Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Sure. American politicians have no desire to interfere with the internal affairs of a US ally. They are hoping the Italian court system will get this right. At the same time, the US Senate is a collegial environment. Cantwell wouldn't have made her statement without vetting it. She has broad support, but for now, it is quiet support.

If you look at people like Megyn Kelly on FOX, or Peter van Sant on CBS, they are a good indicator of where the well-informed US public stands on this case. We Americans are not going to sit on our hands while Amanda Knox serves a 26 year prison sentence. Our elected leaders will, if they must, impose a tangible political and economic burden on Italy in an effort to extract Amanda from the vise of a wrongful conviction. But it is a last resort.

I really can't see this happening under any circustances. I understand what you're saying, and I understand your driving logic up to a point, but I cannot for one moment believe that any US politician or member of the executive or judiciary branch would dream of instigating formal censure against Italy if Knox failed in her appeals. For one thing, the Italian judiciary - the branch of the Italian government which is wholly responsible for Knox's fate - is completely separate from (and independent of) the Italian executive and legislature. So any political, trade/economic or military cooperation penalties aimed at Italy would be hitting the wrong target. The Italian exectutive would rightfully say that this is entirely a matter for the Italian judiciary,and that it (the executive) is totally powerless to intervene itself.

I think that your prediction of US intervention if Knox remains convicted is based on a combination of wishful thinking and some misunderstanding about the separation of powers in modern democracies. It simply will not happen - I can virtually guarantee it.

However, all that being said, I firmly believe that this is a moot argument, since I am now very confident that Knox's (and Sollecito's) conviction will be overturned at this first appeal stage...

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I am sorry are you serious? The Italian Judiciary are completely separate from the government, even of Berlussconi wanted to he cannot intervene.

 

[Alt+F4]

We Americans are not going to sit on our hands while Amanda Knox serves a 26 year prison sentence.

Yeah Charlie, we will.

 

[LondonJohn]

I am sorry are you serious? The Italian Judiciary are completely separate from the government, even of Berlussconi wanted to he cannot intervene.

I presume that was aimed at Charlie rather than me

Also, just for the sake of accuracy in an often-confusing set of definitions, the judiciary is actually defined as a branch of government, but a branch which is totally autonomous from the other branches - the executive and the legislature. The executive (which is often called "the government") devises and introduces legislation, and runs the civil service, and the legislature (often called the parliament, or the congress/senate, depending on the country) passes legislation into law. The judiciary is responsible for applying the legislation in a fair and disinterested way. It's one of the bedrocks of a modern democracy that the executive/legislature have no involvement with the workings of the judiciary, and vice versa. Countries where the executive control the judiciary are usually called authoritarian (or, in extremis, totalitarian) states, and are generally held to be not particularly democratic entities

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I presume that was aimed at Charlie rather than me

Also, just for the sake of accuracy in an often-confusing set of definitions, the judiciary is actually defined as a branch of government, but a branch which is totally autonomous from the other branches - the executive and the legislature. The executive (which is often called "the government") devises and introduces legislation, and runs the civil service, and the legislature (often called the parliament, or the congress/senate, depending on the country) passes legislation into law. The judiciary is responsible for applying the legislation in a fair and disinterested way. It's one of the bedrocks of a modern democracy that the executive/legislature have no involvement with the workings of the judiciary, and vice versa. Countries where the executive control the judiciary are usually called authoritarian (or, in extremis, totalitarian) states, and are generally held to be not particularly democratic entities

Sorry my post was directed to Mr Wilkes.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sorry my post was directed to Mr Wilkes.

That's what I thought

By the way, I kept meaning to ask: are you actually from Coulsdon?

 

[Dan O.]

I've been wondering what this strange piece is next to the lamp behind the door in Mereidth's room.

It's roughly the size of the missing decade counter daughter card of the MST-13 timer

 

[RoseMontague]

I've been wondering what this strange piece is next to the lamp behind the door in Mereidth's room.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=4248[/qimg]



It's roughly the size of the missing decade counter daughter card of the MST-13 timer

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_151444aeb6f2f9df5d.jpg[/qimg]

It could not be anything else.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

That's what I thought

By the way, I kept meaning to ask: are you actually from Coulsdon?

Yes I am, although I live in the part of Coulsdon near St. John's Church so locally we refer to it as Old Coulsdon.

 

[Chris C]

I presume that was aimed at Charlie rather than me

Also, just for the sake of accuracy in an often-confusing set of definitions, the judiciary is actually defined as a branch of government, but a branch which is totally autonomous from the other branches - the executive and the legislature. The executive (which is often called "the government") devises and introduces legislation, and runs the civil service, and the legislature (often called the parliament, or the congress/senate, depending on the country) passes legislation into law. The judiciary is responsible for applying the legislation in a fair and disinterested way. It's one of the bedrocks of a modern democracy that the executive/legislature have no involvement with the workings of the judiciary, and vice versa. Countries where the executive control the judiciary are usually called authoritarian (or, in extremis, totalitarian) states, and are generally held to be not particularly democratic entities

There is a small exception to the separation of powers. In the US, judges are either appointed by elected officials, or are elected by the people. So in a way, the government does have some control over them. Also, the judiciary doesn't investigate. They only prosecute. Italy's system isn't even close to the US. In the US, the police are not run by the judiciary. They are an extension of elected officials. Whether its the mayor, sheriff, county, state congress, state governors, us congress or president one of those groups control the police and investigators.

