Amanda Knox and the State Department

[Metullus]

I was fleshing it out.

I think the phrase you were are looking for is "I was making it up." But that is just a guess.

 

[Samson]

I think the phrase you were are looking for is "I was making it up." But that is just a guess.

I am still getting used to the forum. I imagined people here would be more expansive in their dissertations. I expanded for Spindrift, but ironically Loss Leader did so without being asked. Thank you.
I am reasonably open minded. Charlie and Loss Leader can't both be right. We need new blood on the thread.

 

[Metullus]

I am still getting used to the forum. I imagined people here would be more expansive in their dissertations. I expanded for Spindrift, but ironically Loss Leader did so without being asked. Thank you.
I am reasonably open minded. Charlie and Loss Leader can't both be right. We need new blood on the thread.

I have no idea what it is that you mean when you say that you expected people to be "more expansive in their dissertations." If you expected everyone to line up and merely accept your thesis as proven fact, I am sorry to disappoint you - that is not what we do here. If you mean that you expected others to provide evidence that supports your theory, well, then too, you might find yourself disappointed - it is your obligation to support your thesis. Even after the short time you have been here I would have expected that you to have learned this much. You might want to learn a little bit about "burden of proof."

You have provided no evidence for any of your assertions and have declined to address specific questions regarding your theory. You have attributed to Spindrift positions that he has not taken. These are tactics that have been used before. I'm thinking that this is in the right forum after all.

 

[Samson]

I have no idea what it is that you mean when you say that you expected people to be "more expansive in their dissertations." If you expected everyone to line up and merely accept your thesis as proven fact, I am sorry to disappoint you - that is not what we do here. If you mean that you expected others to provide evidence that supports your theory, well, then too, you might find yourself disappointed - it is your obligation to support your thesis. Even after the short time you have been here I would have expected that you to have learned this much. You might want to learn a little bit about "burden of proof."

You have provided no evidence for any of your assertions and have declined to address specific questions regarding your theory. You have attributed to Spindrift positions that he has not taken. These are tactics that have been used before. I'm thinking that this is in the right forum after all.

Spindrift called my theory bollocks in his endearing critically analytical way, but unless I missed it, you have taken no position. Would it be a synonym for bollocks by chance?

 

[Loss Leader]

I expanded for Spindrift, but ironically Loss Leader did so without being asked. Thank you.

Rather than thanking me, why don't you tell me where you find fault with my analysis?

 

[Samson]

Rather than thanking .me, why don't you tell me where you find fault with my analysis?

Sorry, getting round to it. Bollocks was quicker to analyse.

 

[Metullus]

Spindrift called my theory bollocks in his endearing critically analytical way, but unless I missed it, you have taken no position. Would it be a synonym for bollocks by chance?

Absent evidence to the contrary, and no such evidence has thus far been provided, I think it unlikely that the US government would interfere with the Italian justice system or attempt to influence the ISC in any way. I believe that any such attempt would be inappropriate, would likely be counterproductive, and, as events proved, would be unnecessary. In short, I agree with LL's analysis.

 

[Noztradamus]

Well, in that case it sounds more like the U.S. engaging in some high level intergovernmental pressure, rather than any sort of conspiracy.

US would never do that

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/03/edward-snowden-asylum-live

 

[BazBear]

US would never do that

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/03/edward-snowden-asylum-live

Of course not lol

 

[Samson]

US would never do that

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/03/edward-snowden-asylum-live

Of course not lol

I struggled to find the relevant detail from the link.
I think we are talking at cross purposes. The thread is designed to answer the question, can The Italian government extradite a Seattle woman from Seattle to Italy to serve a 28.5 year jail sentence for murder when the US state department holds proof she is innocent?
Why not address this question first?

 

[Andy_Ross]

What proof does the State Department have that she is innocent that the Italian Courts haven't got?

If they have this proof that isn't available to the Italian courts then why didn't they give it to the defence lawyers and the Italian courts?

 

[Samson]

What proof does the State Department have that she is innocent that the Italian Courts haven't got?

If they have this proof that isn't available to the Italian courts then why didn't they give it to the defence lawyers and the Italian courts?

The State department held proof of innocence from the American group that presented that evidence. The State department had no choice but to regard Senator Cantwell's advocacy after the group furnished the proof to her as definitive.

 

[erwinl]

I struggled to find the relevant detail from the link.
I think we are talking at cross purposes. The thread is designed to answer the question, can The Italian government extradite a Seattle woman from Seattle to Italy to serve a 28.5 year jail sentence for murder when the US state department holds proof she is innocent? Why not address this question first?

Maybe because the question is a muddle?
It contains three, maybe four parts, each of which has to be answered on it's own merit, instead of being bundled together.

