Amanda Knox and the State Department

[Samson]

I do not know that there is a pattern of dismissing claims; what I do know is that there is a pattern of not merely accepting claims without evidence. There is a difference, and it is an important difference. For example, you assert as a fact that the ISC broke its own rules. Do you have evidence of this? What rules, specifically, were broken? What evidence do you have, beyond your faith in other posters' infallibility and your own incredulity, that even if the ISC broke its own rules it was because of pressure from the US State Department? I am not dismissing these claims, I am merely asking for evidence that supports your claims and which will allow me to evalute the degree to which I should give them credence. If you cannot support your claims with evidence why should I, or anyone else, give them weight?

Charlie might well be an outstanding thinker about crime, I neither know nor care, but whether he is or is not is irrelevant to your claim. What you seem to have difficulty with is the idea that what is important is not who is speaking, but what it is that they say.

What you are missing is this thread is an attempt to get more information. Of course I can't prove a thing. It is circumstantial evidence I believe is strong, that is all. Ideally John Kerry would say yeah I did it. I grabbed those silly men in funny robes and pounded their heads together. But he probably won't confess.

 

[Metullus]

Charlie's opinions.

Yeah, I know. **sigh**

 

[Spindrift]

What you are missing is this thread is an attempt to get more information. Of course I can't prove a thing. It is circumstantial evidence I believe is strong, that is all. Ideally John Kerry would say yeah I did it. I grabbed those silly men in funny robes and pounded their heads together. But he probably won't confess.

And you've dismissed the possibility that he won't confess because he didn't do anything, despite any concrete evidence to support your conjecture?

If the level of evidence you accept was acceptable in a court of law, Amanda Knox would have been executed.

 

[Metullus]

What you are missing is this thread is an attempt to get more information. Of course I can't prove a thing. It is circumstantial evidence I believe is strong, that is all. Ideally John Kerry would say yeah I did it. I grabbed those silly men in funny robes and pounded their heads together. But he probably won't confess.

Okay. What is the circumstantial evidence that leads you to the conclusion that the State Department intervened? Other than, you know, Charlie speculated that it might have done so...

 

[Samson]

Okay. What is the circumstantial evidence that leads you to the conclusion that the State Department intervened? Other than, you know, Charlie speculated that it might have done so...

I explained.
1. The State Department knew she was innocent.
2. The ISC was deliberating in a case which required an extradition request.
3. They broke their own rules and acquitted.
4. Therefore they were influenced by an unknown circumstance.

What are all the possibilities? At least one is a State Department warning that the process Charlie described was a stone cold certainty if they went that way, and their absurd little process would be eviscerated for the world to enjoy.

 

[Spindrift]

I explained.
1. The State Department knew she was innocent.
2. The ISC was deliberating in a case which required an extradition request.
3. They broke their own rules and acquitted.
4. Therefore they were influenced by an unknown circumstance.

What are all the possibilities? At least one is a State Department warning that the process Charlie described was a stone cold certainty if they went that way, and their absurd little process would be eviscerated for the world to enjoy.

1) Can you provide a link to the State Department saying this?
2) Doesn't that happen all the time?
3) Which rules?
4) That's some leap to that conclusion. It's not possible that they were influenced by the evidence of the case?

 

[Metullus]

I explained.
1. The State Department knew she was innocent.
2. The ISC was deliberating in a case which required an extradition request.
3. They broke their own rules and acquitted.
4. Therefore they were influenced by an unknown circumstance.

What are all the possibilities? At least one is a State Department warning that the process Charlie described was a stone cold certainty if they went that way, and their absurd little process would be eviscerated for the world to enjoy.

Assertions are not evidence:
1. Evidence the State Department knew her to be innocent?
2. Evidence the ISC broke their own rules?
3. Evidence that the ISC was influenced by an unknown circumstance?

 

[Samson]

1) Can you provide a link to the State Department saying this?
2) Doesn't that happen all the time?
3) Which rules?
4) That's some leap to that conclusion. It's not possible that they were influenced by the evidence of the case?

