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

[Grinder]

A Primer on US Extradition Law

 

[bri1]

Well, one, we don't know how long it is going to take for Nencini to even publish his motivation. Although it is expected soon. Two, we don't know how long it will take for Amanda's appeal and three, how long it will take for the Court of Cassation to make it's ruling. And who knows, they could send it back again because of some issue.

Then, Italy has to request extradition. The State Department has to accept it and begin the process in the US..and then it could take as long as 5 years for the US to make a decision as their are likely to be appeals. At the moment, the ECHR is about a year from the time Amanda's lawyers sent the callunia case to their court.

So the answer is "who knows"

As for Meredith and her family. It is really sad that Meredith was taken from this world by Rudy Guede in such a senseless act. It is horrible for her family and the people that knew her. No one is really trivializing that contrary to the Meredith is forgotten meme.

The issue isn't, that Meredith is forgotten by society. The issue is the guilt or innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. And objecting to this farce does not change what happened to Meredith or forget her. With the exception of her family and friends, none of us ever knew Meredith.

Thanks AC, for your thoughts on extradition. I actually think it's way too soon to think about extradition. I think we all have to hope that the motivations report from Nencini is as badly argued as the ISC's was last time, (and as we know it must be given the paucity of evidence and sense behind this verdict), and that ISC will see sense next time, and remedy the situation. If that doesn't happen (and there's really nothing to suggest it will), then we have to hope that ECHR sees the case for what it is and rules accordingly. Another quick question, does anyone know if the connection of AK & RS' prosecution and verdicts means that ECHR could order remedy in Raff's case as well as Amanda's?
Then, after all that, we can think about extradition. I hope it doesn't get that far, primarily for Raffaele's sake.

 

[codyjuneau]

When is Nencini's report due? Seems he's taking his time, or not taking the time.

If he creates a totally new theory I'll puke.
Maybe he'll just water it down, example "the crime was committed sometime in 2007."
The motive might change from Commodes motive # 312 "motive is no motive!", to "it could be any motive!". ...nevermind....the witch hunt court continues.

I guess its no surprise any place that can lock someone up for a year without pressing charges is pretty whacko.

.
It seems inevitable that in a system where the verdict is decided first, and the motivation written second, that there will be times when the judge writing the motivation realizes the verdict must be incorrect (either way). I wonder what a judge does in such a circumstance? I wonder if there is a precedent.
.

 

[acbytesla]

Thanks AC, for your thoughts on extradition. I actually think it's way too soon to think about extradition. I think we all have to hope that the motivations report from Nencini is as badly argued as the ISC's was last time, (and as we know it must be given the paucity of evidence and sense behind this verdict), and that ISC will see sense next time, and remedy the situation. If that doesn't happen (and there's really nothing to suggest it will), then we have to hope that ECHR sees the case for what it is and rules accordingly. Another quick question, does anyone know if the connection of AK & RS' prosecution and verdicts means that ECHR could order remedy in Raff's case as well as Amanda's?
Then, after all that, we can think about extradition. I hope it doesn't get that far, primarily for Raffaele's sake.

I think it is hard not to think about this issue although you are undoubtedly right, it is way to soon. Grinder's points definitely have some merit. The real question is does the US put it's own values associated with justice paramount or the treaty and good international relations with Italy?

Grinder's point about the case in Mexico absolutely has merit. The court basically valued our treaty with Mexico over an individuals right not to be put in jeopardy twice.

What is strange about this case, is that if Amanda had left Italy before the interrogation on November 4/5, she would never have likely been extradited to Italy. Since the extradition treaty puts a higher burden of proof for a suspect before trial than one than after a conviction. What I do have to believe is the latter situation is extremely rare.

 

[Grinder]

I think it is hard not to think about this issue although you are undoubtedly right, it is way to soon. Grinder's points definitely have some merit. The real question is does the US put it's own values associated with justice paramount or the treaty and good international relations with Italy?

Grinder's point about the case in Mexico absolutely has merit. The court basically valued our treaty with Mexico over an individuals right not to be put in jeopardy twice.

What is strange about this case, is that if Amanda had left Italy before the interrogation on November 4/5, she would never have likely been extradited to Italy. Since the extradition treaty puts a higher burden of proof for a suspect before trial than one than after a conviction. What I do have to believe is the latter situation is extremely rare.

Tesla I think that we didn't put the treaty ahead of our values but rather we accepted that they used a different system and within that system it wasn't DJ.

If we were to look at this trial reversed and an Italian was convicted in the US for murder but escaped while on bail and made it back to Italy and we asked for extradition. The Italian makes the case that no motivations were written and a second trial wasn't allowed in which not only technical legal aspects were reviewed but the case as a whole.

The motivations create a huge problem in their system. Finding someone guilty without the narrative is far easier. Imagine that the Italians didn't have the requirement. If they had found them guilty then innocent and the ISC overturned the verdict because the Hellmann trial didn't finish the expert investigation and made some technical error and then they were re-convicted by Nencini what would people here have to say without motivations.

The ISC only looks at the last motivations from what I can tell and they don't need to make Massei's line up with Nencini's.

