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

[js202]

Are referring to this?

It is about… This may also be useful to the attorney because it indicated the number of criminal proceedings of Rudy Guede, an error note is made dated 1 February 2008 by the Prosecutor, the Deputy D’amico, who is in fact conducting an investigation against Rudy Guede for the crime of theft, receiving stolen goods and for the crime of illegal weapon possession. Law 110 of ‘ 75. This designation has also been provided to the Prosecutor’s Office in Perugia, to Dr. Male, by fax.
​

If so, it doesn't indicate that charges were filed.

Read his post again. He didn't say that charges were filed, but that an investigation was underway. Precisely what the piece reveals; no more, no less.

 

[Grinder]

Read his post again. He didn't say that charges were filed, but that an investigation was underway. Precisely what the piece reveals; no more, no less.

Correct. I thought he was answering the questions from yesterday about only charges on possession being prosecuted.

So we are to assume that a case couldn't be made for theft.

 

[Desert Fox]

This is of course all hypothetical. I can't imagine Italy's request being denied and them asking a second time. However, I don't think that would equal a contract. It certainly wouldn't be between the US and Amanda and a contract is an agreement between two parties. Italy isn't agreeing to anything. The US is basically just telling them no.

Wasn't there a case where the US made an agreement with a woman as far as extradition to Switzerland?

 

[Grinder]

Maybe not Grinder. This kind of info has been all over the web for years. Rudy may not have been a genius, but Rudy did know how to use the Internet.

The lawyer indicated: The strange thing that I can highlight in this respect is that I noticed that the alarm system the next day, when we went, it was damaged because the light was always on, even if it is disabled, and the person or persons who entered din’t damage the alarm, but they just deactivated the phone dialer, so with this the their shows a certain competence in electronics, and alarms because to disable a phone dialer without damaging the alarm I wouldn’t be able, despite being the owner, so I would not have this expertise.

Could you explain how it's done on the system the lawyer had? Do it without looking anything up unless you are assuming that Rudy did have a laptop working as he burgled.

Why does it seemingly bother you to think he may have had an accomplice?

 

[Magister]

All we seem to have is this newspaper report , previously posted.
No sign of the motivations report.

http://www.ilmessaggero.it/primopia...o_milano_perugia_delitto/notizie/625371.shtml

Seems strange that following the investigation Guede was only charged and convicted for receiving stolen goods.

 

[acbytesla]

Wasn't there a case where the US made an agreement with a woman as far as extradition to Switzerland?

I'm pretty sure the US made a plea agreement with some branch of the US government that they wouldn't extradite her if she cooperated with an investigation of someone else and eventually, that agreement with her was not honored because of the extradition agreement. A lower court ruled that her agreement should be upheld but eventually a higher court overruled that decision. Pretty sure Grinder has the info.

 

[Desert Fox]

I'm pretty sure the US made a plea agreement with some branch of the US government that they wouldn't extradite her if she cooperated with an investigation of someone else and eventually, that agreement with her was not honored because of the extradition agreement. A lower court ruled that her agreement should be upheld but eventually a higher court overruled that decision. Pretty sure Grinder has the info.

The US would somewhere have to put in writing that the extradition is denied.

Can you imagine if Philip de Camp, Phillip Wolford and Thomas Gibson were always at risk of extradition to Spain. It is just bad policy to allow such things be fate in the wind.

 

[Grinder]

I'm pretty sure the US made a plea agreement with some branch of the US government that they wouldn't extradite her if she cooperated with an investigation of someone else and eventually, that agreement with her was not honored because of the extradition agreement. A lower court ruled that her agreement should be upheld but eventually a higher court overruled that decision. Pretty sure Grinder has the info.

Shortly thereafter, the United States Attorney's Office in Florida concluded a plea bargain with Bauer and Lambert under which it was agreed that they would reveal all they knew about the conspiracy to smuggle heroin from France and Switzerland in which they were involved and that they would testify in the event there were trials of others involved in the conspiracy. In turn, the government promised that they would be reindicted for lesser offenses which would lead to sentences of no more than seven years, that they would be paroled after three years, and that the government would make its "best efforts" to avoid their "deportation" to France or Switzerland.​

There you have it.

As you can see no more than a best effort promise

 

[acbytesla]

Shortly thereafter, the United States Attorney's Office in Florida concluded a plea bargain with Bauer and Lambert under which it was agreed that they would reveal all they knew about the conspiracy to smuggle heroin from France and Switzerland in which they were involved and that they would testify in the event there were trials of others involved in the conspiracy. In turn, the government promised that they would be reindicted for lesser offenses which would lead to sentences of no more than seven years, that they would be paroled after three years, and that the government would make its "best efforts" to avoid their "deportation" to France or Switzerland.​

There you have it. [qimg]http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/images/smilies/tiphatsmiley.gif[/qimg]

As you can see no more than a best effort promise

It might be worth mentioning that the woman wasn't an American citizen. Not sure if that makes a difference or not...

