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

[Grinder]

I don't understand this question or how it relates.

You said a US court would rule that Italy had broken its own laws. The ISC will have ruled that isn't the case but some district court judge is going to "overrule" the ISC is how I read your point. I don't see how the treaty would allow for that.

 

[Mary_H]

You said a US court would rule that Italy had broken its own laws. The ISC will have ruled that isn't the case but some district court judge is going to "overrule" the ISC is how I read your point. I don't see how the treaty would allow for that.

I didn't say anything about a US court. My assumption is that this would be the argument presented to the state department by whoever represents Amanda in the case of an extradition request.

 

[Grinder]

Changing the treaty would be a slap in the face to a NATO ally that came in handy when Libya needed to be bombed. It would imply that convictions secured in Italy were not to be regarded as sound and had to be proved all over again in the US. Amanda is important but is she that important?

Well certainly a long shot at best. If they rewrote all "double jeopardy" treaties they might be able to avoid the slap. If they single out Amanda and just refuse this one extradition I'm not sure it would be viewed in a better light.

 

[lionking]

As anglo said, the extradition process is more political than legal. I doubt the US will want to upset a long time ally.

 

[Grinder]

I didn't say anything about a US court. My assumption is that this would be the argument presented to the state department by whoever represents Amanda in the case of an extradition request.

I assume that all arguments would be made in court.

 

[Grinder]

As anglo said, the extradition process is more political than legal. I doubt the US will want to upset a long time ally.

Indeed, since 2010, the United States has denied extradition requests from Russia, Bolivia, and Venezuela, for suspects facing charges or convictions for fraud, genocide, and terrorist bombing.[11] These denials appear valid: the United States does not have an extradition treaty with Russia, the Bolivian suspect was charged with military crimes, and the Venezuelan suspect may have been tortured upon his return.[12] More interesting is the American response to the kidnapping and torture of Abu Omar. In 2003, 23 Americans, 22 CIA employees and one Air Force Colonel were involved in the kidnapping and torture of Egyptian citizen, Abu Omar.[13] Omar was taken from Milan, transported to Egypt, and tortured for seven months.[14] The 23 Americans were convicted in absentia in 2009, and the Italian prosecutor wanted the Americans extradited.[15] However, it appears that after the United States made clear it would not extradite the 23 American citizens, and spent years pressuring the Italian government to back down, several Italian Ministers of Justice blocked all extradition requests.[16
I think we don't really care that much about upsetting them.

ETA - There it is! The Italian courts will want to extradite but Italian Ministers of Justice will block the requests.

 

[Mary_H]

I assume that all arguments would be made in court.

However they do it, Amanda's representation can put it in their affidavits. It doesn't sound like anything is getting proven in court; it just sounds like a convincing case has to be made.

 

[anglolawyer]

Indeed, since 2010, the United States has denied extradition requests from Russia, Bolivia, and Venezuela, for suspects facing charges or convictions for fraud, genocide, and terrorist bombing.[11] These denials appear valid: the United States does not have an extradition treaty with Russia, the Bolivian suspect was charged with military crimes, and the Venezuelan suspect may have been tortured upon his return.[12] More interesting is the American response to the kidnapping and torture of Abu Omar. In 2003, 23 Americans, 22 CIA employees and one Air Force Colonel were involved in the kidnapping and torture of Egyptian citizen, Abu Omar.[13] Omar was taken from Milan, transported to Egypt, and tortured for seven months.[14] The 23 Americans were convicted in absentia in 2009, and the Italian prosecutor wanted the Americans extradited.[15] However, it appears that after the United States made clear it would not extradite the 23 American citizens, and spent years pressuring the Italian government to back down, several Italian Ministers of Justice blocked all extradition requests.[16
I think we don't really care that much about upsetting them.

I am with LK. This will be political. The case you reference is acutely political. You can't order your people to engage in black ops and then hand them over to a foreign power for trial. You would end up with no one willing to do black ops. Amanda is in a different category but still potentially political. There is a widespread belief, which I think is growing, that she was framed and there will be a political cost to whoever hands her over. If she were a mafia boss of Italian descent, no problem.

 

[Mary_H]

As anglo said, the extradition process is more political than legal. I doubt the US will want to upset a long time ally.

If the case for innocence becomes popular enough in the US, then Italy will find they are the ones who have upset a longtime ally.

 

[LondonJohn]

Respectfully, no. It's the US Department of Justice that acts for Italy, not the courts. The courts are constitutionally separate from the executive, of which the DoJ is part. The case will be Italy (represented by the DoJ) -v- Knox and the court will simply apply the law, not in the national or any other interest, but just that. The problem is in figuring out what the law actually is since there are conflicting strands of thought about whether sovereign treaty-making powers (comity of nations etc) or fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitootion should take precedence.

