Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

Further Italy's ruling party is opposed to the Knox verdict. There have 2 reps that have spoken against it. Girlanda has been very clear in his book that he sees the verdict as possibly reflecting a desire of the Italian left (regional government of Umbria) to embarras the Italian right (national government). So the national government is already distancing themselves they just haven't taken action because it hasn't been forced.

Why would Italy want to throw down over Amanda Knox? What's in it for them other than stupid stubbornness.

I think this is more along the lines of how this will be resolved if it requires a political answer. I think the Italian Courts are on their own here.

 

[Alt+F4]

Baloney. She has a great deal of power.

She has zero power over what happens in this case. She serves on no committees that have anything to do with foreign relations. And even if you believe she has some magical senate power, she has done nothing except make a few statements. She hasn't met with Secretary Clinton about it. She hasn't even tried to get a symbolic resolution passed in the senate about this It's nothing but political grandstanding.

George Bush's very first pardon, Kenneth Coplend was a request from a Senator. I could rattle off dozens more pardons. So yes this how it works in the western world.

The President of the United has no power to pardon an American convicted in a foreign court. You really need to learn a bit more on how the federal government of the United States works. The most the Knoxs could hope for is a prisoner transfer to the U.S. where Amanda would end up in a federal prison (not nice) and have to continue to serve her sentence. Even then the President could not pardon her. The Bureau of Prisons does have circumstances where a prisoner could be release early but one of them involves admitting responsibility for one's crimes, so I don't see that happening.

How do you know that? She most likely believed that the focus on RS came out of the focus on AK and that came out of Iman Rapito. Stop asserting things about the Senator's state of mind without any proof.

This makes no sense. This case has nothing to do with extraordinay rendition. If Cantwell had bother to research that an Italian national had also been convicted in that "anti-American" trial she wouldn't have made such a foolish statement.

It's a joke when American politicans complain about the unfair treatment of prisoners in other countries.

 

[CDHost]

I think it's fine for Italy to criticise America's justice system and for America to criticise Italy's system in general terms. I suppose I'm not even saying that there can't be pleas for mercy in particular cases as there sometimes are from Europeans in particular death penalty cases in the US.

It's just important that America isn't seen as pushing Italy around, I think, if we're to get a positive outcome for Amanda and Raffaele.

That's a question of tone. And I agree that a harsh tone isn't needed. I think there is genuine shock in Italy that there even is a backlash. For example Seattle killing Perugia park I think came as a real shock. Italy is not used to being on the receiving end of blowback. And particularly when there is absolutely no national interest in the blowback.

But lets be clear. The EU and Italy in particular have been highly critical of the US on individual cases. I opened my article up with the Benetton add because they were attacking the US for its treatment of Americans with no ties to Italy (as if we were attacking them for RG or RS) a much much much higher level of interference. Mumia abu Jamal is another example, heck they even objected to Timothy McVeigh who did well over 200 murders and was proud of them, "my only regret was not completely leveling the federal building".

So the question is do they have the right to do this? What possible argument can Italy make that we don't have the right to be critical of their treatment of an American citizen with loose ties to Italy and that they can run whole campaigns involving their society broadly about people in American jails who have no foreign ties at all?

 

[Mary_H]

You must be kidding. This is not how the legal system works anywhere in the western world. Senator Cantwell has zero power over what happens in this case. She looked like a fool when she suggested the guilty verdict had something to do with anti-Americanism. She didn't even know that RS, an Italian national, was convicted by that same jury.

This sums up Cantwell's behavior well:

<snip>Who was this statement aimed at? .....this statement isn't aimed at securing justice; it's not meant to get a better appeal for Amanda Knox. It is meant for the people of the state of Washington. Its goal is to remind them that, no matter where they go or what they do, their Senator will be with them.

Fine. All politics are local. Sadly, all statements released to the media are not -- and Cantwell's charge that the Italian justice system is flawed and the trial was tainted by anti-Americanism have certainly found their way to the very pool of citizens she's accusing.<snip>

linky: http://open.salon.com/blog/saturn_smith/2009/12/05/amanda_knox_sen_maria_cantwell_found_guilty

It is entirely possible Senator Cantwell purposely chose the term "anti-Americanism" in order to be deliberately inflammatory. Many Americans respect that kind of rhetoric and, when they hear it, will sit up and listen. Who knows how many Washingtonians read about the case for the first time because of Senator Cantwell's reaction to it?