 

[acbytesla]

The lawyer indicated: The strange thing that I can highlight in this respect is that I noticed that the alarm system the next day, when we went, it was damaged because the light was always on, even if it is disabled, and the person or persons who entered din’t damage the alarm, but they just deactivated the phone dialer, so with this the their shows a certain competence in electronics, and alarms because to disable a phone dialer without damaging the alarm I wouldn’t be able, despite being the owner, so I would not have this expertise.

Could you explain how it's done on the system the lawyer had? Do it without looking anything up unless you are assuming that Rudy did have a laptop working as he burgled.

Why does it seemingly bother you to think he may have had an accomplice?

It doesn't bother me at all that he might have had an accomplice grinder, I was just pointing out that this kind of information is available on the net. Just because the lawyer didn't know how it could be done is irrelevant. Who's to say that Rudy hadn't burglarized a a great many businesses and homes? We don't know one way or the other, do we?

 

[carlofab]

I would argue that as long as it is in writing that the US will not extradite her, it becomes a contract. If the US then tries to extradite her later, they are breaking the contract.

Second, the way the way the treaty is written, it allows some loose interpretation. A lower judge could simply judge that Italy has not proven guilt. It is not then a constitutional issue and do not see the Supreme Court ever seeing it.

I think both parties have to receive something for it to be a contract.

If so then I helpfully suggest...

"In exchange for one dollar from Amanda Knox, payment of which is herein acknowledged, the US agrees in perpetuity not to extradite her... "

 

[Samson]

I would argue that as long as it is in writing that the US will not extradite her, it becomes a contract. If the US then tries to extradite her later, they are breaking the contract.

Second, the way the way the treaty is written, it allows some loose interpretation. A lower judge could simply judge that Italy has not proven guilt. It is not then a constitutional issue and do not see the Supreme Court ever seeing it.

This was a comment after the Bassiouni article.

the findings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which has written, “prosecution appeal after acquittal is often permitted in European countries with civil law traditions … although the Treaty does not address this situation, it is the understanding of the Senate that under U.S. law and practice a person sought for extradition can present a claim to the Secretary of State that an aspect of foreign law that may permit retrial may result in an unfairness that the Secretary could conclude warrants denial of the extradition request.”

While this is probably referring to prosecution appeal of initial acquittal, rather than finding of innocence on appeal being followed by prosecution appeal of that judgement and annulment, it is hard to see this written statement as being irrelevant. The finding of innocence by Hellmann is the huge elephant in the room, and the idea that someone like John Kerry, who has the intellect to be a presidential candidate and secretary of state ignoring this and not becoming conversant with the three or four motivations reports before making a decision would be a triumph for Italian form, and a defeat for natural justice.

 

[Grinder]

It doesn't bother me at all that he might have had an accomplice grinder, I was just pointing out that this kind of information is available on the net. Just because the lawyer didn't know how it could be done is irrelevant. Who's to say that Rudy hadn't burglarized a a great many businesses and homes? We don't know one way or the other, do we?

Tesla I see you didn't give instructions on how to disable the lawyers' system. We don't know exactly how many burglaries he was involved with, but had he been the thief you assume for knowing a multitude of systems why would he be in need of money for rent?

From what the lawyer said I'm assuming he had been shown how it worked and that's why he made the statement about not being able to turn off the phone dialer in way he said it.

I also think that after the burglary the lawyer would be concerned about how easy it was to turn off the system and looked into the expertise needed.

Once again this person needed to know how to do it without accessing the Net while doing the job.

 

[Grinder]

This was a comment after the Bassiouni article.

the findings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which has written, “prosecution appeal after acquittal is often permitted in European countries with civil law traditions … although the Treaty does not address this situation, it is the understanding of the Senate that under U.S. law and practice a person sought for extradition can present a claim to the Secretary of State that an aspect of foreign law that may permit retrial may result in an unfairness that the Secretary could conclude warrants denial of the extradition request.”

While this is probably referring to prosecution appeal of initial acquittal, rather than finding of innocence on appeal being followed by prosecution appeal of that judgement and annulment, it is hard to see this written statement as being irrelevant. The finding of innocence by Hellmann is the huge elephant in the room, and the idea that someone like John Kerry, who has the intellect to be a presidential candidate and secretary of state ignoring this and not becoming conversant with the three or four motivations reports before making a decision would be a triumph for Italian form, and a defeat for natural justice.

