Friday, February 21, 2014

The US Lacks Legal Authority To Decline To Deliver A Guilty Knox To Italian Authorities

Posted by TomM

[Rome airport; exceedingly rare for those convicted of Italian crimes not to be sent back via here]

The reporting on this case has, with few exceptions, been poor.

Recent reporting on whether the US would extradite Amanda Knox continues that tradition, ranging from assertions that “sources” within the State Department say they would never extradite her, to claims that the risk of extradition is real, but that the Secretary of State has the discretion to refuse to extradite.

If the Secretary of State actually has this discretion, it must be grounded in the law.

That means it must be found in the Constitution, or in an act of Congress, or in a treaty—all of which constitute the “law of the land”.  Beyond authorizing the President to make treaties, with the consent of two thirds of the Senate, the Constitution sheds no further light.

The only act of Congress dealing with extradition of US citizens is Title 18, United States Code, section 3196; a bit of background first.

There is no uniform US extradition treaty.  Each treaty is separately negotiated with the other sovereign nation.  Historically, many of the treaties entered into by the US contained clauses providing that neither country was obligated to extradite its own citizens.

Notwithstanding this, the US had extradited US nationals on the basis of discretion to extradite even though extradition was not required by the language of the treaty.  But in 1936 the US Supreme Court held that if the treaty does not “obligate” the requested party to extradite its own citizens, the Secretary of State does not have the discretion to deliver the person sought to the requesting country.  [Valentine v. United States ex rel. Neidecker 299 U.S. 8]

In 1990, Congress passed 18 U.S.C § 3196, captioned “Extradition of United States citizens:”

“If the applicable treaty or convention does not obligate the United States to extradite its citizens to a foreign country, the Secretary of State may, nevertheless, order the surrender to that country of a United States citizen whose extradition has been requested by that country if the other requirements of that treaty or convention are met.”

That is the full extent of Congressional action on extradition of US citizens; there is no Congressional grant of discretion to the Secretary of State to decline extradition in the face of a treaty obligation.

Some US extradition treaties contain clauses that give the requested country the discretion not to extradite its own citizens; perhaps that is where the idea that the Secretary of State has discretion not to extradite Knox comes from.

Here, for example, is a clause from the US-Sweden treaty:

“There is no obligation upon the requested State to grant extradition of a person who is a national of the requested State, but the executive authority of the requested State shall, subject to the appropriate laws of that State, have the power to surrender a national of that State if, in its discretion, it be deemed proper to do so.”

The treaty with Italy is short (ten pages) and written in plain language.  The treaty has commences with Article I, captioned “Obligation to Extradite”:

“The Contracting Parties agree to extradite to each other, pursuant to the provisions of this Treaty, persons whom the authorities of the Requesting Party have charged with or found guilty of an extraditable offense.”

The cover letter of the Secretary of State to then-President Reagan explains:  “Article I obligates each State to extradite to the other, in accordance with the terms of the Treaty, any persons charged with or convicted”¦”. (emphasis added)

There are mandatory grounds for refusal, such as political or military acts, double jeopardy (if the person sought has already been tried by the requested State for the same offense), or if the prosecution or penalty is time-barred in the requesting State.

There is just one discretionary ground: if the country requested is also prosecuting the person sought for the same act.

Article 4 provides:

“A Requested Party shall not decline to extradite a person because such a person is a national of the Requested Party.”

Thus, any discretion to deny extradition implied by 18 USC 3196 has no application to requests made under this treaty.  Further, although some appellate cases have treated some issues regarding extradition of nationals differently, they fairly firmly hold to the difference in the meaning of mandatory words like “shall” and “obligate” on the one hand, and discretionary or permissive words like “may”.

Comments to the effect that the US has declined extradition to Italy in the past are superficial and uninformed.

The first illustration such commentators cite is that of the Air Force pilot who severed a ski lift cable, causing multiple deaths.  That was not an extraditable offense under the treaty because of double jeopardy; the pilot had been court martialed.  Although his acquittal enraged Italians, the pilot had already been tried by the US, and thus his case fell under the mandatory ground to denial of extradition specified in the treaty.

The other example mentioned is that of the CIA operatives who were prosecuted in absentia for the abduction of Abu Omar in Milan.  The Italian Minister of Justice refused, during both the Berlusconi and Prodi administrations, requests of the Milan court to commence extradition proceedings.  In Italy, the courts and the government are independent, and the courts lack power to compel government to make a request for extradition.

Even if the Italian government had made an extradition request, there is at least a colorable argument to be made that this was in the nature of a military act in the US war on terror, thus constituting a mandatory ground of refusal.