The salon.com writer's comment that Senator Cantwell may have offended "the very pool of citizens she's accusing" is another one of those self-contradictory guilter warnings. Do the media affect the opinions of the people which in turn affect the outcome of the trial? If they do, then the trial system is flawed. If they don't, then it doesn't matter what Senator Cantwell or anyone else says.

 

[Withnail1969]

That's a question of tone. And I agree that a harsh tone isn't needed. I think there is genuine shock in Italy that there even is a backlash. For example Seattle killing Perugia park I think came as a real shock. Italy is not used to being on the receiving end of blowback. And particularly when there is absolutely no national interest in the blowback.

But lets be clear. The EU and Italy in particular have been highly critical of the US on individual cases. I opened my article up with the Benetton add because they were attacking the US for its treatment of Americans with no ties to Italy (as if we were attacking them for RG or RS) a much much much higher level of interference. Mumia abu Jamal is another example, heck they even objected to Timothy McVeigh who did well over 200 murders and was proud of them, "my only regret was not completely leveling the federal building".

So the question is do they have the right to do this? What possible argument can Italy make that we don't have the right to be critical of their treatment of an American citizen with loose ties to Italy and that they can run whole campaigns involving their society broadly about people in American jails who have no foreign ties at all?

I don't think anyone's saying that you don't have the right to be critical of the Italian justice system's treatment of Amanda Knox.

 

[Agatha]

Do you really think that the average Italian cares what an American city names a park?

 

[Alt+F4]

So the question is do they have the right to do this? What possible argument can Italy make that we don't have the right to be critical of their treatment of an American citizen with loose ties to Italy and that they can run whole campaigns involving their society broadly about people in American jails who have no foreign ties at all?

It's not about a "right" to do this. It's just political grandstanding on both sides. It carries no weight in either countries legal systems.

 

[Withnail1969]

It's a joke when American politicans complain about the unfair treatment of prisoners in other countries.

I'm sure the unfairly treated prisoners in those countries heartily agree with you.

 

[Mary_H]

Lets fast forward a little LJ to late 2011 and the whole sorry mess gets laid bare of how Amanda and Raffaele were framed by Mignini and the Peruvian police and despite the best efforts of the Judiciary to bury this case the have no option only to acquit

Amanda arrives back in the US where she is interviewed on Larry King, Fox news, Oprah,in 2012 election year she tells a now very sympathetic audience how she was framed and abused how her parents pleaded with Hillary Clinton and President Obama for help but neither wanted to know and turned their backs,while they are trying to convince the American people of what they will do for them individually and collectively to get re elected

I know a lot of innocent people have been convicted and executed in the US without any consequences for anybody,but their is always a first time,if the Peruvian judiciary fail in their attempt to leave some doubt as to her innocence a huge proportion of the US media believe she is innocent and will be clamouring for interviews on release she could make a very good impression and the public could warm to her

Insightful point, Billy. Politicians who have a hand in getting Americans freed from foreign custody usually are seen as heroes in the U.S.

 

[Alt+F4]

It is entirely possible Senator Cantwell purposely chose the term "anti-Americanism" in order to be deliberately inflammatory. Many Americans respect that kind of rhetoric and, when they hear it, will sit up and listen. Who knows how many Washingtonians read about the case for the first time because of Senator Cantwell's reaction to it?

The salon.com writer's comment that Senator Cantwell may have offended "the very pool of citizens she's accusing" is another one of those self-contradictory guilter warnings. Do the media affect the opinions of the people which in turn affect the outcome of the trial? If they do, then the trial system is flawed. If they don't, then it doesn't matter what Senator Cantwell or anyone else says.

If the goal of her statements was to get more people aware of the case because a United States Senator mentioned it, well then it was effective. She does not, however, have any governmental power to change the outcome of the trial/appeals or in anyway get AK freed.

 

[Agatha]

The War Crimes Law in Belgium was controversial when it was enacted, and Donald Rumsfeld's threat to move NATO headquarters away from Brussels was only one part of the reason it was scrapped. Italy does not have a NATO HQ, their law against murder is not controversial and not recently enacted, and Italy is far less likely to roll over in the face of American bullying IMO.

I think you may be underestimating the number of people - in government and out of it - in Italy who feel that the verdicts are fair and just. To release an American who they feel has been justly convicted, in the face of American pressure to do so, is not stubbornness; any more than America's refusal to commute Linda Carty's death sentence is stubbornness in the face of British pleas to do so.

