guy is a legit legal scholar, so I'll take this seriously.

I wish he'd write something equally cogent about Raffaele's situation.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not a perfect summary

Anyway, this guy is a legit legal scholar, so I'll take this seriously.

Diocletus,

His summary of the case has some inaccuracies, but I don't think that his opinion rests on those problematic points.

 

[RandyN]

Could that be Stefanoni????

Biondo was the head of this lab. That makes him ultimately responsible for the whole of the DNA mess. In fact it also points out a crime of collaboration with the prosecution since Biondo was also the adviser to the prosecution which in any real court of law would be considered an remarkably dishonest conflict of interest.

Just one more example of how AK and RS were denied a fair trial. Wait!!! That is two more examples...of hundreds sadly.

 

[acbytesla]

Diocletus,

His summary of the case has some inaccuracies, but I don't think that his opinion rests on those problematic points.

I don't think Amanda will be extradited either. I'm not sure Italy will ask. What I'm curious about is will they arrest Amanda if Italy asks for extradition as the process goes on? Or will they do something like house arrest?

 

[analemma]

This is really kind of fascinating, I just read it again.

I haven't paid that much attention to most of the blogs about extradition, but here we have the guy who literally wrote the book about extradition saying that it's not going to happen.

In addition, he seems to be suggesting that there is something amiss in the procedure here. It turns out that Italy does have a prohibition on double jeopardy, and the ECHR does, too, and might have a problem with the procedure as applied in this case: it turns out that it might not be such a great idea for Italy to be having repetitive proceedings over a period of years, with contradictory verdicts based on the same facts. Who knew? Oh that's right . . . everybody knew that.

Anyway, this guy is a legit legal scholar, so I'll take this seriously.

Diocletus
I researched the author and he is known as “the Godfather of International Criminal Law” and, as you say, he "wrote the book about extradition".
One look at his resume should convince anyone that his opinion is to be taken seriously.
I have read this article several times, as well as the case he referenced(Sindova V Grant) and I am sorry to say that I do not understand exactly what he is trying to explain, but he does seem to contend that this case is an example of double jeopardy because "multiple trials for the same acts" is not an acceptable legal practice, regardless of the structure of the judicial system in which this type double jeopardy occurred.
I am trying to make my way thru what he is saying but have been unable to translate his words into plain speech and would appreciate a discussion of his arguments by participants who can understand "legal speak".
Analemma

 

[RandyN]

Diocletus,

His summary of the case has some inaccuracies, but I don't think that his opinion rests on those problematic points.

Yes he has several of the facts in this case incorrect.

He also seems to be saying that the ECOHR has so far upheld Italy's confabulation of what double jeopardy happens to mean to them...(whatever they want it to I am quite sure) The Italians have laws to contradict any other law...if they need to do that. And they often do and so they often do.

They even retry cases after confirmation by the ISC. Its Italy...anything goes!

Knox will never simply be extradited on just a request from Italy. Somewhere an American judge will get an ear on this cock and bull story and he will rule the Italians insane...I have no doubt.

RS will not be so lucky I fear. He is about to become the martyr that finally wakes up the Italians to their defective corrupt legal system. They may call for change or go back to sleep ....hard to say at this point.

 

[katy_did]

This is really kind of fascinating, I just read it again.

I haven't paid that much attention to most of the blogs about extradition, but here we have the guy who literally wrote the book about extradition saying that it's not going to happen.

In addition, he seems to be suggesting that there is something amiss in the procedure here. It turns out that Italy does have a prohibition on double jeopardy, and the ECHR does, too, and might have a problem with the procedure as applied in this case: it turns out that it might not be such a great idea for Italy to be having repetitive proceedings over a period of years, with contradictory verdicts based on the same facts. Who knew? Oh that's right . . . everybody knew that.

Anyway, this guy is a legit legal scholar, so I'll take this seriously.

Unfortunately he's yet another lawyer (even a legal scholar, as you say) who hasn't read the treaty properly. He talks about the differences/similarities between being tried on the same acts and the same facts, but hasn't noticed that Article VI would only apply if Amanda had been tried on the same facts in the United States, i.e. "in the requested state".