Thus, if Italy requests the extradition of Amanda Knox, the US lacks legal authority to decline to deliver her to Italian authorities.  If the US government wants to avoid extraditing her, it will have to rely on diplomacy rather than law.  In other words, it will need to convince the Italian government not to make an extradition request in the first place.


“If the US government wants to avoid extraditing her, it will have to rely on diplomacy rather than law.  In other words, it will need to convince the Italian government not to make an extradition request in the first place.”

Hence all the PR and the quavering AK plea on national television for help for something she ‘cannot do alone’ and the need for help from those who ‘know how these systems work’.

This began a long time ago and the efforts continue to this day - as we all know only too well.

Posted by thundering on 02/21/14 at 05:32 PM | #

Anyone who thinks that a political/diplomatic stalemate is an easy shot should read all of our previous posts. Very tough and very rich and very connected perps on the lam have tried this, and all were sent on their way. Every one:

In particular our main poster James Raper spelled out a losing scenario.

In fact Knox’s plight would be even worse than that now. Many will read the Nencini reasoning which will finally give the Massei reasoning the attention it deserves, and Knox’s guilt will become apparent. Plus Sollecito and Guede in prison will increasingly resent her.

Under an Interpol Red Notice, an extradition request is not even required to make her wanted and unemployable worldwide. Robert Lady is under a Red Notice and he is broke, lonely, in despair, and muttering about suing the CIA now.

Besides, there is no sign in the Italian government that the extradition request will be blocked; there has been no recent example where requests were not routinely passed on. Unlike Berlusconi’s, the party in power is not thumbing its nose at justice.

There is no sign within the US government that anyone gives a damn about Knox. Maybe the connected lawyer Robert Barnett, but when it becomes apparent that the AK book he enabled is a defamatory crock which contains felonies, look for him to find other things to do.

Heavey is rambling and ineffective, and Senator Cantwell scuttled in and out of his absurd show-and-tell at the Congress hoping that nobody would notice.  And the Rome Embassy has created zero paper trail for any judge or politician to grab onto.

Knox is going back. Her best shot would be to head back gracefully and end the grating denial.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/21/14 at 06:27 PM | #

Hear! Hear!

Trouble is Knox hasn’t seen that yet so continues to cry, plead and charm in an effort to gain the kind of support she believes / hopes will get her off the hook like it did in October 2011.

Posted by thundering on 02/21/14 at 06:49 PM | #

Thank you TomM for this explanation which is so clear and definite. Now I can easily explain to others if needed.

I truly hope this process slowly and surely proceeds to its due closure.

I would like to see the Italian justice system respected and honoured in the way it deserves.

This may be seen as an Italian/ American issue, but the victim - the true victim - is British. Many British would have something to say about it, that’s for sure.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/21/14 at 07:30 PM | #

To Sel123, as far as Italy requesting Knox’s extradition is concerned, I absolutely agree with you that it would be absurd for them to go to this effort if they were then going to simply let her remain in the States.  More importantly, Lyle Kercher stated immediately after the recent guilty verdicts that he can see no reason why Knox should not be extradited when the treaties exist! 

The Kerchers have spoken quite rarely and behaved with such grace and good manners that I cannot see the Italians not complying with their wishes.  After all, Meredith was their beautiful girl and no one has say over her like they do.  Italy has made sure to win justice for Meredith and now it is the final step to ensure that the guilty pair are punished.

Posted by MHILL4 on 02/21/14 at 09:17 PM | #

In reply to SeekingUnderstanding, I am British and this sad case has indeed upset me greatly.  I have a daughter and to imagine the loss of her in this manner is beyond my capabilities; my heart aches for Meredith and her lovely family!  I know that it is completely wrong to judge an entire race by the comments and actions of a few, but the Moores and Joe Starrs have absolutely put me off returning to the States.

I would hope that the British government would actively encourage the Italians to request extradition if they were to drag their feet.

Posted by MHILL4 on 02/21/14 at 09:29 PM | #

Thank you TomM, that’s very interesting on the legal aspects of extradition.

I did wonder what Dershowitz’s thoughts were when he said there’s a reasonable chance that Italy won’t even request extradition. Was he just hedging his bets, or does he really think it’s likely?

Yes, it does seem odd that Knox was allowed to leave the country after her acquittal, even though the trial was still on-going. I wonder if this is standard practice in Italy - or if it’s irregular and maybe added stench arising from the Hellmann court in some way. If the latter, surely there will now be extra determination to get her back.

