Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Withnail1969]

How does the Italian system work? Can defendents in separate trials be convicted on contrary evidence?

Well clearly they have been in this case. I studied English law not Italian and I'm not a practising lawyer so I'm a little rusty on specifics. I'll do some reading around.

 

[Dan O.]

Dan, we do not know a "sealed evidence bag" was opened. IIRC, we know that the knife was taken from an envelope and placed in a box for shipment to Rome. It says nothing about it also being removed from it's "sealed evidence bag", which it was supposedly in before putting it in the envelope, and then the box.

Perhaps you can dig up the testimonies of Armando Finzi and Stefano Gubbiotti so you can review again what we do know about how Raffaele's kitchen knife was handled by the police. Pay particular attention to what Finzi says he placed the knife in and what Gubbiotti says he removed the knife from.

 

[Justinian2]

I think you're wrong.

If Sollecito and Knox get released, it will be because of the evidence - or lack of it. And nothing else.

There already is a lack of evidence, but that didn't stop incarceration.

The apparent calculation is that finding one guilty and incarcerating two other scape goats is superior to justice - especially if it makes the prosecutor, police and tabloid readers momentarily gleeful.

I'm sorry, but even after all this time I don't see how anyone vigorously supports the Italian system in their finding.

 

[Amazer]

Conversely if they release her. Making a claim that "we will not hold a citizen of the United states over the objections of the United States, even though we believe her to be guilty of murder" that says a lot. It would open up a dialogue at the very least with the State of Washington regarding implementing many of the changes that Italy has been working for in US law for more than a generation.

I think you are being terribly naive here and not really thinking the implications of your idea through.

 

[Withnail1969]

Perhaps you can dig up the testimonies of Armando Finzi and Stefano Gubbiotti so you can review again what we do know about how Raffaele's kitchen knife was handled by the police. Pay particular attention to what Finzi says he placed the knife in and what Gubbiotti says he removed the knife from.

I'm guessing the missing phrase is 'sealed evidence bag'. Do I win a prize?

 

[Alt+F4]

Conversely if they release her. Making a claim that "we will not hold a citizen of the United states over the objections of the United States, even though we believe her to be guilty of murder" that says a lot. It would open up a dialogue at the very least with the State of Washington regarding implementing many of the changes that Italy has been working for in US law for more than a generation.

The State of Washington has nothing to do with this case.

 

[Justinian2]

I think you are being terribly naive here and not really thinking the implications of your idea through.

I object to calling a poster naive.

Anyway, what are "the implications of your idea"?
In fact, what is the idea?

I'm amazed.

 

[CDHost]

While there is no direct prisoner transfer treaty between the United States and Italy the federal government can't "do whatever they want" even if a prisoner transfer is done through a third country.

The U.S. Department of Justice has strict regulations regarding eligibility, arrangements and how the prisoner's sentence is administered. You can read about it here:

http://travel.state.gov/law/legal/treaty/treaty_1989.html

]

Good link

And Title18.III.306.4105 ( Transfer of offenders serving sentence of imprisonment)

a. Except as provided elsewhere in this section, an offender serving a sentence of imprisonment in a foreign country transferred to the custody of the Attorney General shall remain in the custody of the Attorney General under the same conditions and for the same period of time as an offender who had been committed to the custody of the Attorney General by a court of the United States for the period of time imposed by the sentencing court.

i.e. pardon's apply as if they had been sentenced

Read your own posts! In post 2072 you said that if Amanda was in a federal prison in the U.S. the President could pardon her. Wrong.

No right,. See the statue US law applies once they come over We don't have obligations. How could we, the executive branch is responsible for executing sentences. Who would be the governing authority if US law didn't apply?

 

[Kaosium]

So now we aren't talking about magical powers anymore but the kinds of riders Senators can do. So we before we move on from "can she" to "will she" I just want to point out this shift. She doesn't need magic powers, all she needs to do is the sort of stuff Senators do all the time about things they care about like the interests of donors or corporations in their district.

