Amanda Knox and the State Department

[theprestige]

Evidence the state department knew she is innocent was furnished by Charlie.

Who's Charlie? I don't see any Charlie here. Charlie isn't posting in this thread, presenting his evidence, making his case, answering questions. You are, but you're doing a pretty poor job of it so far. Whenever you're pressed to present evidence or make your case, you shrug your burden of proof onto poor Charlie, who is manifestly uninvolved in your discussion.

Let Charlie make his own case, at the time and place of his choosing. This is your thread, that you started. This is the ideal time and place for you to make a case of your own. Base it on Charlie's case if you like, but present that basis here, and discuss it here, in your own terms. Put up or shut up. Leave Charlie out of it.

 

[Samson]

Who's Charlie? I don't see any Charlie here. Charlie isn't posting in this thread, presenting his evidence, making his case, answering questions. You are, but you're doing a pretty poor job of it so far. Whenever you're pressed to present evidence or make your case, you shrug your burden of proof onto poor Charlie, who is manifestly uninvolved in your discussion.

Let Charlie make his own case, at the time and place of his choosing. This is your thread, that you started. This is the ideal time and place for you to make a case of your own. Base it on Charlie's case if you like, but present that basis here, and discuss it here, in your own terms. Put up or shut up. Leave Charlie out of it.

Why not contribute your ideas?
I appreciate that LL has, and I will make a reasonable effort to reply. There is nothing to reply to your post.

 

[Samson]

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?

Why not listen to Dan O? Senators are supposedly no slouches either, more so those of populous states. This thread should try to understand why a completely unprecedented act occurred. One explanation is that they were aware of international ramifications. Another is that they were practicing yoyo.

 

[Metullus]

Why not contribute your ideas?
I appreciate that LL has, and I will make a reasonable effort to reply. There is nothing to reply to your post.

So, still nothing to backup your assertions.

 

[Metullus]

Why not listen to Dan O? Senators are supposedly no slouches either, more so those of populous states. This thread should try to understand why a completely unprecedented act occurred. One explanation is that they were aware of international ramifications. Another is that they were practicing yoyo.

One problem is that you have not established that a completely unprecedented act occurred...

 

[Loss Leader]

when the US state department holds proof she is innocent?

That's a heck of an allegation. Proof of innocence is a whole lot different than exculpatory evidence. And it's a whole lot different that evidence that might lead to reasonable doubt.

Proof of innocence would mean that AK was logically excluded from the mere possibility she committed the crime. If, say, she was on the International Space Station at the time, that might be proof of her innocence.

My (admittedly poor) understanding of the case is that Perugia just failed to do a proper investigation. Lack of appropriate forensics is not proof of innocence.

I still believe that the US would have very little interest in the jailing of one college girl. We've had American citizens held hostage for years. We've had plenty of Americans punished overseas in ways we find offensive. Heck, watch Midnight Express. The sum total of all our trade agreements, military cooperation, tourism, etc. is way to valuable to risk for one suspect whose worst fate is an Italian women's prison.

We send 2.2 million tourists to Italy every year. If the Italian government chose to retaliate for US intervention by imposing a 10 Euro fee for entry visas, that would cost the American people twenty-four million dollars a year.

Do you think that Americans would willingly chip in $24 million for the defense of a college student who may or may not be guilty of murder?

It just doesn't make sense.

 

[shuttlt]

What is the unprecedented act? I remember the letter in 2009 where she made it clear she knew nothing about the case beyond the front pages.

 

[Samson]

What is the unprecedented act? I remember the letter in 2009 where she made it clear she knew nothing about the case beyond the front pages.

Are you referring to Clinton or Cantwell?
The unprecedented act was ISC. They were expected to refer to a further process or confirm Nencini as I understand it. No doubt it has precedent to toss 7 years diligent work by polis, but it should not happen too often in a functional system.

 

[carlitos]

shuttit - who didn't know anything about the case other than the front pages? Are you talking about a moderator here? A Senator? The State Department?

Samson, again. I can't understand what you are saying. What is ISC? Who is Nencini? What has precedent? What are polis? What should not happen too often in a functional system?

 

[Samson]

That's a heck of an allegation. Proof of innocence is a whole lot different than exculpatory evidence. And it's a whole lot different that evidence that might lead to reasonable doubt.

Proof of innocence would mean that AK was logically excluded from the mere possibility she committed the crime. If, say, she was on the International Space Station at the time, that might be proof of her innocence.

My (admittedly poor) understanding of the case is that Perugia just failed to do a proper investigation. Lack of appropriate forensics is not proof of innocence.

