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

[anglolawyer]

ARTICLE VI



Interesting since Amanda was both acquitted and convicted. One could also argue that she served at least part of the sentence imposed.

There are holes all over the Italian prosecution of Amanda that a judge or even the state department could use to deny extradition.

I don't think you are reading article VI correctly. It would apply if Amanda had already served a sentence in the US for the murder.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't think you are reading article VI correctly. It would apply if Amanda had already served a sentence in the US for the murder.

Well, one, I just went off what was posted here. And two, Italy could say that no, she served no sentence for murder in Italy but time for calunnia not murder.
But keep in mind, that the US has no equivalent for callunia.

I think the time Amanda had already served would be the last reason. I know I'm stretching when I mentioned that point. Double jeopardy and the unlikelihood that Amanda committed the crime I imagine would be much more significant.

 

[Samson]

I don't think you are reading article VI correctly. It would apply if Amanda had already served a sentence in the US for the murder.

The issue seems to be the requested country needed to acquit or convict, not the requesting country.

This is another Article

ARTICLE X

Extradition Requests and Supporting Documents
1. Requests for extradition shall be made through the diplomatic channel.
2. All requests for extradition shall be accompanied by:
(a) documents, statements or other information which set forth the identity and probable location
of the person sought, with, if available, physical description, photographs and fingerprints;
(b) a brief statement of the facts of the case, including the time and location of the offence.

From reading the whole treaty there seems little to argue about, but here they require time and location, where they could have said date and location.
Massei has convicted for 11 30.
If Nencini goes for 10 pm, the variation could be leveraged to examine all aspects of time of death at the extradition hearings.

 

[Desert Fox]

I think the first tactic of the US will be to try to persuade Italy from not even asking.

 

[anglolawyer]

The issue seems to be the requested country needed to acquit or convict, not the requesting country.

This is another Article

ARTICLE X

Extradition Requests and Supporting Documents
1. Requests for extradition shall be made through the diplomatic channel.
2. All requests for extradition shall be accompanied by:
(a) documents, statements or other information which set forth the identity and probable location
of the person sought, with, if available, physical description, photographs and fingerprints;
(b) a brief statement of the facts of the case, including the time and location of the offence.

From reading the whole treaty there seems little to argue about, but here they require time and location, where they could have said date and location.
Massei has convicted for 11 30.
If Nencini goes for 10 pm, the variation could be leveraged to examine all aspects of time of death at the extradition hearings.

'Time' in this context probably means date or approximate date. The treaty does not use the word 'date' because that might be construed as requiring a particular date to be specified whereas, quite often, the date of a crime is unknown.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, one, I just went off what was posted here. And two, Italy could say that no, she served no sentence for murder in Italy but time for calunnia not murder.
But keep in mind, that the US has no equivalent for callunia.

I think the time Amanda had already served would be the last reason. I know I'm stretching when I mentioned that point. Double jeopardy and the unlikelihood that Amanda committed the crime I imagine would be much more significant.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm boggled and confused too. Obviously. That's what happens when you haven't been able to sleep for two days...

 

[platonov]

Another logic fail.

So by your logic five men killed Meredith. Thanks; that clears up quite a bit.

By your logic - not mine


If simple logic is such a challenge.....
Perhaps it would be better to give DNA analysis a miss.

[To be fair it's not that easy to understand for most laymen ]

 

[Diocletus]

I don't think you are reading article VI correctly. It would apply if Amanda had already served a sentence in the US for the murder.

That seems right. But why would we extradite someone to serve a jail sentence if they've already served their sentence in the requesting country? Makes no sense and seems very objectionable.

I think that treaties assume that the other party won't act in bad faith, which Italy has surely done in the Knox situation.

 

[Diocletus]

Anglo says it depends on the terms of whatever arrangement governs extradition between Italy and the UK. I don't know whether the European Arrest Warrant ('EAW') would apply, some bilateral treaty or what. In the Shrien Dewani case the English court's hands seem to be pretty much tied by the fact that our treaty with South Africa does not require SA to make out a prima facie case. Dewani's only available ground resistance has been his health. And he is wanted for trial, not to serve a sentence.

Post script (after a little reading):

As was recently reported here, we have refused to extradite a convicted mafia boss to serve time in Italy because of the state of Italy's prisons. Just reading that link I see it is both the EAW and The Extradition Act 2003 that governed Italy's request, that the requested person would have been extradited but for a decision of the Administrative Court in a case called Badre -v- Court of Florence. That court in turn considered itself bound to uphold an appeal against an extradition order by a decision of the ECHR (Torreggiani v Italy 2013) that prison conditions in Italy violated the appellant's Article 3 right not to be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment. The long and the short of it appears to be that, for the time being, until Italy resolves a chronic overcrowding problem, nobody from the UK will be extradited there.

An extract from the Torreggiani case gives the scale of the problem:

That's interesting. If it would be an ECHR violation to extradite to Italy, then why isn't it an ECHR violation for Italy to request extradition?