Just to point out, Senators have their hands in the cookie jar, that's what they do: spend money. It's right there in the Constitution, Congress collects the dough and consumes the cookies. So 'a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon we're talking about real money.'

The Executive Branch is responsible for foreign policy, in the case of treaties and appointments they get advice and consent from the Senate, but the rest of the time the Senators are busy leaving trails of crumbs everywhere so the President with the aid of his cabinet and attendant bureaucracies gets to play with the other kids.

Thus comparing actions of a cabinet member, a part of the Executive branch, as you did in another post to a Senator doesn't quite work. Senator Cantwell has her mouth too full of chocolate chips to be heard by Italy on an official basis, we've got others who get to do that in the Executive Branch. 'Separation of powers.'

 

[Dan O.]

I'm guessing the missing phrase is 'sealed evidence bag'. Do I win a prize?

I'd nominate you for the MDC if I didn't know you had already read the Massei Report and understood the mystery of [282].

 

[Kaosium]

I'd nominate you for the MDC if I didn't know you had already read the Massei Report and understood the mystery of [282].

Made me look! I reposted it here as you reminded me there was something interesting about this back in the thread. I think you're the one who brought it up. I'm thinking the highlighted portions are the most interesting, especially as I recall recently someone trying to tell me there wasn't another knife in that drawer, and this says "knives."

Also, with the last I think this is what you found so intriguing last time, an admission that right before they got that knife they'd been in Amanda's room. Someone fought you hammer and tongs claiming the final sentence repudiated the previous one completely, Kermit or someone?

[282] On November 6, 2007, during the search carried out in the apartment in
Perugia where Raffaele Sollecito lived, the 31cm-*‐‑long knife was found. Taking part in the search were Dr. Chiacchiera, Vice Director of the Perugia Flying Squad, [and] Inspectors Finzi and Passeri; [and] Superintendent Ranauro and assistants Camarda, Rossi and Sisani. All, according to statements made by witnesses, wore gloves and shoe covers. The knife was taken by Inspector Finzi, who testified that he had clean, new gloves and that, having opened the drawer where the tableware was kept, the first thing he saw was a large knife that was extremely clean. There were other knives in the drawer, but he took [only] this one, which became Exhibit 36.

This knife was the first object he touched and it was located on top of all the tableware. He put it in a new paper envelope he had with him and then in a folder. The bag with the knife inside was handed over to Superintendent Gubbiotti when he returned to the Police Headquarters.

In turn, Superintendent Gubbiotti, who had participated in the search of the house on via della Pergola on that same date of November 6, stated that he was given the knife by Finzi when he returned to Police Headquarters and that it was inside a new and well-*‐‑sealed envelope. Gubbiotti furthermore declared that when he collected [Note from the translator: the Italian word used here can also mean catalogued or indexed] the knife in question, he was wearing new gloves that had never been used before, which he had taken from the office. It was with these gloves that he took the knife from the bag and put it inside a box that he sealed with scotch tape and sent
with the other evidence to the Forensic Police in Rome, where it underwent analysis as stated by Dr. Stefanoni.

It should also be recalled that Stefano Gubbiotti, before receiving the knife, had participated in the search in the house on Via della Pergola 7, [and] together with Zugarini processed Amanda's room. The various individuals who testified [in Court] on the procedures [used] for this search all declared unanimously that whoever dealt with one room did not enter any of the other [rooms]; no one went from one room to another.

 

[Kaosium]

I object to calling a poster naive.

Anyway, what are "the implications of your idea"?
In fact, what is the idea?

I'm amazed.

I'm with Amazer: do you really want to be importing Italy's legal system or curious laws like calunnia? I find the country, the government and the people very interesting, but as far as that byzantine legal system...