Sorry yes. I meant to say that the DoJ acts as Italy's representative before the court. And, as you say, the court is tasked purely with applying justice (but the US flavour of justice!), taking into account all issues such as extradition treaties, arguments by the defendant, mitigating factors and other issues (such as, as you say, constitutional rights).

 

[Desert Fox]

I am with LK. This will be political. The case you reference is acutely political. You can't order your people to engage in black ops and then hand them over to a foreign power for trial. You would end up with no one willing to do black ops. Amanda is in a different category but still potentially political. There is a widespread belief, which I think is growing, that she was framed and there will be a political cost to whoever hands her over. If she were a mafia boss of Italian descent, no problem.

We will not hand over soldiers but some poor college student with bad luck, sure. That would not look real good internally.

 

[LondonJohn]

I am with LK. This will be political. The case you reference is acutely political. You can't order your people to engage in black ops and then hand them over to a foreign power for trial. You would end up with no one willing to do black ops. Amanda is in a different category but still potentially political. There is a widespread belief, which I think is growing, that she was framed and there will be a political cost to whoever hands her over. If she were a mafia boss of Italian descent, no problem.

I think Lionking was suggesting that the political angle to any potential Knox extradition battle would make it more likely that she would be extradited.

 

[Antony]

Yes. This illogicality is littered throughout the various court judgements against Knox and Sollecito. But never perhaps was it so explicitly articulated as in the Massei Report's astonishing assessment of Capezzali's "earwitness" testimony (no apologies for mentioning this stunner once again):



(Massei Report, p96 Eng trans)


My jaw almost literally still drops every time I read or remember this sentence. It's such a disgustingly contra-judicial ruling (not to mention its abhorrent illogicality) that I'm still deeply amazed that Massei committed it to paper. And if he and his court were prepared to write this in the sentencing report, then just how much did they apply similar chasms of logic elsewhere in their reasoning?

I suspect the Nencini report will eclipse Massei on all of this.

 

[Desert Fox]

I suspect the Nencini report will eclipse Massei on all of this.

Could it potential be so bad that the Italian supreme court cannot endorse it?
Kind of hoping

 

[LondonJohn]

I suspect the Nencini report will eclipse Massei on all of this.

I suspect that the overarching thrust of the Nencini report (judging from Nencini's ill-judged interviews post-verdict) will be as follows:

The court started with the previous SC ruling that there were multiple assailants. The court therefore required the defence teams to show convincingly either that a) this was an impossibility given the evidence, or b) there were convincing reasons why these other assailants were not Knox and Sollecito. The defence teams failed to do either of these things. Therefore we are obliged to accept that there were two other assailants, and that those two other assailants were Knox and Sollecito.

Of course, proving (a) is an impossibility, and it should never be incumbent upon the defence to prove it anyhow. Likewise, the defence should never have to prove the innocence of the defendants. And it should go without saying that no court in the trials process of Knox and Sollecito should be allowed - in law and in ethics - to start with a presumption generated by an entirely different trial process (in this instance, Guede's trials).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no such thing

Could it potential be so bad that the Italian supreme court cannot endorse it?

That is not possible.

 

[Desert Fox]

That is not possible.

While you are almost certainly right, this seems like an "Emperor has no clothes" sort of thing.
Then again, several US cases such as the Norfolk Four seemed to be the same thing.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I am with LK. This will be political. The case you reference is acutely political. You can't order your people to engage in black ops and then hand them over to a foreign power for trial. You would end up with no one willing to do black ops. Amanda is in a different category but still potentially political. There is a widespread belief, which I think is growing, that she was framed and there will be a political cost to whoever hands her over. If she were a mafia boss of Italian descent, no problem.

My understanding is serving American armed forces personnel or government officials such as CIA agents, are not part of any extradition treaty.

Whether Amanda is or isn’t extradited really will come down to whether there would be a groundswell of public opinion against extradition.

 

[JREF2010]

I suspect the Nencini report will eclipse Massei on all of this.

It must be hard for the Defense to try to build a defense when the prosecution has 10 different lawyers and each has a different motive and pile of accusations that are impossible to argue when they are mostly just made up accusations.

But then this time it seems all the debating about evidence was pretty much ignored, and the Guilty verdict tossed out there to appease the ISC who will now agree with themselves.(I predict).

So the extradition issue will be it for Amanda's concerns and Raffaele will do time, while the lawyers try to "turn it around" somehow.

The Witch Hunters will celebrate.

 

[Bill Williams]

You know how things bug you and you don't know why....?

How on earth did Andrea Vogt get a copy of a recording of Amanda Knox on Nov 17, 2007?

I mean, for the BBC3 documentary... how does a virtual unknown American, living in Italy, who has anonymous sources (Edward McCall's Wiki) and not much else...

... how does she get a copy of a recording of a Perugian Law Enforcement interrogation session?

How does one do that? Can I get one? What other recordings are out there? Does anyone in the BBC wish to do a documentary on Andrea Vogt's access to PLE?