The ECHR prohibition on double jeopardy applies only to definitive convictions (to allow for the quite numerous countries in the EU which permit prosecution appeals) so Italy's legal system wouldn't fall foul of it in that respect.

I don't think extradition will happen for other reasons, but I'm still amazed at how many "legit legal scholars" get such basic issues wrong... I'm starting to think they should change the treaty wording or something!

 

[Grinder]

Unfortunately he's yet another lawyer (even a legal scholar, as you say) who hasn't read the treaty properly. He talks about the differences/similarities between being tried on the same acts and the same facts, but hasn't noticed that Article VI would only apply if Amanda had been tried on the same facts in the United States, i.e. "in the requested state".

The ECHR prohibition on double jeopardy applies only to definitive convictions (to allow for the quite numerous countries in the EU which permit prosecution appeals) so Italy's legal system wouldn't fall foul of it in that respect.

I don't think extradition will happen for other reasons, but I'm still amazed at how many "legit legal scholars" get such basic issues wrong... I'm starting to think they should change the treaty wording or something!

I believe the case he references is exactly what you speak of. The case had a banker charged in Italy and an extradition requested but before he could be extradited the US also filed charges against him for the same basic offenses.

It would be interesting to know what motivated him to write the article. Does he have a client that would benefit? Maybe he would like the SC to rule on the 5th amendment.

It is encouraging but would be better if he spent more time on the extradition details.

 

[acbytesla]

Unfortunately he's yet another lawyer (even a legal scholar, as you say) who hasn't read the treaty properly. He talks about the differences/similarities between being tried on the same acts and the same facts, but hasn't noticed that Article VI would only apply if Amanda had been tried on the same facts in the United States, i.e. "in the requested state".

The ECHR prohibition on double jeopardy applies only to definitive convictions (to allow for the quite numerous countries in the EU which permit prosecution appeals) so Italy's legal system wouldn't fall foul of it in that respect.

I don't think extradition will happen for other reasons, but I'm still amazed at how many "legit legal scholars" get such basic issues wrong... I'm starting to think they should change the treaty wording or something!

I've read some legal scholars or lawyers who say that double jeopardy is just not going to matter and others that says it will. Frankly, I'm not sure. I think that that this is not the reason it will be refused. No, I expect that either politics will stop it, (The State Department) or some judge will just say....."you gotta be kidding me", and throw it out.

 

[Bill Williams]

Diocletus
I researched the author and he is known as “the Godfather of International Criminal Law” and, as you say, he "wrote the book about extradition".
One look at his resume should convince anyone that his opinion is to be taken seriously.I have read this article several times, as well as the case he referenced(Sindova V Grant) and I am sorry to say that I do not understand exactly what he is trying to explain, but he does seem to contend that this case is an example of double jeopardy because "multiple trials for the same acts" is not an acceptable legal practice, regardless of the structure of the judicial system in which this type double jeopardy occurred.
I am trying to make my way thru what he is saying but have been unable to translate his words into plain speech and would appreciate a discussion of his arguments by participants who can understand "legal speak".
Analemma

This alone almost guarantees his e-mail inbox or twitter feed will be submerged in guilter hate and rhetoric.

 

[katy_did]

I believe the case he references is exactly what you speak of. The case had a banker charged in Italy and an extradition requested but before he could be extradited the US also filed charges against him for the same basic offenses.

It would be interesting to know what motivated him to write the article. Does he have a client that would benefit? Maybe he would like the SC to rule on the 5th amendment.

It is encouraging but would be better if he spent more time on the extradition details.

Yes, from a quick glance at that case it looks as if the double jeopardy clause applied there because he was charged in both the U.S. and Italy, even if they ruled against him in the end (that ruling even references one of Bassiouni's publications).

It's a bit of an odd article. He definitely seems to be suggesting that there would be double jeopardy protection under the treaty, and then goes on to say that no court has held that the Fifth Amendment applies to extradition. If he's trying to argue that the Fifth Amendment should apply, it's kind of an oblique way to do it!

