Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I feel the same way about all convicted murderers.

Interesting views on sentencing policy. You don't by any chance get the Daily Mail sent out to you from London every day, do you?

And what if I were to tell you that they are currently not yet convicted according to Italian law? You knew that, didn't you........?

 

[Withnail1969]

I feel the same way about all convicted murderers.

Would that include the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six who were convicted of terrorist bombings resulting in mass murder?

 

[LondonJohn]

This is a response? Do you want me to go back through all your posts to pick up typos?

There was a certain delicious irony in your proclamation that you felt sorry for the victim's family, then proceeded to spell their family name incorrectly. Guess you can't see that though

 

[lionking]

Interesting views on sentencing policy. You don't by any chance get the Daily Mail sent out to you from London every day, do you?

And what if I were to tell you that they are currently not yet convicted according to Italian law? You knew that, didn't you........?

I understand this particular brand of sophistry.

 

[snook1]

This is a response? Do you want me to go back through all your posts to pick up typos?

This isn't a typo though. It's misspelling the victim's last name.

 

[lionking]

This isn't a typo though. It's misspelling the victim's last name.

Is this all you've got?

How about your depiction of them as kids? Is this accurate?

 

[snook1]

"Kids"?

They were and are adults. This sort of emotive rubbish is sickening. Get over yourself.

Whatever. I've never expected to have any constructive exchange of views with you after I've seen some of your previous posts.

 

[LondonJohn]

I understand this particular brand of sophistry.

Oh, I'm not being a sophist. But I, too, understand that using the "sophistry" line is a convenient way for you to avoid answering my questions.

See ya

 

[RoseMontague]

I feel the same way about all convicted murderers.

I don't feel that way about wrongly convicted non-murderers. Is your certainty of guilt coming from the fact that they were "convicted" in the first trial?

 

[snook1]

Is this all you've got?

No, actually I've got much more, it's just that I do not want to devote my time and energy to any further discussion with you.

 

[CDHost]

Even if Knox fails in all her appeals (which isn't going to happen, but let's hypothesise ), the US authorities will absolutely make no public complaints. There may well have been private conversations between (e.g.) the US Ambassador to Rome and a senior judicial figure in Italy, but no coercion or even suggestion - that would be entirely improper, and way outside the US's remit. The conversation (if there even was one) would have gone no further than a reminder that the outcome of the appeal process is being closely followed in the US and UK. There will have been no threat of trade restrictions or reduced military cooperation (or anything else) - that just doesn't happen in the case of the prosecution of a private citizen for a crime which is not state-related. And it won't happen here, no matter what happens in the appeals.

Let me clarify I did say State. This is where (I'm assuming you are British) the US system differs because we don't have a parliamentary system. Senator Cantwell can really stir the **** if she wants to. She can attach a rider to any number of bills, for example AIG funding. The moment such a rider is seriously being moved through the Senate Amanda will be on an airplane.

That being said the USA is one of the worst countries about even meeting our minimal obligations under the Vienna convention and this would set a precedent. I approve of the precedent but I'm not sure how most Americans feel.

If you look backwards you'll see I've suggested the US & Mexico should work out some sort of supervisory agreement since Mexico is probably an order of magnitude more of our international arrests then everyone else combined (both Americans arrested in Mexico and Mexicans arrested in US). US / Mexican law enforcement cooperation has been on a huge upswing for 2 generations.

 

[lionking]

Whatever. I've never expected to have any constructive exchange of views with you after I've seen some of your previous posts.

You obviously only want to hear from those who believe in AK's innocence. Enjoy talking amongst yourselves.

 

[snook1]

You obviously only want to hear from those who believe in AK's innocence. Enjoy talking amongst yourselves.

No, not at all. But it's better when guilters have something interesting to say and do not pick on my personal opinion that Knox and Sollectio are innocent. That was rude and full of hate.

 

[LondonJohn]

You obviously only want to hear from those who believe in AK's innocence. Enjoy talking amongst yourselves.

If I might be permitted to say so, you're not doing a terribly good job of arguing for their guilt. If you were to do so, we might be able to have a decent debate

 

[lionking]

If I might be permitted to say so, you're not doing a terribly good job of arguing for their guilt. If you were to do so, we might be able to have a decent debate

So "Teary eyes here", which is what I was responding to, is some sort of debate?

 

[LondonJohn]

Let me clarify I did say State. This is where (I'm assuming you are British) the US system differs because we don't have a parliamentary system. Senator Cantwell can really stir the **** if she wants to. She can attach a rider to any number of bills, for example AIG funding. The moment such a rider is seriously being moved through the Senate Amanda will be on an airplane.

That being said the USA is one of the worst countries about even meeting our minimal obligations under the Vienna convention and this would set a precedent. I approve of the precedent but I'm not sure how most Americans feel.

If you look backwards you'll see I've suggested the US & Mexico should work out some sort of supervisory agreement since Mexico is probably an order of magnitude more of our international arrests then everyone else combined possibly by an order of magnitude (both Americans arrested in Mexico and Mexicans arrested in US). US / Mexican law enforcement cooperation has been on a huge upswing for 2 generations.

I am indeed British (contrary to popular belief amongst the most perceptive logicians ), but the point still stands. The UK executive branch can influence (and has influenced) judicial due process where it's perceived as being in the national interest.

A case in point was the early release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi. The UK govt allegedly put great behind-the-scenes pressure upon the Scottish Executive (the legislative body which controlled Al-Megrahi's incarceration) to release him before there was any chance of him dying in prison from cancer. The reasoning was that the UK wanted to open trade links with Libya (specifically in access to oil), and they felt that Gaddafi would sever all trade links if Al-Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison. The Scottish Executive therefore found a tame doctor (after quite afew attempts!) to give a written opinion that Al-Megrahi was likely to die within three months - which gave the necessary reasoning to release him. Unsurprisingly, he was released in August 2009, and he's still alive (but not well) in Libya. And also unsurprisingly, BP is now heavily involved in oil exploration, drilling and refinement in Libya...

So I understand how governments can "bend the rules" if it serves their interests. In the case of Amanda Knox, though, I can't see any clear reason why the US would want to use any of its carrots or sticks to try to influence the judicial process - it's just too small an issue, with no international connotations, to bring any of the big weapons out. Similarly, I can't see any one politician (Cantwell, for example) trying to hold the US executive to ransom over this case - the risks and rewards just wouldn't add up in this case, in my view.

 

[LondonJohn]

So "Teary eyes here", which is what I was responding to, is some sort of debate?

Oh dear.

 

[RoseMontague]

So "Teary eyes here", which is what I was responding to, is some sort of debate?

What you responded to was a personal "Thank You" to Charlie from a poster here.

 

[Matthew Best]

What you failed to respond to was Withnail's rather pointed question over whether you felt the same way (wish they would "rot in jail") about other convicted murderers, such as the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six.

 

[RoseMontague]

I am going to change the 19 judges back to 18½ not only because I think Massei shows only half a brain with his Motivation report but also in honor of the Watergate tapes. The reasoning of these judges is like those missing minutes, we know it must mean guilt even though there is nothing there.