Assertions are not evidence:
1. Evidence the State Department knew her to be innocent?
2. Evidence the ISC broke their own rules?
3. Evidence that the ISC was influenced by an unknown circumstance?

Evidence the state department knew she is innocent was furnished by Charlie. He is the only person I know to have stated this. He claims this, because he and others presented irrefutable evidence. Hell, I knew she was innocent as soon as I joined JREF, they were all explaining it two years ago, without challenge except mainly Machiavelli. I had read both the Massei report and the Hellmann report. The first was ridiculous, the second was complete and foolproof.

So going into March 2015, the series is two one to the dolts, Massei and Nencini, against Hellmann.

Remember also that Hellmann publicly stated he had been ostracised by his colleagues and forced to retire. The line of least resistance is to convict.

Now, the State Department can do nothing or do something. Remember they have a duty to look after the interests of their citizens.

A high risk strategy is to allow the Italians to try again, because they have shown a strong propensity to convict against the publicly available evidence.

What is the appropriate thing for the State Department to do?
The fact there followed an unprecedented judicial act, and the Italians were playing with the life of a citizen of the most powerful nation, who know she is innocent, leads me to conclude the State Department did their duty.
Without more information it seems unlikely we can progress from here however.

 

[Spindrift]

Evidence the state department knew she is innocent was furnished by Charlie. He is the only person I know to have stated this. He claims this, because he and others presented irrefutable evidence. Hell, I knew she was innocent as soon as I joined JREF, they were all explaining it two years ago, without challenge except mainly Machiavelli. I had read both the Massei report and the Hellmann report. The first was ridiculous, the second was complete and foolproof.

So going into March 2015, the series is two one to the dolts, Massei and Nencini, against Hellmann.

Remember also that Hellmann publicly stated he had been ostracised by his colleagues and forced to retire. The line of least resistance is to convict.

Now, the State Department can do nothing or do something. Remember they have a duty to look after the interests of their citizens.

A high risk strategy is to allow the Italians to try again, because they have shown a strong propensity to convict against the publicly available evidence.

What is the appropriate thing for the State Department to do?
The fact there followed an unprecedented judicial act, and the Italians were playing with the life of a citizen of the most powerful nation, who know she is innocent, leads me to conclude the State Department did their duty.
Without more information it seems unlikely we can progress from here however.

You don't have to use that many words to say, "No I don't have any evidence I can link it".

 

[Samson]

You don't have to use that many words to say, "No I don't have any evidence I can link it".

A simple question.

Do you have an opinion whether my theory is correct. Three suggested possible answers.

1. Yes
2. No
3. I don't know.

Note I am asking for an opinion, not a factual answer, so answer 3 is not ideal, but must be included.

 

[Spindrift]

A simple question.

Do you have an opinion whether my theory is correct. Three suggested possible answers.

1. Yes
2. No
3. I don't know.

Note I am asking for an opinion, not a factual answer, so answer 3 is not ideal, but must be included.

Given the lack of evidence you have presented my conclusion is that your theory is unproven. And my opinion is that it's total bollocks.

 

[snoop_doxie]

Quick, somebody douse it with some chemtrails and drop it in it's own Bigfoot print with some nanothermite!

FTFY

Samson,

Why is it not possible that the ISC was convinced by the evidence?
The Amanda Knox threads here are astounding in their breadth? and depth.
Have you read all of that thread?
Quite a bit of information there (and a lot of very heated exchanges).

The fact there followed an unprecedented judicial act, and the Italians were playing with the life of a citizen of the most powerful nation, who know she is innocent, leads me to conclude the State Department did their duty.
Without more information it seems unlikely we can progress from here however.

Ah, I just saw this.
Nevermind.

 

[Samson]

Given the lack of evidence you have presented my conclusion is that your theory is unproven. And my opinion is that it's total bollocks.

Excellent. At least you have finally taken a stand in a simple matter. You are of the view when an innocent abroad is arrested she should be left to rot.