 

[CoulsdonUK]

They can't. There's a legal jargon word for this which i can't recall right now but basically each trial has to stand on its own merits and the results or evidence in one person's trial can't be used in another, hence the ludicrous result with the two different times of death in Micheli and Massei.

That is surprising as the judges report will be in the public domain along with trial and Guede's first appeal, I guess we will see what unfolds or whether mutiple assailants was accepted in Guede's appeals.

 

[Antony]

Speaking for myself:

(1) If I were in her situation, I would hope that people would care about me.

(2) Perhaps more than most victims of wrongful prosecution, I find Knox and Sollecito to be particularly sympathetic individuals, and their misfortune upsets me greatly.

Read about Amanda Knox; she isn't just some random person off the street. Nor is Raffaele Sollecito.

So your reaction to a miscarriage of justice is to some extent a function of the character of the wrongly accused? This is problematic for me: judicial cock-ups are an issue in all circumstances for a number of reasons, and the effect on the lives of the wrongly convicted is only the most obvious of them.

Most seriously, of course, is the fact that when innocent scapegoats are imprisoned, the real culprit usually goes free - with the knowledge that his crime is regarded as "solved". (Ironically that isn't the case here, as the real killer, Rudy Guede, is also convicted, but seems likely to get favourable treatment relative to AK and RS.) The other issue is that justice becomes discredited, most of all in the eyes of the real perpetrators.

Take the case of Barry George, wrongly convicted of the 1999 murder of the TV presenter Jill Dando. He was hardly an appealing character - severe learning difficulties, an attention seeker and since his release apparently back to harrassing women. But he didn't kill Dando, and the investigation that screwed up in his case is just as damaging as the persecution of Amanda and Raffaele.

In all these cases the police and courts become part of the problem instead of part of the solution. That is of concern to everybody; we don't just need protection from criminals, we also need protection from wrongful accusation by the very people supposedly charged with tackling crime.

 

[CDHost]

The Executive Branch is responsible for foreign policy, in the case of treaties and appointments they get advice and consent from the Senate, but the rest of the time the Senators are busy leaving trails of crumbs everywhere so the President with the aid of his cabinet and attendant bureaucracies gets to play with the other kids.

That's not how it works actually. This is why for example China spends a fortune in lobbying congress. Congress drives the broad details of our policy the aims and objectives. The Senate Foreign relations committee (which she is not on BTW) controls all the foreign policy agencies of the US government This committee is responsible for overseeing the foreign policy agencies of the U.S. government, including the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the Peace Corps.

I.E. John Kerry is the #1 guy on Foreign policy objectives, Barack Obama the #1 guy on foreign policy means, Hillary Clinton the #1 guy on Diplomatic relations.

And the Senate as a whole oversees the committee. The executive has a tough time doing much of anything congress doesn't approve of. That's why Reagan had to sell arms to Iran to get money for the contras.

 

[Alt+F4]

I'm with Amazer: do you really want to be importing Italy's legal system or curious laws like calunnia? I find the country, the government and the people very interesting, but as far as that byzantine legal system...

Yeah, well if this trial had happened in the U.S. there would be no 400 page motivations report to read. I think what's quite byzantine is that juries in the U.S. don't have to give any justifications for their verdict. They could be sitting in the deliberation room eating cookies all day. Anything they say about the case afterwards is totally voluntary.

 

[Kaosium]

That's not how it works actually. This is why for example China spends a fortune in lobbying congress. Congress drives the broad details of our policy the aims and objectives. The Senate Foreign relations committee (which she is not on BTW) controls all the foreign policy agencies of the US government This committee is responsible for overseeing the foreign policy agencies of the U.S. government, including the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the Peace Corps.

Money: trade and goodies.
Congress passes the laws of course, too. However the State Department is the instrument of American foreign policy, and reports to the President as does the CIA, NSA, USN, USAF, USMC, USA, USCG and all sorts of additional alphabet soup...

And the Senate as a whole oversees the committee. The executive has a tough time doing much of anything congress doesn't approve of. That's why Reagan had to sell arms to Iran to get money for the contras.