 

[Diocletus]

I would say that the three stage process is such a basic part of the Italian legal system (and that of many other countries) that refusing to recognize the different stages of the process would make the treaty pretty meaningless; likewise, if Italy decided it wasn't going to accept the U.S. definition of when an acquittal/conviction is final, but was going to apply its own standards, the treaty would basically be unworkable. No one would be extradited to the U.S. because the U.S. is never going to give a defendant the presumption of innocence up until their appeals are exhausted, as happens in Italy.

At the very least, both those things are so fundamental to each system that if either country were going to refuse to extradite on that basis, it should be spelled out in the treaty (as happens with the death penalty issue, of course, even though that's a much less fundamental question, applying only to punishment once convicted).

It's all semantics and hand-waiving. There have already been three jury trials, and there was no presumption of innocence at the ISC or Nencini proceeding.

I don't think this issue needs to be spelled out; I think it can be handled on a one-off basis. As far as I know, this is the first time that this issue has come up under this treaty, and it seems like a fact pattern that is unlikely to repeat.

More troubling to me is Italy's bad faith use of its courts, which violates the fundamental premises of the extradition treaty.

 

[Diocletus]

Why does it sound like you're trying to disagree with me when you're repeating exactly what I said?

I'm glad to hear that you agree with me.

 

[anglolawyer]

That seems right. But why would we extradite someone to serve a jail sentence if they've already served their sentence in the requesting country? Makes no sense and seems very objectionable.

I think that treaties assume that the other party won't act in bad faith, which Italy has surely done in the Knox situation.

She has not served her sentence for murder, only a small part of it. I don't see your point here.

 

[Desert Fox]

By your logic - not mine

If simple logic is such a challenge.....
Perhaps it would be better to give DNA analysis a miss.

[To be fair it's not that easy to understand for most laymen ]

Crash and burn. . . .
http://uncw.edu/chem/facstaff-halkides.html

You might say that he knows just a little bit more than most of us about DNA

Edit: The thing is that he has explained in detail what the problem with the DNA evidence in a way all of use who are will to pay attention to understand. He also has discussed the issue with specific forensic DNA researchers.

You then want to try to argue that you are right while showing neither any expertise or even finding other experts.

The simple facts were that there were multiple male signature on the bra clasp, it was kicking around the floor for six weeks, and the team appears to have dirty gloves. That says very clearly "contamination."

Edit-2: really would like to see a debate by Chris Halkides against Michael Behe about the bacteria flagellum.

 

[Diocletus]

She has not served her sentence for murder, only a small part of it. I don't see your point here.

I'm not talking about Amanda Knox or any particular person. Why would anyone draft a treaty that would allow a country to request extradition of a person who has already been tried and served his sentence in that requesting country? Why should we read it that way? That's the implication of your reading of this "Requested Party" language.

 

[anglolawyer]

I'm not talking about Amanda Knox or any particular person. Why would anyone draft a treaty that would allow a country to request extradition of a person who has already been tried and served his sentence in that requesting country? Why should we read it that way? That's the implication of your reading of this "Requested Party" language.

No it isn't. I don't know what you are talking about.

 

[andreajo]

Platonov didn't invent any of these excuses for the killers DNA being found on the victims bra - various groupies did.
[The bolded part should be self explanatory in this regard]

So by your logic five men killed Meredith. Thanks; that clears up quite a bit.

By your logic - not mine
If simple logic is such a challenge.....
Perhaps it would be better to give DNA analysis a miss.

[To be fair it's not that easy to understand for most laymen ]

Platonov, can you please explain your logic, then? From your posts, it appears thus:

Raffaele Sollecito killed Meredith Kercher.

Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was on Meredith Kercher's bra.

Since Raffaele Sollecilto killed Meredith Kercher, his DNA on the bra clasp must be related to the murder.

Therefore, the presence of Raffaele Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp is strong evidence that Raffaele Sollecito killed Meredith Kercher.

Since Raffaele Sollecito killed Meredith Kercher, the DNA of the other men found on the bra clasp must be unrelated to the murder. Therefore, we can safely ignore this information.

 

[Diocletus]

No it isn't. I don't know what you are talking about.

Oh, ok. Well, I'm talking about what you're talking about . . . So what is it exactly that you're trying to say?

 

[Bill Williams]

Chris Halkides]So by your logic five men killed Meredith. Thanks; that clears up quite a bit.

By your logic - not mine


If simple logic is such a challenge.....
Perhaps it would be better to give DNA analysis a miss.

[To be fair it's not that easy to understand for most laymen ]

Ah, er, you present this as a reason to prefer your own logic, rather than Halkides'?

Just so that I can assure myself that you appreciate the point Chris is raising, can you at the very least summarize the point he is raising?

 

[Bill Williams]

It's all semantics and hand-waiving. There have already been three jury trials, and there was no presumption of innocence at the ISC or Nencini proceeding.

I don't think this issue needs to be spelled out; I think it can be handled on a one-off basis. As far as I know, this is the first time that this issue has come up under this treaty, and it seems like a fact pattern that is unlikely to repeat.

More troubling to me is Italy's bad faith use of its courts, which violates the fundamental premises of the extradition treaty.

I am not sure, but there probably does not have to be a "presumption of innocence" during the ISC hearings. What the ISC is there for, is to make sure that the lower courts adopted that as their standard.