 

[CDHost]

She has zero power over what happens in this case. She serves on no committees that have anything to do with foreign relations. And even if you believe she has some magical senate power, she has done nothing except make a few statements. She hasn't met with Secretary Clinton about it. She hasn't even tried to get a symbolic resolution passed in the senate about this It's nothing but political grandstanding.

Its not grandstanding she issued one statement. Further I'm not suggesting we change the status of our relationship with Italy. What I've suggested, if she cares, which is unclear, is a rider on a bill that is going to pass narrowly. So for example and she'll have a dozen opportunities this year, AIG funding, so that payments aren't made on claims of Italian banks until AK is freed.

AK would be on a plane the day that started to get discussed.

And I'm not saying "magic" senate powers. Just standard senate powers: making holds, filing a filibuster, denying unanimous consent, objecting to motions to procede. The sort of stuff Senators do to exercise tremendous power everyday on hundreds of issues. This doesn't require magic powers. That's the point, this is not even challenging for a Senator.

What DeMint did with Honduras that's a Senator really throwing their weight around.

The President of the United has no power to pardon an American convicted in a foreign court.

You are forgetting your own argument. You had argued that what I was claiming was unlike anything anywhere in the west. And it just so happened that the very first pardon of GW Bush was exactly based on the whim of a Georgia Senator, who wanted to pardon an old whisky runner.

You really need to learn a bit more on how the federal government of the United States works. The most the Knoxs could hope for is a prisoner transfer to the U.S. where Amanda would end up in a federal prison (not nice) and have to continue to serve her sentence.

Based on what? I can see a 3 part transfer Italy -> UK -> USA but we don't even have a treaty for a direct transfer. There wouldn't be any obligations once she hit US soil.

Even then the President could not pardon her.

If she were in Federal Prison? Of course he can. With the exception of impeachment the President's ability to pardon is absolutely without limit or constraint. The US Supreme Court has agreed that US courts don't even have the ability to hear any claims against a presidential pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites and amnesties. Hell everyone would have loved to overturn Bush's pardon of Scooter Libby, but too bad it can't be done.

The very first president of the United State issued a massive pardon

This makes no sense. This case has nothing to do with extraordinay rendition. If Cantwell had bother to research that an Italian national had also been convicted in that "anti-American" trial she wouldn't have made such a foolish statement.

I don't agree it was foolish. You keep asserting that which is basically a variety of "I don't agree". Cantwell has a long history of being quite well informed and is generally not a "shoot from the hip" type Senator. I think you need some evidence.

 

[Alt+F4]

Then how do you explain Donald Rumsfeld getting Belgium to change their universal jurisdiction laws. That was pure bullying, bare fisted. Belgium had a law and Rumsfeld made it clear there would substantial consequences if it wasn't changed and it was changed.

Doesn't apply at all. Rumsfeld threatened Belgium that it risked losing its status as host to NATO's headquarters if it did not rescind the law.

So what do you think should happen here? What should Secretary Gates threaten Italy with if Amanda Knox isn't freed?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

faulty forensics

I feel the same way about all convicted murderers.

lionking,

Patricia Stallings was convicted of murdering her own infant son on the basis of gas chromatography results indicating she put ethylene glycol in his formula. That does not mean it actually happened.

Farah Jama spent time incarcerated for a rape because of faulty DNA forensics. This happened in your country, if I am not mistaken.

 

[Mary_H]

If the goal of her statements was to get more people aware of the case because a United States Senator mentioned it, well then it was effective. She does not, however, have any governmental power to change the outcome of the trial/appeals or in anyway get AK freed.

That may be. I don't think we can say for sure, though, that Senator Cantwell has not met with Secretary Clinton about this. We don't know what's going on behind closed doors. And we don't know what kind of negotiations go on between countries. Maybe the U.S. State Department made the Perugian legal system an offer it couldn't refuse.

 

[Dan O.]

I believe Guede’s final appeal motivational report will be released prior to the re-examination DNA report, does anyone know whether Judge Micheli original findings that Meredith was murdered by more than one assailant was ever rejected in any of Guede’s appeals? Assuming the prosecution use any evidence from Guede’s confirmation would the defence team be able to argue against the final conclusions of the highest court in Italy?

That is what Mignini will argue. We could see this setup long ago when certain aspects of the case were brought up in Guede's trial that had no barring on Guede's guilt and would not be argued against by any of the lawyers present.

If this court is to serve justice it will not accept the findings argued in other courts where the defendants were not represented.