Posted by Odysseus on 02/21/14 at 10:55 PM | #

If Italy did not seek extradition then that would be a tremendous loss of face for them. That is why I believe it will happen since it also in the USAs best interest William Snowden, Robert Lady and others notwithstanding.

Also It might be a good thing at some point to encapsulate the evidence here so that new comers to this site can get an overall picture.

That would be the DNA evidence, The high resolutions photos of the knife stain on the bed. The broken window etc: The floor mat which matches the foot sizes, plus Knox handwritten statements. Sollicito’s computer/phone
records and so on.

That would help to deflect the nonsense emanating
from the FOA sites. Some of their writings and opinions are so ridiculous that if Knox had been caught with the knife in her hand they would claim it a lie. Plus the contention that it was Mignini all along who had killed Meredith. Sad but true

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 02/22/14 at 12:20 AM | #

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent comments on the question regarding a possible Amanda Knox extradition.

” It’s an ongoing legal process. There’s nothing in front of us now, and I don’t have to comment on it and I’m not going to. We’ll let the legal process work out, and if and when the time comes and there’s a reason I have to comment, I’ll do my duty.”

Posted by True North on 02/22/14 at 12:49 AM | #

Hi, Sel123, Odysseus, yes, Knox was allowed to leave the country, but Sollecito was also allowed (and he travelled all over the world). If Sollecito gets prison, it would be discriminatory for Italy not to request extradition and put Knox in prison, too.

I don’t know what Maitre Dershowitz thought, but he warned between the lines that the rule of law can be broken by politics—I hope it does not happen.

Posted by Bjorn on 02/22/14 at 12:55 AM | #

Very clear and very well explained, thanks Tom.

Puts very well in simple words why the two purported ‘precedents’ of denial of extradition with Italy, in fact are not precedents at all and have nothing to do with the case.

The Cavalese Cable Car case is one where Italians had wished to see justice done, the US failed to do that, but those airmen were tried by a martial court in the US so extradition had nothing to do with that.

The Cia officers on the Abu Omar affair instead is a case where Italy did not wish to obtain extradition (the Italian government was involved too, they are not ‘angels’), but paradoxically it’s a more insidious case from the legal POV.

In fact, at a certain point the minister of Justice did forward one request of extradition, she could do that since Cia officers are not protected by formal military status, and the fact that she did despite so reluctantly it shows how little the government’s discretional power actually is.

On the other hand, from the US point of view, the administration could argue within the US that the Cia officer was acting on a de facto military role, the fact that a Cia officer is not a criminal but a member of the government who is just taking orders is something obvious, which makes the case be entirely different from the Amanda Knox conviction.

So there is actually no valid precedent of extradition denial.

I’m not sure about what the US administration could decide on an extradition request for Amanda Knox, but, something that I could anticipate, is that, given the legal framework, a possible denial would have the consequence of bringing the treaty to de facto cancellation. Because a refusal would be obviously not compatible with the legal framework of the traty.

As far as what I think the Italian government would do, I would put the odds of Italy requesting extradition to close to 100%.

Maybe, with the help of Benedetto Della Vedova, some people in the next government will seek some trick (like not providing ful paperwork, fail to provide evidence etc.). But they will have to make an extradition requst.

I don’t think they will have the possibility of chosing not to do that.

Posted by Yummi on 02/22/14 at 12:58 AM | #

Important new information Yummi. Really, this too should be a main post and if it would help we could translate Tom’s and James’s posts into Italian.

My take after reading incessantly on the CIA case is that although extradition requests would have been embarrasing and perhaps refused, State was seriously ticked at Robert Lady and his team AND someone at the top of the CIA seems to have been none too thrilled as well.

As I mentioned above Robert Lady has claimed to be jobless, not very well, and broke, and sure not getting the rewards he thinks he deserves. 

Even these really senior government guys, not wanted for a sadistic murder but for their notion of the national interest under George Bush, got precious little official help.

Dream on, Heavey and Moore. You and the other Perverts for Knox really dont stand a prayer.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/22/14 at 03:49 AM | #

A kind of ‘battle’ on a refusal of ‘extradition’ actually did take place between Italy and the USA. However, the attempted ‘extradition’ was not exactly one of a formal and legal kind, and the roles were inverted: it was Italy who refused to surrender six terror suspects. Four Syrians(or Palstinians) who were detained, and two Egyptians who were let go free.

That episode is known as the ‘Sigonella Incident’ (or ‘Sigonella Crisis’), almost ignored by the US public (and almost ‘non-existing’ for the English Wikipedia).