 

[Samson]

Maybe because the question is a muddle?
It contains three, maybe four parts, each of which has to be answered on it's own merit, instead of being bundled together.

No muddle, I am sure of my facts. To be sure of facts is to eliminate all alternative explanations. I am no clever dick, and accordingly I have spent too much time on the case. I come from an angle that interests me most, what are the real mechanisms to keep people safe from disgraceful police work and fanatical devotion to the pope justice system in a place near them?

 

[shuttlt]

What proof does the State Department have that she is innocent that the Italian Courts haven't got?

If they have this proof that isn't available to the Italian courts then why didn't they give it to the defence lawyers and the Italian courts?

Maybe the problem all along was that the defence didn't base it's case on a close reading of this forum?

 

[erwinl]

]No muddle[/HILITE], I am sure of my facts. To be sure of facts is to eliminate all alternative explanations. I am no clever dick, and accordingly I have spent too much time on the case. I come from an angle that interests me most, what are the real mechanisms to keep people safe from disgraceful police work and fanatical devotion to the pope justice system in a place near them?

I don't agree.

Let's see, if we can isolate some of the issues.

'Can Italy extradite [someone] to Italy'? No. Assuming there are no other countries involved, only the US can extradite to Italy, or Italy to the US. Those two actions can happen though. Which action you exactly mean is not clear though. Who was where and where did that person (miss Knox, I know) have to be extradited to?
'A Seattle woman from Seattle'. Unless you mean to say that Seattle women from Seattle have other rights than other people from or in the US, this part is of no use for the basic question.
'to serve a 28,5 year jail sentence for murder'. Provided the Death Penalty is not on the table (that whole pesky EU constitution) this also has nothing to do with the basic question, concerning extradition.
'when the US state department holds proof she is innocent'. Did the US state department send that information to the relevant judge? If so. What happened then? If not. Why not?

That's why I said muddled.
The answer can still be yes or no, but that would be clearer if the basic question can be clarified.

 

[Samson]

I don't agree.

Let's see, if we can isolate some of the issues.

'Can Italy extradite [someone] to Italy'? No. Assuming there are no other countries involved, only the US can extradite to Italy, or Italy to the US. Those two actions can happen though. Which action you exactly mean is not clear though. Who was where and where did that person (miss Knox, I know) have to be extradited to?
'A Seattle woman from Seattle'. Unless you mean to say that Seattle women from Seattle have other rights than other people from or in the US, this part is of no use for the basic question.
'to serve a 28,5 year jail sentence for murder'. Provided the Death Penalty is not on the table (that whole pesky EU constitution) this also has nothing to do with the basic question, concerning extradition.
'when the US state department holds proof she is innocent'. Did the US state department send that information to the relevant judge? If so. What happened then? If not. Why not?

That's why I said muddled.
The answer can still be yes or no, but that would be clearer if the basic question can be clarified.

Erwinl, I am in a difficult locale (read place to avoid circumloqution), my intrerest is process. How do you get innocent people to where they truly belong, to a jail in a far flung place, 28 and a half years seems lenient, when some one else did the crime?
This thread argues, (not me) that that is just fine. DUE PROCESS.
I am intending to answer Loss Leader. I have a few ideas.

 

[shuttlt]

Erwinl, I am in a difficult locale (read place to avoid circumloqution), my intrerest is process. How do you get innocent people to where they truly belong, to a jail in a far flung place, 28 and a half years seems lenient, when some one else did the crime?
This thread argues, (not me) that that is just fine. DUE PROCESS.
I am intending to answer Loss Leader. I have a few ideas.

I'm not sure anybody is arguing that innocent people being locked up is a good thing. I thought you were arguing that she was let off because the state department, having listened to evidence presented by people like Dan O. and some Senator I've never heard of outside this case, leaned on Italy?

 

[Spindrift]

Spindrift called my theory bollocks in his endearing critically analytical way, but unless I missed it, you have taken no position. Would it be a synonym for bollocks by chance?

You asked for my opinion. That's my opinion, which in the real world doesn't mean much. My analysis was the sentence before I expressed my opinion.

 

[carlitos]

.....soon after this Charlie Wilkes confirmed what I suspected must be true, and posted this.

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=571&start=860

The challenge is to prove him wrong.

The thread is designed to answer the question, can The Italian government extradite a Seattle woman from Seattle to Italy to serve a 28.5 year jail sentence for murder when the US state department holds proof she is innocent?
Why not address this question first?

Eh? The OP doesn't say that this thread is "designed" for that at all. You should really be more clear when you write this stuff.

And what "proof she is innocent" does the US state department have? You are all over the place.

What proof does the State Department have that she is innocent that the Italian Courts haven't got?

If they have this proof that isn't available to the Italian courts then why didn't they give it to the defence lawyers and the Italian courts?

(raises hand) - because they don't speak or write Italian?