I still believe that the US would have very little interest in the jailing of one college girl. We've had American citizens held hostage for years. We've had plenty of Americans punished overseas in ways we find offensive. Heck, watch Midnight Express. The sum total of all our trade agreements, military cooperation, tourism, etc. is way to valuable to risk for one suspect whose worst fate is an Italian women's prison.

We send 2.2 million tourists to Italy every year. If the Italian government chose to retaliate for US intervention by imposing a 10 Euro fee for entry visas, that would cost the American people twenty-four million dollars a year.

Do you think that Americans would willingly chip in $24 million for the defense of a college student who may or may not be guilty of murder?

It just doesn't make sense.

The issue is abject international disgrace. Proof of innocence was immediate when the shoeprints in blood were attributed to the kid whose dna was found in Kercher, and excluded Knox's boyfriend. The police took round Nike shoeprints to jail him at first pass, but simple Sherlock Holmes technology sorted that.
Proof of innocence is a home run in all cases. David Bain did 13 years when proof of innocence was all over his house on day one. It happens all the time. Proof of innocence is the most straight forward category, guilt tougher.

 

[shuttlt]

Why not listen to Dan O?

I did something of the order of two years on the thread from the beginning. I know Dan O. By that point the main arguments had already gone around and around a bunch of times. Has something new come up that blows the argument away, or do we still have the same tired old list of talking points? I'm definitely not getting sucked back in to argue with, based on dipping back in earlier today, a bunch of belligerent sophists about 57 hours of interrogations. I've done that already well past the point there was any conceivable point.

Senators are supposedly no slouches either, more so those of populous states.

They also wade into stuff they know nothing about. Cantwell's original letter made it clear she was wading into something she knew nothing about.

 

[shuttlt]

shuttit - who didn't know anything about the case other than the front pages? Are you talking about a moderator here? A Senator?

Senator

 

[Samson]

Senator

Crap. Senators are not dumb. They open their mouths when the facts warrant it.

 

[carlitos]

Crap. Senators are not dumb. They open their mouths when the facts warrant it.

Your claim is ridiculous on its face. We have many dumb Senators who open their mouths on all kinds of silly stuff. Are you being facetious or serious here?

 

[Samson]

Your claim is ridiculous on its face. We have many dumb Senators who open their mouths on all kinds of silly stuff. Are you being facetious or serious here?

So Cantwell is dumb? I doubt it. She was not so dumb she believed the Italian nonsense.
She tried to engage Clinton and failed. Shame on Clinton.

 

[Loss Leader]

The issue is abject international disgrace.

And did Italy suffer abject international disgrace? Through all the years and multiple guilty verdicts, did their trade decline because of the trial? Did tourism decline because of it? Did the number of foreign exchange students in Perugia even decline? Show me something that indicates that Italy was on the road to abject international disgrace as opposed to abject international holiday destination.

Proof of innocence is the most straight forward category, guilt tougher.

As a lawyer, I can tell you that this view of criminal law has absolutely nothing in common with reality.

 

[shuttlt]

So Cantwell is dumb? I doubt it. She was not so dumb she believed the Italian nonsense.
She tried to engage Clinton and failed. Shame on Clinton.

Your argument is that since she has sided at some point with you you doubt she can be dumb? You then cite her support to bolster your side? This is circular.

 

[carlitos]

So Cantwell is dumb?

Ahh. The "rule of so," whereby you misstate my argument and then disagree with it. This is amateurish.

I doubt it.

Good for you. Here is where you can provide evidence for her intelligence. __________________________________________________________________________________________

She was not so dumb she believed the Italian nonsense.

Agreeing with you does not equal intelligence.

She tried to engage Clinton and failed. Shame on Clinton.

Why not shame on the person who failed? You have a weird perspective on these events.

 

[Samson]

Your argument is that since she has sided at some point with you you doubt she can be dumb? You then cite her support to bolster your side? This is circular.

Cantwell was Knox's senator, and therefore was motivated to establish the facts. When did a senator advocate so strongly for a guilty party? Connect the dots. Knox is innocent, it was obvious quickly to some, and they plied Cantwell with the facts. What should she do? Encourage people to trust corrupt incompetent Italian thugs. No. Advocate for her citizen, and directly to state department. My opinion of Clinton has plummeted since realising she abandoned the sisterhood for her petty objectives in requisitioning Italian troops.

 

[shuttlt]

Cantwell was Knox's senator, and therefore was motivated to establish the facts. When did a senator advocate so strongly for a guilty party? Connect the dots. Knox is innocent, it was obvious quickly to some, and they plied Cantwell with the facts. What should she do? Encourage people to trust corrupt incompetent Italian thugs. No. Advocate for her citizen, and directly to state department. My opinion of Clinton has plummeted since realising she abandoned the sisterhood for her petty objectives in requisitioning Italian troops.

Like