Unfortunately the confrontation did not take place in legal venues but rather on, well, almost military terms. The episode was the aftermath of the Achille Lauro hijiacking, and this is the Italian Wikipedia page:

The English translation function apparently does not work with Wikipedia pages, but you can easilly paste and copy the text in google translator. Unfortunately the google translation may miss some most relevant points (also because google transl often drops “NOT” from phrases).

Posted by Yummi on 02/22/14 at 04:50 AM | #

@MHill4…sorry you feel that way, but I completely understand. I would not invite any of my friends worldwide to USA at this time. We are unstable as a country, and I am ashamed, because we are (I thought) better than what the world perceives.

Thank you TJMK…everyday. smile

Posted by Bettina on 02/22/14 at 05:46 AM | #


“Her best shot would be to head back gracefully and end the grating denial”

In my long experience as a teacher, I have discovered that the simplest advices are most often the best and are most difficult to follow.

In her early days in the court, she had difficulty to take Meredith’s name. She could not tell in simple words “I didn’t kill her”. She is still using convoluted expressions like “there is no evidence…”.

Her goal was, at least on paper, to get higher education. She failed in that. She basically wasted 4 years of her prison life- even Guede did better in prison.

Finally the PR campaign is going to work against her. Does she have no real friend in life?

Posted by chami on 02/22/14 at 06:17 AM | #

How can one be friends with someone who speaks in fictions, manipulates situations and people, flirts inappropriately, acts disingenuously, and threatens to get angry or hysterical if not getting their own way?
It would be like trying to make friends with someone who isn’t there, and a challenge to a saint.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/22/14 at 09:51 AM | #


To be a successful criminal, one needs to be many things at the same time. Mafias (organised criminal syndicates), for example, run a parallel government in many countries and they manipulate people for their own purpose. In many legal systems, you will find various classes of crimes: economic crimes are considered minor whereas murder and rapes are considered serious. We condone social and economic crimes far more easily although they are likely to have a far longer damage and recovery may be slow.

She attempted manipulating situations and people but was caught. She was a utter failure.
She flirted (is it the correct word?) inappropriately, like millions others of her age, but never found what she wanted. By the way, I consider Americans far more conservative in this matter.

She is simply sick. She deserves attention and treatment.

Finally, saints are usually lonely just because they tread a not-so-well beaten path. However, success attract followers, just like…

Posted by chami on 02/22/14 at 11:03 AM | #


I have not heard about the story you mentioned (Sigonella crisis) before. I first visited Rome in 1977 and then visited Trieste in 1987. The details are not even widely known in the English internet.

In the present case, I think that the request will be presented appropriately but will be delayed and not directly denied. I guess it may be about 10 years before Amanda visit Italy once more?

I have often joked that Italy and France are the only two successful communist countries in the whole world, but their conviction and sincerity is beyond any question. In this case, I think, one will find that papers are missing, application is incomplete, questions will be asked and answered and I guess it may be close to 10 year!

But then the US has a very interesting concept of protecting her own people! The case you cited only confirms that- the incident is not well known.

What the US will do with the American signorina is completely unpredictable.

Posted by chami on 02/22/14 at 11:20 AM | #

The best way to get one’s needs met, IMHO, is to be a considerate, kind and honest person.

Getting what one wants through roughness, manipulation or dishonesty will bear its own due rewards - a Pyrrhic victory .

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/22/14 at 12:50 PM | #

For the FOA group and all those, who regularly scream for evidence and DNA, 
claiming that the killer(s) always leave something behind on the murder scene.

‘Joseph E Duncan III : Documentary on the Child Molester and Serial Killer’ (You Tube)

The following comments are from the police, investigating the crime.

‘Three people killed, blood everywhere.’
‘As we moved around the house, there was bloodstains virtually everywhere in the house, in every single room, on every wall.’
‘The killer or killers seemed to have covered their tracks perfectly, leaving no clues.’ 
‘No fingerprint, no shoe print, no witness - we did not have any of that.’

Posted by Babushka on 02/22/14 at 02:57 PM | #

From the same documentary a very interesting new investigation technique.

‘Joseph E Duncan III : Documentary on the Child Molester and Serial Killer’ (You Tube)

‘The FBI is exploring a new technique called brain fingerprints that is designed to establish whether or not a person has knowledge of a crime by recording the brain’s response to images flashed on a computer screen. Some believe brain fingerprints may someday be used like lie detector tests in criminal investigations.’ 