 

[CDHost]

The War Crimes Law in Belgium was controversial when it was enacted, and Donald Rumsfeld's threat to move NATO headquarters away from Brussels was only one part of the reason it was scrapped. Italy does not have a NATO HQ, their law against murder is not controversial and not recently enacted, and Italy is far less likely to roll over in the face of American bullying IMO.

I think you may be underestimating the number of people - in government and out of it - in Italy who feel that the verdicts are fair and just. To release an American who they feel has been justly convicted, in the face of American pressure to do so, is not stubbornness; any more than America's refusal to commute Linda Carty's death sentence is stubbornness in the face of British pleas to do so.

Well you and I disagree there too, and I agree its a fair analogy. I think Carty should be returned to England upon request. When the British government officially filed a brief on her behalf she should have been freed or granted the retrial they requested. America is in the wrong on that one. I think it is profoundly disrespectful to Britain to execute her over their objections if they believe her theory.


As for Italy being less likely to roll over. That's a question. Again, what's in it for Italy? Lets say tomorrow they rip out Amanda eyes and flog her to death? What's their big win? What's their upside? Why suffer blowback for something with no possible advantage?

 

[Withnail1969]

That is what Mignini will argue. We could see this setup long ago when certain aspects of the case were brought up in Guede's trial that had no barring on Guede's guilt and would not be argued against by any of the lawyers present.

If this court is to serve justice it will not accept the findings argued in other courts where the defendants were not represented.

He can't use Guede's case against Amanda and Raffaele. In English law (and presumably Italian) that's not permissible. Also, as I pointed out earlier, Micheli and Massei are hopelessly contradictory in that the victim was murdered twice.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the odds

Hi ! New poster and new to this case. My 2yr old broke her leg 2 weeks ago and I had lots of time indoors and came across this case. After reading a decent amount, I am pretty much for a not guilty vote. There are a few things I cant find good answers to though. Hoping I can get some answers here!

1. What is the prosecutions evidence that the floor was cleaned? Would it not be seen that some areas were cleaner than others?

2. Where is AK's or RS's "cleaned-up" bloody footprints in Meridiths room? Or did they supposedly hop or walk on towels til they got to the door or what?

3. I hear talk of mixed blood in the bathroom from AK and MK. If this really is AK's fresh blood, where did it come from? Why would Amanda be bleeding?

4. Why do they think Rudy left right away? Why couldnt his footprints be from entering the room again after a period of time and then leaving?

5. For the DNA evidence, I dont see anywhere where it is given the odds of the DNA being a particular individual. (ie 1:35,000,000 or 1:10).

I have some more but that's it for now!! Thanks!!

PS. Being so new to this case it was amazing to go to some of the first threads and see that almost everything reported about this case in the first weeks turned out to be false... cctv footage showing AK entering the cottage, phone calls to guede from AK, "bloody bathroom" photo, bleach receipts, etc....

Sherkeu,

Amanda's DNA was found mixed with Meredith's blood. IMO, the most likely explanation for that is that Amanda left biological matter containing DNA in those places and Meredith's blood was on top of it. The opposite order of events (which could have happened because Amanda was in the apartment the next morning) is also quite plausible.

Meredith's DNA profile on the knife falls into the low template range of DNA profiling, and Raffaele's presumed profile on the clasp may fall into this range as well, and it is a mixture in which many of his alleles would be shared with hers. For these reasons among others, I think computing the odds in each case obscures more than it clarifies. I have summarized some of the problems with the DNA evidence in the case here.

 

[Alt+F4]

So for example and she'll have a dozen opportunities this year, AIG funding, so that payments aren't made on claims of Italian banks until AK is freed.

Cantwell and the other 99 senators would let AK rot in prison for life before they tried anything like this.

I can see a 3 part transfer Italy -> UK -> USA but we don't even have a treaty for a direct transfer.

That's not how the system works. Why do you think Amanda Knox's case should get special exception and not be subject to the regulations regarding United States citizens convicted of a crime in a foreign country?

With the exception of impeachment the President's ability to pardon is absolutely without limit or constraint. The US Supreme Court has agreed that US courts don't even have the ability to hear any claims against a presidential pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites and amnesties.

Wrong. Article 2, Section 2 of the United States Constitution:

...and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Bolding mine. The President has no Constitutional power to pardon someone convicted in a foreign court. Yikes, the President can't even pardon someone convicted in a state court!