So how do we answer the Italian that says our system isn't fair to an Italian because we don't even bother to understand what happened?

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that somehow only US citizens have special rights. If people here were honest with themselves, I don't think they would agree with the Italian saying he shouldn't be extradited because his rights to three trials and motivations wasn't afforded to him.

In the Italian and the Mexican system it is not DJ. Our system of convicting people after they have been found not guilty by using a different authority (different state or the feds) could be pointed to as proof that we actually do allow DJ.

 

[Grinder]

Over on the dark side apparently they too think that the Italian judicial system is not sensible.

Today's news from the GU on the decision taken by The Magistrates Council. Just as most sensible people thought:

Judge Nencini's comments to the press in the aftermath of Knox & Sollecito second conviction in the murder of Meredith Kercher by the Florence Court of Appeal the Csm has decided maybe it was «inopportuno» ill-timed, but the Judge will not be transferred.​

So the Italian members of the judiciary that put Nencini "on trial" were not sensible.

I wonder if Mach will now be free to straighten us out here.

 

[Bill Williams]

Over on the dark side apparently they too think that the Italian judicial system is not sensible.

Today's news from the GU on the decision taken by The Magistrates Council. Just as most sensible people thought:

Judge Nencini's comments to the press in the aftermath of Knox & Sollecito second conviction in the murder of Meredith Kercher by the Florence Court of Appeal the Csm has decided maybe it was «inopportuno» ill-timed, but the Judge will not be transferred.​

So the Italian members of the judiciary that put Nencini "on trial" were not sensible.

I wonder if Mach will now be free to straighten us out here.

I'm not sure I understand the point this guilter is trying to make, or the criticism of it.

Nencini almost booted this case. The Magistrates Council has given him a slap on the wrist.

What he seemed to be saying, which was enough to catch the attention of the Magistrates Council to begin with, was that:

- if Raffaele had not exercised his right to remain silent, that perhaps things would have gone better for him. This "right" shields Raffaele from cross-examination, it does not disallow Raffaele from making spontaneous statements. The implication is that IF Raffaele had ratted out Amanda, the prosecution would have gone easier on him... that IF Raffaele had been cross examined, something would come out which would have benefited Raffaele. In short, the prosecution, according to Nencini, is Raffaele's friend - wanting to save him from himself in vouching for and giving an alibi to Knox. His unwillingness to do that is the SOLE reason he's being convicted too.

- that the Popular Judges needed to be cajoled into voting for conviction.​

It's not so much that Nencini spoke about the trial before he should have (which is what is the real concern of the Magistrates Council), but the content of what he implied.

Otherwise I do not understand what the guilters are on about.

 

[Bill Williams]

Even though Judge Nencini's actions were "grossly inappropriate" in blabbing to the press about Raffaele Sollecito and the queries of the Popular Judges, no action will be taken.

http://www.lanazione.it/firenze/cronaca/2014/04/09/1050839-processo-meredith-nencini.shtml

 

[Diocletus]

So how do we answer the Italian that says our system isn't fair to an Italian because we don't even bother to understand what happened?

I agree. I think that whenever an Italian murders someone in the US, we should put them on trial for 10 years. Or, if they will go back to Italy and agree only to commit crimes over there and never come back here, that's fine with me, too.

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

Huh?

When is Nencini's report due? Seems he's taking his time, or not taking the time.

If he creates a totally new theory I'll puke.
Maybe he'll just water it down, example "the crime was committed sometime in 2007."
The motive might change from Commodes motive # 312 "motive is no motive!", to "it could be any motive!". ...nevermind....the witch hunt court continues.

I guess its no surprise any place that can lock someone up for a year without pressing charges is pretty whacko.

Guantanomo? Or doesn't that count?

 

[Diocletus]

Guantanomo? Or doesn't that count?

Nope. Doesn't count. Terrorists are different.

 

[Diocletus]

Even though Judge Nencini's actions were "grossly inappropriate" in blabbing to the press about Raffaele Sollecito and the queries of the Popular Judges, no action will be taken.

http://www.lanazione.it/firenze/cronaca/2014/04/09/1050839-processo-meredith-nencini.shtml

Bill--We knew this two months ago. Get with the program.

But this is interesting: http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/failed-sexual-assault-investigation/

 

[Grinder]

I'm not sure I understand the point this guilter is trying to make, or the criticism of it.

Nencini almost booted this case. The Magistrates Council has given him a slap on the wrist.

What he seemed to be saying, which was enough to catch the attention of the Magistrates Council to begin with, was that:

- if Raffaele had not exercised his right to remain silent, that perhaps things would have gone better for him. This "right" shields Raffaele from cross-examination, it does not disallow Raffaele from making spontaneous statements. The implication is that IF Raffaele had ratted out Amanda, the prosecution would have gone easier on him... that IF Raffaele had been cross examined, something would come out which would have benefited Raffaele. In short, the prosecution, according to Nencini, is Raffaele's friend - wanting to save him from himself in vouching for and giving an alibi to Knox. His unwillingness to do that is the SOLE reason he's being convicted too.-that the Popular Judges needed to be cajoled into voting for conviction.​

It's not so much that Nencini spoke about the trial before he should have (which is what is the real concern of the Magistrates Council), but the content of what he implied.