I've read some legal scholars or lawyers who say that double jeopardy is just not going to matter and others that says it will. Frankly, I'm not sure. I think that that this is not the reason it will be refused. No, I expect that either politics will stop it, (The State Department) or some judge will just say....."you gotta be kidding me", and throw it out.

Double jeopardy definitely isn't covered by the treaty (in this situation), so the question would just be whether a court decided the Fifth Amendment would apply. I agree with you though, I think a refusal by the State Department is most likely - either that, or just possibly something to do with Guede's conviction having had an undue influence (though that seems a much greyer area as the court isn't technically supposed to go into the legal process itself).

 

[Diocletus]

It's a bit of an odd article. He definitely seems to be suggesting that there would be double jeopardy protection under the treaty, and then goes on to say that no court has held that the Fifth Amendment applies to extradition. If he's trying to argue that the Fifth Amendment should apply, it's kind of an oblique way to do it!

Double jeopardy definitely isn't covered by the treaty (in this situation), so the question would just be whether a court decided the Fifth Amendment would apply.

Putting aside the treaty, I believe that there is a double jeopardy international norm. So, we have the following sources for double jeopardy prohibition:

1. Italian law
2. ECHR
3. International Norm
4. US law

Would be fascinating to see how they all play into each other.

Also, I note that Bousaani (or whatever) makes a big point about appeals based on questions of "fact" vs. appeals based on questions of "law". I note that this is a distinction that I have seen the ECtHR making several times in some cases that I have reviewed. I'm not sure of the significance of this issue yet, but I'm on the lookout--it seems important.

This concept that you can get acquitted and convicted over and over for along period of years by different juries is ridiculous. Yes, I know that they don't call them "juries" and they say that the "trial" isn't over until Cassazione sings, but that's just semantics. After a year, your damn "trial" is over.

possibly something to do with Guede's conviction having had an undue influence (though that seems a much greyer area as the court isn't technically supposed to go into the legal process itself).

I think that this issue is going to Italy's Constitutional Court before it goes anywhere. I think that Cassazione has violated the Italian constitution in this regard. I also believe that they will file papers, either in Italy or at the ECtHR level to block Italian authorities from proceeding with extradition. Rudy will be old and gray by the time this thing is done.

 

[Diocletus]

It would be interesting to know what motivated him to write the article. Does he have a client that would benefit? Maybe he would like the SC to rule on the 5th amendment.

They are going to, maybe. Wait for Bond v. US, should be within the next month.

 

[Diocletus]

I'm starting to think they should change the treaty wording or something!

What would the revised Treaty language look like? "Any country that has a trial that lasts for 7 years or more is SOL?" "A jury trial is a jury trial even if you call the jurors 'judges' and give them Ms New Jersey sashes . . . and you only get to do it once?" "No extradition if you're just trying to save face?" The Senate would be like WTF.

I just think that we shouldn't enter into extradition treaties with countries who have legal systems that suck. Either that, or we should make sure that they have a big brother like the ECtHR. Which, BTW, I believe is the exact reason for the revised Italy extradition treaty.

 

[RandyN]

I've read some legal scholars or lawyers who say that double jeopardy is just not going to matter and others that says it will. Frankly, I'm not sure. I think that that this is not the reason it will be refused. No, I expect that either politics will stop it, (The State Department) or some judge will just say....."you gotta be kidding me", and throw it out.

Not a legal scholar...but I dont think double jeopardy is relevant in this case. And the ECOHR is on the side of Italy and those other countries that allow prosecution appeals...that seems clear and so making an argument based on that seems like it would be a waste of time.

Besides there are enough confounding issues in this case to easily prove that RS and AK never got a fair trial...not one of the 10 or 20 or 30 it will finally take????

Realistically this case could go on forever. No matter that Del a Dope A called it unfair to have a never ending trial...what could keep it from going back and forth at least a few more times? There appears to be no statute of limitations that kick in until idiots stop appealing...which is why Italy has most violations for speedy trial. They just pay a fine and keep right on offending though.

Terrible little ancient culture. What can one expect from people who had ancestors who enjoyed watching lions rip innocent people to shreds as Sunday entertainment though?

I wonder if the lions ever escaped into the crowd? Bet that was funny.