On 21 November 2009 a twenty-minute animated film, reconstructing the murder and made with digital imaging was screened in the courtroom.

Amanda, her chair turned away from the screen, never even glanced at the film!!!

Posted by Babushka on 02/22/14 at 03:54 PM | #

Sel123, I hope that you can find a way to let Meredith’s father Mr. John Kercher know that we share his pain and ask him to take good care of himself. I am worried for him after I read your message about how hard it is for him to handle this. This is because I have seen how the sadness of losing a child can take the life of a parent. My mother got cancer and passed away after my brother died in an accident at 35. She was so sad she wished that she could die herself.

I have been talking about forgiving those who took Meredith away because I think forgiving is a way to get out of this sadness also. The reason why some people kill and then try to cover it up and lie about it is complicated. If we can see it as if a machine that has malfunctioned and caused an accident and killed, then we will not feel as though we are not able to get justice for Meredith. Sometimes, we can only try to fix a machine, not to find justice for what is has done.

Posted by janenewyork on 02/22/14 at 04:46 PM | #

Hi, Yummi, I do remember the Sigonella crisis, but you are right, most people aren’t that versed in international relations. Here’s a summary in English:

which has every thing to do with the aftermath of the Achille Lauro Incident and interception of the terrorists who hijacked the ship. See:

The United States did not formally request their extradition but tried to act unilaterally, and Italian PM Bettino Craxi’s government eventually lost power as some political parties left his coalition over his actions.

Not quite the same for Amanda Knox, I think, and no reason it won’t be any more than a normal request for extradition and process.

Posted by Ergon on 02/22/14 at 05:08 PM | #

TomM, thank you for an encouraging outline of why the U.S. will most likely extradite. Death is profound which is why Knox is swimming in such strange waters.

On happier topic, my madeira citrine ring arrived. It has four tea colored stones that form a cross. The top one I named for Peter Quennell, the others stand for Mignini, Garofano and Nencini. Topaz perhaps later for Maresca, aquamarines for the women: Stefanoni, Nadeau, Vogt, Ficarra.

If Raffaele is incarcerated in the next two years, he should return to his art. It was therapeutic for him. Amanda could do the same, with pen or paintbrush and sow some beauty into this world. “Art to me is the harp of David, on which I desire that songs should be played at all times to the praise of the Lord.” (Frederich Overbeck).

Posted by Hopeful on 02/22/14 at 09:21 PM | #


Real friends? No. She must first recognise her essential connectedness with everyone. Potential friends (well those who don’t meet a tragic fate at her hands) likely drop away over time, once they get the picture.

That just leaves her with what the narcissist usually collects - acolytes -  each of whom will have idiosyncratic reasons to fall under the psychopathic spell. Since the murder many, if not most, new followers are likely just congenitally anti-authoritarian/xenophobic, seeing her plight as similar to theirs - victims of the perfidy of larger, darker forces. I would guess there’s also a good number of women who identify with an “innocent”,  “angel-faced” and “railroaded” Knox, thus finding confirmation that they’ve also not been dealt a good hand from a young age.

Then we have lecherous men of all ages (hello Judge Heavey) who think their wayward and repressed erotic desires are camouflaged by socio-economic standing, righteousness etc. In Heavey’s case I bet his wife can see through it. Maybe someone will interview her on camera, so we can look at the body-language?

Posted by Odysseus on 02/22/14 at 11:17 PM | #

PLEASE NOTE: As we get closer to release of the Nencini report, Amanda Knox’s friends are trying to turn on the PR at home. Ex-FBI agent Steve Moore has just equated the pro-justice movement with Stormfront, the White Supremacist Movement.

Thanks to Nell of PMF NET for this find

My reply to Steve Moore here:

Posted by Ergon on 02/23/14 at 07:38 AM | #

In addition to Ergon’s comment I would also like to add that Michelle Moore has contacted Vincent Politan from HLN TV networks to invite Steve Moore to discuss the case. She forgot to disclose that they are husband and wife, so that makes it a bit awkward.

I suspect that Steve Moore’s appearance on CNN’s Outfront with Erin Burnett and Paul Callan didn’t help.

Michelle Moore turned on Paul Callan after the show, accusing him of being biased and uninformed, getting his information about the case from a “hate site” and from the family of the victim. Her outburst prompted Paul Callan to publicly declare he had never been in contact with the Kerchers, followed by a few retweets of unflattering comments about Steve Moore’s performance from members of the public who watched the show and were shocked by Moore’s behaviour.