Otherwise I do not understand what the guilters are on about.

My point was that the PGP indicate that sensible people all knew that Nencini hadn't done wrong which implies that the PIP that thought he had done wrong and were not sensible. But it wasn't the PIP that put him in front of charges on their own but rather the court/justice system which would indicate that the system wasn't sensible.

I'm not sure where the highlighted section comes from. Do you have a link to Nencini saying the stuff about fingering Amanda or that the lay jurors needed to be cajoled ?

ETA - I found this but it seems the defense contended these things not that he said them literally - He said: ‘The jurors returned home every day and were bombarded with information. When we met they would say, “Justice, but on TV they say that it happened in another way. What happened really?”.’
The judge seemed convinced of Knox’s guilt, saying he believed that the murder would never have happened without her. But he seemed less convinced of Sollecito’s culpability and said the Italian could have helped his case if he had submitted to cross-examination.
Defence lawyers have interpreted the comments as evidence that the panel was prejudiced, claiming the judges would have acquitted Sollecito if he had betrayed Knox.
Sollecito’s lawyer Luca Maori threatened legal action and added: ‘By saying that Raffaele should have taken the witness stand is he saying that if he had accused Amanda Knox he would have been acquitted?’

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

Nope. Doesn't count. Terrorists are different.

Yeah right. "Terrorists", who are later freed due to lack of evidence. This sort of thing used to be called rank hypocrisy when we were still civilised.

 

[Diocletus]

Yeah right. "Terrorists", who are later freed due to lack of evidence. This sort of thing used to be called rank hypocrisy when we were still civilised.

Really? Newsflash: you can get away with anything if you call someone a terrorist. Honestly, the Italians should have just indicted Knox and Sollecito for terrorism. Nobody would care.

 

[Planigale]

Nope. Doesn't count. Terrorists are different.

To be fair the vast majority of persons held at Guantanomo were not terrorists.

 

[Diocletus]

To be fair the vast majority of persons held at Guantanomo were not terrorists.

Just like the vast majority of Germans were not Nazis . . . or maybe they were, I don't know. Point being, no one gets past the "terrorist/Nazi" thing.

 

[Bill Williams]

My point was that the PGP indicate that sensible people all knew that Nencini hadn't done wrong which implies that the PIP that thought he had done wrong and were not sensible. But it wasn't the PIP that put him in front of charges on their own but rather the court/justice system which would indicate that the system wasn't sensible.

I'm not sure where the highlighted section comes from. Do you have a link to Nencini saying the stuff about fingering Amanda or that the lay jurors needed to be cajoled ?

ETA - I found this but it seems the defense contended these things not that he said them literally - He said: ‘The jurors returned home every day and were bombarded with information. When we met they would say, “Justice, but on TV they say that it happened in another way. What happened really?”.’
The judge seemed convinced of Knox’s guilt, saying he believed that the murder would never have happened without her. But he seemed less convinced of Sollecito’s culpability and said the Italian could have helped his case if he had submitted to cross-examination.
Defence lawyers have interpreted the comments as evidence that the panel was prejudiced, claiming the judges would have acquitted Sollecito if he had betrayed Knox.
Sollecito’s lawyer Luca Maori threatened legal action and added: ‘By saying that Raffaele should have taken the witness stand is he saying that if he had accused Amanda Knox he would have been acquitted?’

You have found what I would have cited....

I am biased, I know, so take this for what it's worth. What other possible interpretation could there be for Nencini's words than what the defence said?

Also, the Magistrate's Council really couldn't care less about the content of what Nencini said, it's that he said anything at all of the inner workings of the trial and judge-process....

Have you run across ANY chatter from the guilt side of things which explain (away) the content of Nencini's remarks? I, for one, cannot see any other interpretation than that he's virtually admitting that Knox and Sollecito had an unfair trial in Florence.

But that's me.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill--We knew this two months ago. Get with the program.

But this is interesting: http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/failed-sexual-assault-investigation/

I'm slow, but my spelling is also poor. I guess it takes a while to drink the koolade.

 

[Anode]

When is Nencini's report due? Seems he's taking his time, or not taking the time.

If he creates a totally new theory I'll puke.
Maybe he'll just water it down, example "the crime was committed sometime in 2007."
The motive might change from Commodes motive # 312 "motive is no motive!", to "it could be any motive!". ...nevermind....the witch hunt court continues.

I guess its no surprise any place that can lock someone up for a year without pressing charges is pretty whacko.

Yes, I'm anxious to read it too. What could it possibly say? Will he bring back the knife and bra clasp? If not then what evidence do they have that AK and RS were in the room? None right?

If he does bring the knife and clasp back he's essentially saying that their crime lab is sophisticated enough to detect LCN DNA on a knife that was, in their opinion thoroughly cleaned. But at the same time he would be implying that the lab wasn't able to pick up what should be relatively large amounts of DNA from them in the murder room, where they would have had to been to use the knife or touch the clasp. IMHO it's a huge unresolved contradiction.