No, that was the Borland Amendment I mentioned previously, and suggested that wouldn't be happening in this case.

 

[CDHost]

I'm with Amazer: do you really want to be importing Italy's legal system or curious laws like calunnia? I find the country, the government and the people very interesting, but as far as that byzantine legal system...

I don't want that either. And let me handle this in 2 sort of threads:

CD-Host was saying I'd like a system of checks where when foreign citizens are arrested their government has some oversight of the criminal process. Something like the ability to suspend a sentence and remove the prisoner. I think that's a courtesy countries could extend to one another.

Italy is pushing for an international justice system with international standards. I don't think they "get" the state court system as it works in the US but what why would want is something like:
state courts -> federal court -> international supervisory court
kinda like what they have.
That's obviously impossible and I think undesirable but OTOH:
state courts & federal courts -> international court of justice
is something we could do if we could work enough out.

And I'd recommend we separate off:
Italy wants international standards in a general sense, which impacts Amanda
Italy wants international standards in a specific sense, which is political
Best international standards which is political and completely unrelated to Amanda.

I'd be willing to do best international standards if there is any interest in a new thread. Do you all want a new thread?

 

[komponisto]

So your reaction to a miscarriage of justice is to some extent a function of the character of the wrongly accused? This is problematic for me: judicial cock-ups are an issue in all circumstances for a number of reasons, and the effect on the lives of the wrongly convicted is only the most obvious of them.

Most seriously, of course, is the fact that when innocent scapegoats are imprisoned, the real culprit usually goes free - with the knowledge that his crime is regarded as "solved". (Ironically that isn't the case here, as the real killer, Rudy Guede, is also convicted, but seems likely to get favourable treatment relative to AK and RS.) The other issue is that justice becomes discredited, most of all in the eyes of the real perpetrators.

Take the case of Barry George, wrongly convicted of the 1999 murder of the TV presenter Jill Dando. He was hardly an appealing character - severe learning difficulties, an attention seeker and since his release apparently back to harrassing women. But he didn't kill Dando, and the investigation that screwed up in his case is just as damaging as the persecution of Amanda and Raffaele.

In all these cases the police and courts become part of the problem instead of part of the solution. That is of concern to everybody; we don't just need protection from criminals, we also need protection from wrongful accusation by the very people supposedly charged with tackling crime.

I don't have much to disagree with here. The question was why I care "so much" about this particular case, not why I care at all. I don't need much convincing that miscarriages of justice are a major problem; but I've never personally gotten "involved" with a specific case before.

The fact that I've taken a particular interest this case does not imply that other wrongful convictions are "not an issue" for me. Indeed, there are really too many of them for a single person to be equally passionate about all of them -- a fact which in itself is a serious problem.

 

[CDHost]

No, that was the Borland Amendment I mentioned previously, and suggested that wouldn't be happening in this case.

Just as an aside you want Boland. Borland is a transportation Amendment

And I don't think it will got that far. Boland was needed because Reagan really really wanted to break international law. From their perspective they were looking at a repeat of Nixon and Cambodia. My contention is that Italy is not going to the wall to keep Amanda jailed. They aren't going 2% to the wall. Reagan was willing to go the wall to give arms to the contras.

The destruction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is on autopilot. The whole point of the political campaign is to get it off autopilot. That's all. Once they are off autopilot:

a) The evidence is clear enough that a court can free them
b) The politics are one sided enough that a political entity can intervene

Or it stays on autopilot neither (a) nor (b) happens; and she either dies in jail or comes up a shattered shell of a person having lost her youth, her health, her looks and her mind. Mignini gets a notch in his belt and everyone moves on. Twenty years for a cartwheel.

She's picked a political strategy from the start. I'm all in favor of Cantwell treating the destruction of an America with at least the seriousness she would treat a situation where Italy were killing a polar bear.