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

[Samson]

There is an interesting observation posted on Amanda's blog, the treaty was 1984, but the fast track trials were not invented till 1990. The fast track trial is the only mechanism by which Guede could testify in writing against A and R, but use his right to silence, the result of his conviction being finalised, to evade being questioned as Italian law otherwise requires. Questioning him would inevitably expose the timeline idiocy, even if he remained silent under questioning.

 

[platonov]

A good memory is a curse.

I don't think you give yourself enough credit in this arena. Even if Stef had been totally transparent, DNA is confusing at the LCN level.

Yeah, especially at the LCN level !!!!!!

What is the threshold in your opinion ?

Would you agree with Dan O and halides1 that 'visibility to the naked eye' is the cutoff

Links available on request (if you ask nicely)

 

[analemma]

The treaty says:

ARTICLE VI

Non Bis in Idem

Extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted, acquitted or pardoned, or has served the sentence imposed, by the Requested Party for the same acts for which extradition is requested.

This is from a pdf of a letter from the US President:

Article 6 provides that extradition shall be denied when the person sought has been in jeopardy in the requested State for the same offense​

It seems clear to me that 6 (six) is addressing a situation where the person has already been dealt with on the act that the requesting state (Italy) wants them for. If Amanda had been tried here that would be in force.

Now this is what Bassiouni wrote:

The 1983 U.S.–Italy Extradition Treaty states in article VI that extradition is not available in cases where the requested person has been acquitted or convicted of the “same acts” (in the English text) and the “same facts” (in the Italian text). Treaty interpretation needs to ascertain the intentions of the parties by relying on the plain language and meaning of the words. Italy’s law prohibiting ne bis in idem specifically uses the words stessi fatti, which are the same words used in the Italian version of article VI, meaning “same facts.” Because fatti, or “facts,” may include multiple acts, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals applied the test of “same conduct” in Sindona v. Grant, citing international extradition in US law and practice, based on this writer’s analysis.
Whatever the interpretation of article VI may be—“same act,” “same facts,” or the broader “same conduct”—Amanda Knox would not be extraditable to Italy should Italy seek her extradition because she was retried for the same acts, the same facts, and the same conduct. Her case was reviewed three times with different outcomes even though she was not actually tried three times. In light of the jurisprudence of the various circuits on this issue, it is unlikely that extradition would be granted.​

He is clearly an expert, but what he says doesn't seem to line up with the text of the treaty at least in English.

It seems he confuses the treaty language with the Italian law. It seems so clear that Article 6 doesn't address double jeopardy in one country but rather in two. The treaty says you can't be extradited if you have already dealt with the issue in the country that is being requested to extradite.

As for the our rights not applying abroad, I don't think they are a red herring but you may say that.

The Italians certainly could argue that since the US will try a person twice on the same facts even if found not guilty the first time that their three level system is no more a violation of DJ.

Grinder
What you said about the requested countries rights maybe mattering in an extradition request raises an interesting question.
Could the fact that the ISC convicted Knox once and for all in their decision of the Guede trial be a factor in an extradition discussion?
I seem to remember an extradition case involving somewhere(maybe Scotland) where requesting country used juries of only six jurors and it became an issue in the extradition.
The ISC ruling that Knox was guilty because of the Guede trial ruling should certainly be an issue in the extradition fight, since the whole ISC concept was in violation of US law and basic fairness and I suspect that the US would not have made a treaty with Italy if they knew that the Italian courts would allow such a thing.
Can the US say that "your system is OK as proposed in the treaty but you did not say that you would convict without representation"?
I know that the RULES say do not examine the case, but on the other hand, a country cannot say that their courts work one way when they make the treaty and then work another way in actual practice.
Or can they?
Analemma

 

[acbytesla]

Yeah, especially at the LCN level !!!!!!

What is the threshold in your opinion ?

Would you agree with Dan O and halides1 that 'visibility to the naked eye' is the cutoff

Links available on request (if you ask nicely)

Of course they never said that. But 50 picograms and RFUs of 25 an 30 are far too low. I think if you talked to them, they would say at least 5 to 10 this amount.

 

[Desert Fox]

Of course they never said that. But 50 picograms and RFUs of 25 an 30 are far too low. I think if you talked to them, they would say at least 5 to 10 this amount.

The trouble is that platonov appears to be trying to argue that contamination does not happen. Looking at the things wrong in the crime scene, the most likely explanation is contamination.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

low template DNA

Yeah, especially at the LCN level !!!!!!