Posted by Nell on 02/23/14 at 09:05 AM | #

I am not angry at the Moores anymoore. They are just ordinary people, ex fbi and just exploring twitter. Before all this I did not know them and they never promised me justice.

A lot of people do defame (birthday party conversations). Twitter is new and easy.

I am not angry at the media. They are not about the truth in the first place, they have never been. They are about beeing busy and making money.

I am not angry at Hellman. He’s a (retired) system clown and his oath, well . . . .

Oh, the Fischer guy, almost forgotten . . . . 😊

Posted by Helder Licht on 02/23/14 at 12:06 PM | #

One question:

How does gogerty marriott handle extradition?

Posted by Helder Licht on 02/23/14 at 12:22 PM | #

To Heider Licht, I am sure you mean well but I do not share your views on the Moores.  Any one who actively tries to excuse the murderers of a beautiful girl is not normal in my book!  Michele Moore even has the gall to bring religion into her lies!  The true facts of this case are obvious and this is the staggering thing; that so many people are knowingly blind to them purely because they are so desperate to see primarily Knox as innocent.  Sollecito is an afterthought.

Sadly, there once was a time when journalists strived to present the truth and they did so impartially.

Posted by MHILL4 on 02/23/14 at 01:43 PM | #

At the gogerty marriot website I read:

“. . . we balanced the family’s need to have the truth told about their daughter’s innocence . . .”

I am a layperson and my English is bad, but is that a linguistic style error escape?

Posted by Helder Licht on 02/23/14 at 01:45 PM | #


Your book of beautiful girls? (sorry, joke)
Amanda is ugly and should not be murdered for that.

My point was: do not make them important.

Posted by Helder Licht on 02/23/14 at 01:57 PM | #

“Sadly, there once was a time when journalists strived to present the truth and they did so impartially.”

Then they forgot to teach it.

Posted by Helder Licht on 02/23/14 at 02:02 PM | #

very good article Tom

Posted by Popper on 02/23/14 at 02:15 PM | #

Hi Tom, your article ‘s ending, for the US to prevail upon Italy to not request extradition, just might bring up an existential fear among members here 😊

Of course, there is a history of extraditions being botched, or just hobbled by official malingering; witness the Roman Polanski affair and yes, it is possible there will be some attempts by Washington Senators and Congressmen sending messages to the State Department and Italian Foreign Minister, all Senator Cantwell has to do is buttonhole the Italian ambassador at a Georgetown party.

I have a sneaking suspicion though, the end result will be, herself ending up in an American prison.

Anyhow, a hockey game awaits. Go, Canada!

Posted by Ergon on 02/23/14 at 03:05 PM | #

“existential fear” + smiley


You are not a layman! 😊

Posted by Helder Licht on 02/23/14 at 03:24 PM | #

Thanks, Helder, while I wouldn’t last long 😊 on a site with a smiley limit,  they’re directed at myself,  pacing what has been a long and very fraught with surprises process.

Bruce and the Amandas, must be going mad.

And anyone who so perfectly and appropriately phrases, “a linguistic style error escape” is a-ok, English wise, in my book.

Canada 1-0

Posted by Ergon on 02/23/14 at 03:54 PM | #

@Helder Licht

Moore is sick. I don’t understand how a normal man can keep on talking nonsense nonstop.

You can understand media if you think them as business that cares only for the bottom line. The people are fed with populist news only. Nobody has time to go into the details.

Hellman is more incompetent than corrupt. He made a deal with the devil and is happy with what he has done. It may appear strange but truth is often strange…

About our dear old friend Frankie? He just loves the greenbacks! That can explain everything.

About “the need to have the truth told”- truth has a very ugly habit of raising its head at most inconvenient times!

I too agree that perhaps we are giving too much importance to too many undeserving people. For example, I do not understand what kind of qualification is “ex-FBI agent” (and wife of an ex-FBI agent).

Posted by chami on 02/23/14 at 03:56 PM | #


First: my notion “ex-fbi” was to contrast it with “twitter”, to emphasize the non-lineair technology burst, leaving people confused and naive.

I also think Moore is sick. But, in a common way. Nothing special. People let him in.

Media are stories. Point.

Posted by Helder Licht on 02/23/14 at 04:10 PM | #


please tell me the Innocence Project has not been bamboozled into this…:(

Posted by mojo on 02/23/14 at 04:38 PM | #

Hi Mojo,

The two authors of the article are not representing the Innocence Project. You can contact Steve Drizin via Twitter:


I corrected the factual errors on his article and highlighted some of the key evidence which he had completely ignored.

