Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris C]

Literally, you are correct. I am reading between the lines a bit. The fact that he believes she was barefoot makes it pretty obvious that he also believes a shoeprint is not hers, in my opinion.

I agree with Rose, I thought Massei said she was barefoot. So if he says she is barefoot, then in point of fact, he is admitting that a shoeprint can't possibly be hers.

 

[Kaosium]

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.

A 1978 AMC Gremlin had an owner's manual, I'd rather a '78 Pontiac Trans Am without one. The latter might cost too much, be too flashy and get you into trouble too, but it's a classic that actually runs and five years from now will be on the road, whereas all of the former will probably be in the junkyard...

Seriously though, I do think the concept of motivation reports is a good idea.

 

[komponisto]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best
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.

If that were the case she would already be released.

Not necessarily. You appear to be making a very common mistake here (the same mistake made by Cantwell, incidentally), which is to assume that if the evidence clearly indicates innocence, the jury will find in favor of innocence unless the trial is "unfair".

But this just isn't the case. Sometimes all the rules are followed, and people simply misjudge the evidence. Fortunately, the appeals courts in Italy -- unlike the U.S.! -- are empowered to correct such misjudgements.

Seriously: in the U.S., so far as I know, "the jury was just plain wrong" is not grounds for appeal. There has to have been some procedural violation by the judge or some legal or constitutional issue raised that the appeals court judges find interesting. Or, at the very least, new evidence that didn't exist at the time of the original trial (but there is no guarantee here; for example, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutionally permitted for states to deny convicts the right to have new DNA tests conducted -- their reasoning being that there's no presumption of innocence after conviction!).

 

[Chris C]

Is this all you've got?

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

Is English your first language? Kid(s) and Child(ren) are often used in substitution of son(s) and daughter(s). Regardless of their age.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

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?

An interesting point of view given that successive American governments have avoided international legal agreements. If an UK citizen commits a crime that impacts American domestic infrastructure, finance, defence or home land security a Brit can be extradited to stand trial in America. However, the reverse does not apply. I cannot not envisage America ever signing up to any international treaty which would allow Americans to be extradited to another sovereign country to stand trial.

 

[Onofarar]

I don't care about this woman at all. I've never met her, I have no "dog in this fight". I'm more about the the legal and logical aspects to the case.

As for your question dtugg, what I find intresting (translate: creepy) is how many middle-aged men are soooooo concerned that this woman is set free.

Alt+F4
I will confess to being one of those middle-aged men - 63 actually. I was a believer in AK's guilt (didn't even know RS's name) until last summer (2010). I remember nodding my head in agreement with Ann Coulter's wildly incorrect summary of why AK was guilty on the O'Reilly Factor in December 2009. Then August 2010 I had some free time and for some reason I cannot recall actually began to study the case and the scales fell from my eyes (metaphor) and I did a 180 on the case.
Part of the reason I have since gotten involved here and elsewhere advocating for her innocence can be summarized in three words - Kristin. Vanessa & Ellie. They are respectively my daughter (28), my son's fiance (24) and my youngest son's gf - soon to be fiance (22).

Maybe other middle age men who are likely fathers or fathers-in-law are likewise upset at this travesty and know if this could happen to AK it could happen to someone in their family. I see AK in this fix - clearly innocent - and I want to chew nails I am so mad. Instead I vent my frustration by doing what I can to right this injustice.
If this makes me creepy so be it.

 

[Draca]

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?

I always thought Maria Cantwell made a serious mistake saying that it was 'Anti-Americanism' involved in the conviction. I don't think she should have made it an issue between the countries. I would have preferred that she called it an outrageous case of wrongful conviction and direct the comment at this particular case instead of Italy. I do applaud her for speaking out though.

I think Steve Moore and other FOA's strategy of calling on Italian citizens and experts to look at the case because Italy is better than this has been a better way to go. Instead of insulting people calling on them to investigate, see the truth and help end it.

I think anti-americanism didn't play much of a roll in this. In my opinion it has more to do with what Frank Sfarzo has been talking about lately. Police and prosecutors out of control. There seems to be a huge problem.

Italy's not alone, I've also learned throught this case how often the US and other countries have problems with wrongful convictions also.

 

[komponisto]

Seriously though, I do think the concept of motivation reports is a good idea.

I agree; however this seeming advantage of the Italian system is undermined considerably by the fact that trial transcripts are apparently not allowed to be published -- and I suspect that the requirement to publish motivation documents may even have its origin in this fact (in which case it's a poor substitute, for reasons that should be obvious).

 

[Alt+F4]

Seriously: in the U.S., so far as I know, "the jury was just plain wrong" is not grounds for appeal. There has to have been some procedural violation by the judge or some legal or constitutional issue raised that the appeals court judges find interesting. Or, at the very least, new evidence that didn't exist at the time of the original trial (but there is no guarantee here; for example, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutionally permitted for states to deny convicts the right to have new DNA tests conducted -- their reasoning being that there's no presumption of innocence after conviction!).

You're right, appeals in the U.S. are not automatic (except in death penalty cases). If Amanda had been found guilty of this murder in the U.S. she would not be entitled to know the reasons why the jury convicted her and she might have or not have gotten an appeal.

So the Italian system has many advantages over the American one. My biggest complaint is that the legal system in Italy moves.....sooooooo.......slowly. Almost six months to hear an appeal? Really! Both appeal documents had about 20 points each the defense wanted addressed. Most of those could have been banged out in a month if the court actually meet five days a week.