What is the threshold in your opinion ?

Would you agree with Dan O and halides1 that 'visibility to the naked eye' is the cutoff

Links available on request (if you ask nicely)

platonov,

I will ask nicely exactly once that you do not continue to distort or misstate my position, which is roughly that of Dr. Budowle and Dr. Jamieson.

 

[RandyN]

Bill the difference is the wording in the motivations. Hellmann IIRC differed to the C&V report while Massei explained why he accepted Stefanoni over the defense experts. It's been a while but that's what I think mattered to the ISC. Mach and Galati made the point.

The ISC hasn't ruled on the Massei verdict and it doesn't seem that they will as they only need to review the appeals verdict but would be interested for an expert to comment.

When we discussed this years ago it seemed then as it does now that DNA must be reviewed by someone like Diocletus.

I think every case dealing with LCN/touch DNA should have a panel of three experts to review the work and best if done without knowledge of the case.
The PGP oft comment that we only have had DNA for a short time and that we were able to find for guilt or innocence without it. Obviously, many were convicted when not guilty as we see with Project Innocence cases, but what case would they have here without the DNA.

They might have been able to match the cigarette in some way and the DNA on it was abundant. They could have matched Amanda's and Meredith's blood types.

How much more powerful would the compatibles have been without DNA?

How would the case have gone if DNA didn't exist? Could it be that the "don't convict an innocent man rather free 10 guilty" stemmed from a time when cases like this were total guesswork?

I could be totally wrong about this...but I don't think LTN/LCN DNA evidence has ever been admitted as evidence in a murder case...except for in Italy. (and maybe North Korea does it too...but I bet Iran does not!)

And certainly not as the primary evidence ...some might say the only "evidence" that implicates either Knox or Sollecito.

If that was not questionable enough...and make no mistake using such weak non standard methodology that breaks every scientific rule and falls outside the machine and test kit design parameters and then additionally to have the science, police girl, person, non doctor, liar, go into court and pretend that this is valid is reprehensible. Its corrupt and inexcusable.

Forget that the results can never be confirmed or even checked since the samples were either used up and/or destroyed. Which is another piece of evidence proving corruption. So is the lying, withholding, and control data sheet chicanery. All more powerful pieces of evidence that prove a dirty prosecution...in fact a far stronger case proves that then anything the prosecution in 6 years has shown in the Kercher case debauchery.

In this case I would concede that there is no reliable DNA data at all. Not even in the case against Guede.

Diocletus has proven that there is missing data and that there is contaminated data. Our own eyes have shown us how sloppy these people actually were. Their own words tell us how they failed. They only changed gloves after bloody or torn. We can watch them failing to use forceps. They pass around the bra clasp like a hot potato or something...that was so bizarre. And yet they did and are still getting away with that.

How is that even possible? Why no scientific outrage? They really did screw the pooch here and yet...oh and wait! Biondo certified Stefanonis results for Massei...remember? That's why Massei could trust it....the grossly conflicted corruption of interest said he looked at her work and it was perfect.

How does a guy like Dershowitz go on TV and back up work and corruption like this? Someone has to be paying him. This has always been a circus of the bizarre... but how do they keep getting away with that? No one can get away with this much nonsense...not over time.

What could possibly be going on in Italy? No one is that stupid right? Not a whole country...right? Did they fight against the Mafia for so long and hard that they ended up becoming the Mafia themselves? That's what it looks like to me.

Hellmann as much as said that when he said the prosecutors have strong political friends...I suppose the same can be said of our own system...our own embarrassment of a SC. I hear they are going to start wearing sponsor logos on the judicial robes now... Dupont, GE, Hunt Brothers, etc....there really is tons of stupid going around.

De-evolution...there is something in it that I am becoming far less skeptical about.

 

[Mary_H]

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

I agree.

 

[RandyN]

Yeah, especially at the LCN level !!!!!!

What is the threshold in your opinion ?

Would you agree with Dan O and halides1 that 'visibility to the naked eye' is the cutoff

Links available on request (if you ask nicely)

Sure I would like to see those links requiring the threshold of DNA quantification to be "visibility to the naked eye"...according to Halkides and DanO as you claim.