Posted by The Machine on 02/23/14 at 05:42 PM | #

Hi Machine

Re Drizin. I dont see your corrections. Could you maybe make a regular habit of always posting them here as well?

Same request to anyone fighting the conspiracists on their sites.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/23/14 at 06:05 PM | #

I think of her daily, the forgotten victim.

I think of her, Meredith, not the murderers, not those who have latched onto their case nor the pretenders. I think of how terrified Meredith was; how she suffered at their actions; how sweet her smile was; how her friends and family loved her.

Italy, don’t let her down.

The rest of us - never forget what horror they inflicted on that young woman. Don’t forget it for a single second. Keep up your righteous anger for truth and justice.

I light a candle for Meredith.

Posted by TruthWillOut on 02/23/14 at 07:31 PM | #

“Keep up your righteous anger for truth and justice.”

Speaking for myself, this is a moral quality, not inspired nor obstructed by anyone.

Posted by Helder Licht on 02/23/14 at 07:47 PM | #

I have just watched Paul Callan and Steve Moore on CNN.

Talking about the bra clasp, Steve Moore claimed that ‘The DNA that they said was Raffaelle’s, was actually a woman’s DNA.’

Where is this new DNA story coming from?

Posted by Babushka on 02/23/14 at 08:04 PM | #

Speaking of the Moore’s (who I have had more than one run in since this all began) let you remind you of a mathematical problem I was confronted with when I was in school in England.

“If it takes a man and a half to dig a hole and a half in a day and a half. Then how long will it take a centipede with a wooden leg to kick a hole in a bar of soap?”

This mathematical conundrum describes the Moore’s and their pathetic attempts to be relevant.

Or perhaps if you prefer a scientific problem.

The average person in going to the bathroom voids about half a pound of excrement every 24 hours. This means that in a persons average lifetime, and if that person lives to say 80 years old, then the total amount of excrement they will void will exceed about fifteen thousand pounds or seven and a half tons US

This scientific conundrum also describes the Moore’s

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 02/23/14 at 09:57 PM | # ... 202011.pdf

On the question of release on bail while fighting extradition, one possible precedent, granted due to ‘widespread public support’  would seem to be that of a Provisional IRA terrorist, granted by the judges of the Ninth Circuit on the basis of ‘the sympathy and concern of many Americans.’
The case of the IRA terrorist, however, would have been a political hotcake, with actual international government interest and domestic pressures from political and ethnic groups within the U.S.

But no foreign government has the slightest interest in having AK running about free.
No politically active hyphenated-American pressure groups care about her fate.
For all the smoke and mirrors the PR types have generated, there don’t appear to be that many real, identifiable people who care.
And I don’t think subsidized twitter traffic will have much bearing on the decision.
Knox’s rousing 2000+ petition serves as a legitimate measure of her real appeal to the public, and—hoisting with own petard time—its existence specifically undercuts any claim to widespread community support.

Further, in terms of a possible “hometown advantage,”  I wouldn’t be at all surprised if most of the local Seattle legal types weren’t tired of the whole embarrassing mess.
Heavey strikes me as odd and unpleasant, and I’m not seeing any evidence that he represents anyone’s ideas but his own when he speaks for AK.
(And am I remembering correctly - wasn’t he censured over the letter he sent on official stationary?)
And we all saw Bremmer on the BBC special; is there any reason to believe that she is a mover and shaker among her peers?
I can’t really see actual responsible legal professionals on the state level wanting to drag out this circus any longer.
I’m sure AK and family will pull out all the legal stops they can to slow the process, but I can’t see why anyone who is not on salary would go out of their way to help them.

And I am also wondering how much of the book advance they have already burned through, paying for previous legal and PR costs, and possibly reimbursing those family mortgages we heard so much about.
How much high level U.S. lawyering can they pay for?

At this point I’m pretty much expecting the extradition case to end, not a with a bang, but with a whimper.

Posted by lauowolf on 02/23/14 at 11:05 PM | #

To those who say that US media is only interested in making money, creating and fueling unending controversy, and adding insult to injury without any regard for human dignity, I say yes, the latest example is none other than NBC who in about 5 minutes will be airing a “special” on the anniversary of the Tonya Harding - Nancy Kerrigan incident that took place in 1994 (Harding whacking Kerrigan through proxies).

The previews show a very dignified Kerrigan expressing disgust at the “zoo” that the skating rink had become with both she and the felonette on the ice, and the media watching their every move and taking pictures, but more interesting to me is the behavior after 20 years (!!!) of the media clowns, who still think this is exciting stuff, worth showing on TV in prime time.