 

[Chris C]

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?

Considering how long this appeals is going to take, and then the trip to the Supreme Court of Italy, he may or may not even be Secretary of Defense when the next President is elected.

 

[Antony]

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.

Interesting you should raise the case of the Lockerbie "bomber", who was convicted on the same sort of reasoning that we see in the Massei report. He also had an appeal pending, and there are strong indications that part of the deal for his compassionate release was that the appeal should be dropped. The official line in August 2009 was that he had 3 months to live, and the appeal was due to be heard in ... 3 months time from then. Coincidence?

There is every reason to think that the appeal would have been successful, which means that had he not made to believe that he would be dead before then, then there is every chance that he would now be a free man as of right, and still been able to end his life in the bosom of his family.

 

[lionking]

Is English your first language? Kid(s) and Child(ren) are often used in substitution of son(s) and daughter(s). Regardless of their age.

I'm starting to wonder if it's yours. By this strange logic you can't call AK and RS "kids" unless they are your own children.

I stand by my position. Calling them kids is an appeal to emotion, nothing else. They were adults.

 

[Chris C]

I thought only one shoulder strap was cut. Were both straps cut? Also, were Meredith's arms still inside the pushed up t-shirt or were they out of the armholes? If her arms were still inside, the bra cannot be removed unless he cuts both straps, unless, from behind, he yanks very hard at the strap but the clasp doesn't give way so he cuts it at this area. Then he has to cut one shoulder strap and pull the bra off her body by pulling it through the other armhole.

Thanks for pointing that out. Both straps appear to be cut, so its more likely the bra clasp was cut also. I find it hard to believe the bra clasp and both straps could have been broken by pulling on the bra.

 

[Justinian2]

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...

The Calunnia laws suppress free speech about government. That can't ever be good.

I'd rather have free and truthful communication than merely free speech, but who's going to police that?

 

[Chris C]

I'm starting to wonder if it's yours. By this strange logic you can't call AK and RS "kids" unless they are your own children.

I stand by my position. Calling them kids is an appeal to emotion, nothing else. They were adults.

You jump on the word kids to form an opinion of the users meaning of this post. Yet if you read the whole statement completely you will notice the reference to the kerchers losing a child. Are you now saying Meredith can be a child but Knox and Sollecito can't be a kid? Now he could have called them children which would be the plural of child. So you think he should say children instead? Though whats odd is you didn't attack the meaning of the commenters statement that 2 innocent kids were suffering in jail for a crime they didn't commit. You just attacked the use of the word kid. Good argument.

Here is the quote you responded to.

Did you mean the Kerchers? Ignorant, much?
I really should not get involved in any discussion with you, but I feel like I owe it to the KERCHERS - I feel sorry for them too, they've lost a child. They're suffering. May the peace be with them. But all of this does not change the fact that these two kids are in prison for something they didn't do. Get over it, get over yourself, stop being so full of hate and look at the case logically. When you do, then we can talk.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kid

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/child

You will notice when reading these definitions the informal meaning of kid is child.

Is this all you've got?

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

I dont see your argument its an appeal to emotion in this statement. Maybe you said a few posts earlier and I missed it.

 

[CDHost]

Seriously: in the U.S., so far as I know, "the jury was just plain wrong" is not grounds for appeal. There has to have been some procedural violation by the judge or some legal or constitutional issue raised that the appeals court judges find interesting. Or, at the very least, new evidence that didn't exist at the time of the original trial (but there is no guarantee here; for example, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutionally permitted for states to deny convicts the right to have new DNA tests conducted -- their reasoning being that there's no presumption of innocence after conviction!).

Well there is. After the prosecution rests the defense can put in a motion for a directed verdict, basically saying the prosecution did not prove its case at all. If the judge agrees that triggers a dismissal.

After the trial, non obstante veredicto. A judge can determine that the jury could not possible have found the person guilty and reverse the jury. However that is appealable by the prosecution.

And since those are two choices by the judge they can be appealed....

The thing that is really different though is that the vast majority of American cases are resolved via. a plea. IMHO that's really what went wrong here. The prosecution could never quite figure out what happened and couldn't put a juicy offer on the table to get a anyone to turn.

 

[Justinian2]

I'm starting to wonder if it's yours. By this strange logic you can't call AK and RS "kids" unless they are your own children.

I stand by my position. Calling them kids is an appeal to emotion, nothing else. They were adults.

Most people going to college are called kids or children. They become adults when they become self sustaining and no longer need the support of their parents. Parents provide financial nurturing to their children until they have finished college and can support themselves.

 

[Alt+F4]

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 Megrahi no government rules were "bended". He was entitled to compassionate release under Scottish law. There is no evidence that any doctor involved in his case/treatment lied about his life expentancy. That's the thing about medicine, sometimes doctors just get it wrong.

 

[Alt+F4]

They become adults....

....when they turn 18.

 

[CDHost]

I'm starting to wonder if it's yours. By this strange logic you can't call AK and RS "kids" unless they are your own children.

I stand by my position. Calling them kids is an appeal to emotion, nothing else. They were adults.

I'm with Chris. I call them kids. And incidentally Amanda frequently used that term about herself. There are a series of steps:

puberty
loss of virginity
legal emancipation
getting out of school
becoming self supporting
marriage
having your first child

which are steps towards not being a kid. A 19 year old that's been working and supporting himself for 3 years, married with 2 children is not a kid. A 24 year old unmarried graduate student is.