In fact your claims demand it since we are certain for Chris at least that your statement is designed to directly discredit his professionalism and reputation in the scientific field. Seems like a rather personal attack to me. But if you have links...then please cite.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>Could the fact that the ISC convicted Knox once and for all in their decision of the Guede trial be a factor in an extradition discussion?<snip>
The ISC ruling that Knox was guilty because of the Guede trial ruling should certainly be an issue in the extradition fight, since the whole ISC concept was in violation of US law and basic fairness and I suspect that the US would not have made a treaty with Italy if they knew that the Italian courts would allow such a thing.
Can the US say that "your system is OK as proposed in the treaty but you did not say that you would convict without representation"?
I know that the RULES say do not examine the case, but on the other hand, a country cannot say that their courts work one way when they make the treaty and then work another way in actual practice.
Or can they?
Analemma

First we have to get a hold of Nencini's motivations before we know whether his court found Rudy's trial binding on Amanda and Raffaele.

We HOPE the US would not make a treaty with Italy if the Italian courts would allow such a thing, but who knows how carefully State has studied the entire Italian legal system. If it is legal in Italy to find a defendant guilty at another defendant's trial, then we are all in trouble. If it is illegal, then we are home free, because it will cause an uproar.

Fortunately, one does not have to go that far into the trial process to find that Italy did not do what it was supposed to do according to their constitution and hence the treaty. As Welshman said, they did all this.

 

[RandyN]

Originally Posted by Desert Fox View Post
I think the first tactic of the US will be to try to persuade Italy from not even asking.

I agree.

How will that be possible? Sure Italy could do lots of goose stepping and excuse making..."well we know US will never give up the girl" etc...but they remain with the very real problem of RS now don't they.

Unless they plan on rubbing him out in the near future? Perhaps he should seek political asylum somewhere because his life may actually be in danger in Italy. He has become the inconvenient liability.

If the girl goes free how can they toss up their hands and say "oh hell...just forget about it all, it is a political nightmare now"?

Id say they have painted themselves foolishly and tightly into the corner...not with regular paint but rather some kind of alligator and snake and spider attractant...something that takes a hundred years to dry.

Idiots!

 

[Desert Fox]

I think part will depend on Nencini's motivations
They may be so nuts that even their Supreme Court may throw up their hands

 

[Mary_H]

Originally Posted by Desert Fox View Post
I think the first tactic of the US will be to try to persuade Italy from not even asking.

How will that be possible? Sure Italy could do lots of goose stepping and excuse making..."well we know US will never give up the girl" etc...but they remain with the very real problem of RS now don't they.

Unless they plan on rubbing him out in the near future? Perhaps he should seek political asylum somewhere because his life may actually be in danger in Italy. He has become the inconvenient liability.

If the girl goes free how can they toss up their hands and say "oh hell...just forget about it all, it is a political nightmare now"?

Id say they have painted themselves foolishly and tightly into the corner...not with regular paint but rather some kind of alligator and snake and spider attractant...something that takes a hundred years to dry.

Idiots!

Well, Desert Fox did say "try." Probably the way to get Italy to back off Amanda is just to inform Italy ahead of time that the answer will be no, thus saving them time and money and "face."

You're right, though -- what they will do with Raffaele is a difficult question. Maybe the ISC can be persuaded to find for innocence in the final decision.

 

[codyjuneau]

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 ]

.
, bliss.
.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, Desert Fox did say "try." Probably the way to get Italy to back off Amanda is just to inform Italy ahead of time that the answer will be no, thus saving them time and money and "face."

You're right, though -- what they will do with Raffaele is a difficult question. Maybe the ISC can be persuaded to find for innocence in the final decision.

This is obviously what will happen. The case will be sent back and they will be acquitted then the prosecution will appeal and the SC will convict and then ... the resulting total shutdown of all government activity due to lack of funds will lead to the dissolution of the Italian state, a power vacuum in the Mediterranean and the discovery in Moscow of a significant Russian minority in the Italian peninsular warranting invasion protection and then ...

 

[Annella]

This is obviously what will happen. The case will be sent back and they will be acquitted then the prosecution will appeal and the SC will convict and then ... the resulting total shutdown of all government activity due to lack of funds will lead to the dissolution of the Italian state, a power vacuum in the Mediterranean and the discovery in Moscow of a significant Russian minority in the Italian peninsular warranting invasion protection and then ...

My opinion, FWIW! After my 10 yrs living in Italy I have a slight handle on the collective mentality, although I also need to preface this with my thoughts that the SC would NOT rule as they did last time. So its grain of salt time I guess.

Both Amanda and Raffaele will eventually be found 'not guilty' when the circus has travelled to enough grounds to have ascertained that the all important ' bella figura' and face saving exercise has been established. Slowly. Painfully.