The ugly Harding felonette appears to be unrepentant after all this time, and Kerrigan (a beautiful and complete human being, indeed) appears still injured.

In this case justice has not been served, and I do not want to see the same kind of garbage repeated with Knox, who is a thousand times worse than Harding.

One interesting aspect, though, is the way Harding was reciting her speech, disingeniously and with long pauses for “thinking the best truth”, just like whatsherface.

Posted by Bjorn on 02/24/14 at 01:58 AM | #

with regard to the Moores once Moore. Knox is all they have. Their attempts to get on CNN are only in order to make money. Let’s face it apart from Knox they, and others like them, are more or less broke and they could care less for Knox herself anyway. I remember the last time on CNN when Steve Moore said that Guede was a police informer which was why he got a reduced sentence. Anyone believing his nonsense deserve all they get. As to Michelle. Well what can you say. They are both pathetic sorry individuals rather like Michaele and Tareq Salahi who gate crashed the White house dinner. As a result Tareq Salahi was forced to resign from the Virginia Tourists Board but he could not understand why. The Moore’s are no different because they are self serving little parasites feeding off a despicable murder desperate to remain relevant.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 02/24/14 at 04:46 AM | #

@Peter Quennell on 02/23/14 at 12:05 PM

Very good suggestion indeed. I do not spend too much time elsewhere but I am also curious and I would like to know.

For me the most boring part is the predictable response: there is no evidence. They are not interested in truth and they just want to defend their queen. It is a noble approach for a regular army but I am just not interested in a blog-war.

It is a very sad story.

Posted by chami on 02/24/14 at 10:23 AM | #

We could give Steve Moore stardom worldwide, but there’s stiff competition from Steve “The Mad Drummer” Moore. 😊

Posted by Helder Licht on 02/24/14 at 11:43 AM | #

( No, no, not an ex-drummer. An actual drummer.)

Posted by Helder Licht on 02/24/14 at 12:56 PM | #

I sincerely think we are giving the Moores too much importance- far more than they deserve.

I watched the CNN clip once more and I think Erin did a decent job. Only consistent argument Mr Moore gave is that we all (save the Moores) are part of the conspiracy: we just want to protect the police informer!

On a serious note, I feel that many have a poor idea about “reasonable doubt”- I too had- but the principle is simple and founded in solid logic.

Steve does not even understand that motivation is not an evidence. I hope FBI is not filled with men like him: perhaps that alone can explain the abnormal prison population of the US.

Posted by chami on 02/24/14 at 04:29 PM | #

I disagree, chami. We aren’t giving the Moores ‘importance’, we’re tracking and refuting his lies on an international forum, Twitter.

The reason why Steve Moore has been invited to so many news shows is because he’s shamelessly promoted himself, thus giving himself credibility.  One bad appearance on national TV will not be enough to get disinvited.

When you can have “Steve Moore, ex-FBI investigator” scrolling past your screen, that gives an instant gravitas to his views on the innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. That needs to be countered.

Reporters and news editors do read trending stories on Twitter. Exposing Steve Moore, as ever more unhinged in engagements with the public, in his attacks on the Kerchers, in equating them with Nazis?

All done on Twitter, and therefore, immeasurably reducing the chances of being called upon to speak for Amanda Knox when the extradition hearings begin.

Posted by Ergon on 02/24/14 at 06:21 PM | #

I’d say the only “heavies” for Knox are Moore, Bremner and Heavey; maybe also, behind the scenes, Bob Barnett.

To us, each of the first three is the ultimate lightweight, but they ARE there on TV quite regularly with “Ex FBI and “Knox Lawyer” and “Former Judge” scrolling just below and adding gravitas to their every word.

Plenty of rebuttals exist to take them down a peg and widespread tweeting is a godsend.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/24/14 at 06:37 PM | #

I do not think, for a moment, that Italy will not request and obtain Knox’s extradition, once her conviction is final.

Even if it were not to do so, it would create a very dangerous precedent.

If you are non-Italian and have a deep seated grudge against another person, lure that person to Italy, murder him/her and then repatriate to avoid any chance of extradition back to Italy to face just and deserved punishment.

Hardly likely that Italy would trivialise its legal system and bring it into disrepute by such precedent.

Posted by Mealer on 02/24/15 at 02:34 PM | #

Make a comment


Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Power Shift In Italy Very Unfavorable To Anyone So Stupid As To Thumb Their Noses At Italian Justice

Or to previous entry Our Reviews Of The Painstaking BBC-3 Report First Aired In The UK On 17 February 2014