 

[Metullus]

Excellent. At least you have finally taken a stand in a simple matter. You are of the view when an innocent abroad is arrested she should be left to rot.

Excellent! Maybe you can point out where it is that Spindrift posted this?

You might want to look up the terms "straw man" and "disingenuous".

 

[Samson]

Excellent! Maybe you can point out where it is that Spindrift posted this?

You might want to look up the terms "straw man" and "disingenuous".

My theory is State Department warned that the process would be gone through with a fine tooth comb if they convicted an innocent and requested her extradition. ISC must expect humiliation for them and their nation.
Bollocks means none of this is true.
Therefore the state department were prepared to let nature take its course rather than issue a stern warning. That is bollocks. IMO.
Remember they intervene in other cases.

 

[BazBear]

Quick, somebody douse it with some chemtrails and drop it in it's own Bigfoot print with some nanothermite!

FTFY

Na, Bigfoot references belong over in the GS&P section, not here in C&CT

 

[Metullus]

My theory is State Department warned that the process would be gone through with a fine tooth comb if they convicted an innocent and requested her extradition. ISC must expect humiliation for them and their nation.
Bollocks means none of this is true.
Therefore the state department were prepared to let nature take its course rather than issue a stern warning. That is bollocks. IMO.
Remember they intervene in other cases.

Perhaps you can quote where it was that Spindrift suggested that they believed that "when an innocent abroad is arrested she should be left to rot"? Samson, the mere fact that somebody does not buy your evidence free theories does not imply anything other than that - they do not buy your evidence free theories.

What stern warning would State issue to Italy? That an extradition process would be problematic in Knox's case was hardly a secret - extradition frequently is, even without Knox's notoriety. It would not need State's intervention, in my view it would not be appropriate for State to intervene in the Italian judicial process. There are many things State can do, but to reach out and pressure the Italian courts would likely do little to help and, perhaps, much to hurt.

 

[Loss Leader]

If the level of evidence you accept was acceptable in a court of law, Amanda Knox would have been executed.

Nominated.

At least one is a State Department warning that the process Charlie described was a stone cold certainty if they went that way, and their absurd little process would be eviscerated for the world to enjoy.

Okay, let's try to take this logically.

Imagine you are not an American which should be easy since you're not an American. How do you feel about our death penalty? If you're like most of the world (and most people in your own nation) you think it's barbaric. The vast majority of nations in the world think that the United States is committing a human rights violation every time we murder an inmate.

Now, what do you suspect Americans think of the condemnation from our closest allies? If you answered that it only makes us more convinced we're right and the rest of the world can suck it, you're correct. Not only do we refuse to listen to reason, our press goes bananas when any court or politician says they even considered foreign points of view.

Now, what do you suspect the Executive Branch would do if it received a request from a foreign nation to release a person on trial for murder in, say, Texas. Chances are very good that the President would do nothing. In fact, the President has absolutely no authority over state courts in any case. He actually couldn't do anything even if he wanted to. All that Executive pressure on the Judiciary would do is cause the Judge to recuse himself and a new judge who doesn't care to hear from the President would take over.

Now, imagine that instead of the United States, the country in question is Italy. In what way is their system and beliefs about their own autonomy so different from the US that they would actually abandon their own rules due to foreign pressure?

A town of 162,000 people two and a half hours from Rome where maybe they get one murder a year screwed up an investigation. Upon elevation to more senior courts, the process worked - the evidence was deemed insufficient and the girl went home.

There is no circumstance under which the Justice Department successfully puts pressure on the Italian government. Humans just don't work that way.

 

[Spindrift]

Excellent. At least you have finally taken a stand in a simple matter. You are of the view when an innocent abroad is arrested she should be left to rot.

Ah, I understand now. You just jump to conclusions without any basis. That explains a lot.

 

[Samson]

Ah, I understand now. You just jump to conclusions without any basis. That explains a lot.

Oh no no. Bollocks is an inadequate response. I was fleshing it out.