My sister was killed in a car accident in Italy 12 years ago. She had no insurance, ( many Italians dont...it is prohibitive beyond belief!) but as the 18yr old who wiped her out was found guilty of same, and spent 6 months in prison, he was liable. My niece, nephew, brother in law and the family here in New Zealand were paid a combined total of 1 million euro. The State paid that. I imagine that young man is going to be paying it back for rest of his life but at least Italy recognised the harm, and grief that occurred and rectified that. Now. Whether they are STILL as generous remains to be seen but I hold out hope. And that is that Amanda and Raffaele will never have to worry about finances ever again. Small comfort right now I know, in fact likely no comfort at all! But, I do believe the Supreme Court will put this right and even before the ECoHR needs to intervene.

 

[anglolawyer]

My opinion, FWIW! After my 10 yrs living in Italy I have a slight handle on the collective mentality, although I also need to preface this with my thoughts that the SC would NOT rule as they did last time. So its grain of salt time I guess.

Both Amanda and Raffaele will eventually be found 'not guilty' when the circus has travelled to enough grounds to have ascertained that the all important ' bella figura' and face saving exercise has been established. Slowly. Painfully.

My sister was killed in a car accident in Italy 12 years ago. She had no insurance, ( many Italians dont...it is prohibitive beyond belief!) but as the 18yr old who wiped her out was found guilty of same, and spent 6 months in prison, he was liable. My niece, nephew, brother in law and the family here in New Zealand were paid a combined total of 1 million euro. The State paid that. I imagine that young man is going to be paying it back for rest of his life but at least Italy recognised the harm, and grief that occurred and rectified that. Now. Whether they are STILL as generous remains to be seen but I hold out hope. And that is that Amanda and Raffaele will never have to worry about finances ever again. Small comfort right now I know, in fact likely no comfort at all! But, I do believe the Supreme Court will put this right and even before the ECoHR needs to intervene.

That would be totally mind-blowing. Poor ole Randy would have to re-write his speeches and, but for the fact I have already done so, I would completely give up trying to understand Italian law and practise.

 

[Diocletus]

First we have to get a hold of Nencini's motivations before we know whether his court found Rudy's trial binding on Amanda and Raffaele.

We HOPE the US would not make a treaty with Italy if the Italian courts would allow such a thing, but who knows how carefully State has studied the entire Italian legal system. If it is legal in Italy to find a defendant guilty at another defendant's trial, then we are all in trouble. If it is illegal, then we are home free, because it will cause an uproar.

Fortunately, one does not have to go that far into the trial process to find that Italy did not do what it was supposed to do according to their constitution and hence the treaty. As Welshman said, they did all this.

I think that Nencini is going to have to put a lot of time into explaining away (probably via reinvention and fabrication) a number of human rights violations. If he doesn't, then the ISC is going to presented with an appeal that looks just like a meritorious ECtHR petition, and they will know that the jig is up.

As this case sits right now, the biggest difficulty for the defense is going to be figuring out which of several significant HR violations should be the focus of their ECtHR appeal.

 

[Diocletus]

[/HILITE]

Sure I would like to see those links requiring the threshold of DNA quantification to be "visibility to the naked eye"...according to Halkides and DanO as you claim.

I can see the semen stain. Does that count?

 

[Diocletus]

There is an interesting observation posted on Amanda's blog, the treaty was 1984, but the fast track trials were not invented till 1990. The fast track trial is the only mechanism by which Guede could testify in writing against A and R, but use his right to silence, the result of his conviction being finalised, to evade being questioned as Italian law otherwise requires. Questioning him would inevitably expose the timeline idiocy, even if he remained silent under questioning.

That's an interesting observation. That said, it's not the fast track trial that is the actual problem, but rather, the Italian courts' decision to use the fast track trial results (as moulded by the charging decisions of the prosecution) in the Knox/Sollecito trial. Indefensible, stupid and unnecessary in my opinion.

I think that we might see Nencini pretend to reject the direct use of the Guede trial, and instead he'll just repeat all of the same lame evidence from Rudy's trial, and then he'll lie and say that he is basing his decision on that evidence, and not the fact that the ISC has already decided that there were multiple attackers and they included Knox and Sollecito. And thus, happily, it will turn out that Nencini sees things just like the ISC did, thus proving the total logicality and compatibility of all things Italian, and even proving the absolute perfection of the police investigation and lab work, which also turn out to be logical and compatible with what the ISC said on the basis of what the prosecution told it to say.