The person can present and the Secretary could conclude which doesn't really say anything.

 

[Grinder]

I think both parties have to receive something for it to be a contract.

If so then I helpfully suggest...

"In exchange for one dollar from Amanda Knox, payment of which is herein acknowledged, the US agrees in perpetuity not to extradite her... "

so your suggesting she bribe the government?

 

[Samson]

The person can present and the Secretary could conclude which doesn't really say anything.

I don't know when or in what context it was written. It looks somewhat above zero value to Amanda to me.

 

[Desert Fox]

The person can present and the Secretary could conclude which doesn't really say anything.

The thing is that there is a position arguing on the other side.
If it looks like the government will just hand citizens over to foreign nations when that can be seen as a violation of the US constitution, that looks really bad.

 

[Grinder]

The thing is that there is a position arguing on the other side.
If it looks like the government will just hand citizens over to foreign nations when that can be seen as a violation of the US constitution, that looks really bad.

The courts ruled on the DJ thing with the Mexican case and maybe more. Clearly the Italian type system doesn't work with the 5th unless we accept that the trial isn't over and no verdict is assigned until completion.

here's some stuff from a recent article - just more stuff

The only legal argument that Knox, her lawyers, and other advocates have made thus far is that she should be protected by America’s commitment to preventing double jeopardy. They claim that Article VI of the U.S. extradition treaty with Italy incorporates the American meaning of double jeopardy. But the Article only relieves the U.S. of its obligation to extradite if the subject is charged with the same crime at home. Even if the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution were in question, it would offer Knox scant hope.
​

The Fifth Amendment states, “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” It sought to prevent the “unacceptably high risk that the Government, with its vastly superior resources, might wear down the defendant so that ‘even though innocent he may be found guilty.’” That means preventing the government from retrying the same person for the same crime if it doesn’t like the result it gets the first time around.

What’s happening to Knox isn’t the type of legal abuse that the Constitution sought to prevent. Knox is trying to dodge the consequences of an appeal, not a new trial after the conclusion of a legal process. As Reuters reported of the Italian justice system, “No judgment is considered final until appeals have been exhausted.” What happened is what can always happen: “[T]he top Court of Cassation can order a retrial which adds years more to the process.” (So far as inapplicable constitutional arguments go, Knox might be better served ditching the Fifth Amendment for the Sixth, protecting the right to a speedy trial.)​

 

[Samson]

The courts ruled on the DJ thing with the Mexican case and maybe more. Clearly the Italian type system doesn't work with the 5th unless we accept that the trial isn't over and no verdict is assigned until completion.

here's some stuff from a recent article - just more stuff

The only legal argument that Knox, her lawyers, and other advocates have made thus far is that she should be protected by America’s commitment to preventing double jeopardy. They claim that Article VI of the U.S. extradition treaty with Italy incorporates the American meaning of double jeopardy. But the Article only relieves the U.S. of its obligation to extradite if the subject is charged with the same crime at home. Even if the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution were in question, it would offer Knox scant hope.
​

The Fifth Amendment states, “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” It sought to prevent the “unacceptably high risk that the Government, with its vastly superior resources, might wear down the defendant so that ‘even though innocent he may be found guilty.’” That means preventing the government from retrying the same person for the same crime if it doesn’t like the result it gets the first time around.

What’s happening to Knox isn’t the type of legal abuse that the Constitution sought to prevent. Knox is trying to dodge the consequences of an appeal, not a new trial after the conclusion of a legal process. As Reuters reported of the Italian justice system, “No judgment is considered final until appeals have been exhausted.” What happened is what can always happen: “[T]he top Court of Cassation can order a retrial which adds years more to the process.” (So far as inapplicable constitutional arguments go, Knox might be better served ditching the Fifth Amendment for the Sixth, protecting the right to a speedy trial.)​

Whoever wrote this shows bias right here . Dodge is a perjorative term.

 

[Grinder]

Whoever wrote this shows bias right here . Dodge is a perjorative term.

no doubt but that doesn't make the analysis wrong.

personally i don't think the US will do something that sets a precedent. i suppose a tea party president might go for one.

maybe the senate and the prez will decide to change all extradition treaties that don't accept our rights and procedures.

No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens

We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us

We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too

Boom goes London and boom Paris
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round Will just be another American town Oh, how peaceful it will be We'll set everybody freeYou'll wear a Japanese kimono babe
And there'll be Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now​