 

[CDHost]

For one thing, the Italian judiciary - the branch of the Italian government which is wholly responsible for Knox's fate - is completely separate from (and independent of) the Italian executive and legislature. So any political, trade/economic or military cooperation penalties aimed at Italy would be hitting the wrong target. The Italian exectutive would rightfully say that this is entirely a matter for the Italian judiciary,and that it (the executive) is totally powerless to intervene itself.

Article 87 of the Italian Constitution grants the ability to pardon to the president:

Può concedere grazia e commutare le pene. (May grant pardons and commute sentences.) Giorgio Napolitano can let her go at any time.

And there are tons of other mechanisms. Extradition is an executive function in Italy. So they could grant an extradition to Washington State on say a speeding charge .... Along with many other mechanism. Will they is one thing. Can they is clear cut.

However, all that being said, I firmly believe that this is a moot argument, since I am now very confident that Knox's (and Sollecito's) conviction will be overturned at this first appeal stage...

I wish I had your confidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

Article 87 of the Italian Constitution grants the ability to pardon to the president:

Può concedere grazia e commutare le pene. (May grant pardons and commute sentences.) Giorgio Napolitano can let her go at any time.

And there are tons of other mechanisms. Extradition is an executive function in Italy. So they could grant an extradition to Washington State on say a speeding charge .... Along with many other mechanism. Will they is one thing. Can they is clear cut.



I wish I had your confidence.

I imagine that the Presidential power to pardon or commute any conviction/sentence might well be a hangover from the times of the lovely Sig. Mussolini. It's certainly extraordinarily undemocratic (as is the similar power vested in state governors and the President in the USA). These sorts of powers should absolutely be abolished in 21st century democracies, and they are rarely used - for obvious reasons.

And I think that similarly there would be an outcry if Knox's sentence were confirmed in the appeals, but if she was then extradited to the US on a spurious and far more minor charge. I'd certainly oppose this as a legitimate mechanism.

 

[Kaosium]

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?

I'm afraid I must demur, this takes just about all my online time already.

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

Of course it is, I stand corrected. After I got it right once too, do I lose extra points for that?

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

I think the tide has turned, Amanda Knox isn't really on trial anymore, the Italian justice system is. That trial was so ridiculous it's almost a black comedy. I laugh so I don't cry, sometimes I think about it and it sickens me how stupid it is, that she has to pay for the blunders of others, sitting in a jail cell along with Raffaele. However I know there's also places in this world where scraping splatterings of half-rotten tomatoes off a pier is considered good eating. They will get something out of it too, if they want it. I'm also interested in whether the perpetrators of this fiasco get what they have coming. The initial mistakes are perhaps understandable, the cover-up and especially the scapegoating is not.

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.

I think it's rolling downhill now, and no force on earth can stop it. Too many people know, it will get too much media coverage, and the trial should go very differently this time, as the prosecution has no cards to play as far as I can see, it should just be week after week of embarrassments and losses. That should build with the media, who might just get bored of the trial and start asking the questions outside it that will lead to the whole truth.

There's technicians out there that know what happened to those computers, there's four police that didn't choose to be a part of the calunnia charge, someone ought to be asking Patrick the tough questions, especially if he's going to come to the trial every week like I heard. His 'martyrdom' is at this point absurd, if he had any peripheral part to play in the jailing of two innocents for more than three years now. Why does he blame Amanda and not the police as he should, especially being as they ruined him pointlessly long after he was released?

I hope this is a good indication of things to come:

The forces of Righteousness defeated the minions of Corruption today. That's right, "after further review, the Bears still suck!"

 

[CDHost]

There is a small exception to the separation of powers. In the US, judges are either appointed by elected officials, or are elected by the people. So in a way, the government does have some control over them. Also, the judiciary doesn't investigate. They only prosecute. Italy's system isn't even close to the US.

I don't know Italy but in the USA they have more power than that.

1) The legislature and often in state courts the voters can impeach and remove judges from office.

2) Most judges in the United States need to run for office over and over. Few appointments are for life.

3) The executive has a right of pardon, which creates a legal mechanism t refuse to enforce rulings. They can just ignore them, for example in 1954 the Southern states refused to enforce the anti-segregation rulings of the federal courts and it wasn't until 1957 the federal executive agreed to step in.

4) The State and Federal legislatures can alter the jurisdiction of the courts.

5) Advisory opinions are illegal for federal courts (not a good rule IMHO but one that restricts the courts)

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm afraid I must demur, this takes just about all my online time already.



Of course it is, I stand corrected. After I got it right once too, do I lose extra points for that?




I think the tide has turned, Amanda Knox isn't really on trial anymore, the Italian justice system is. That trial was so ridiculous it's almost a black comedy. I laugh so I don't cry, sometimes I think about it and it sickens me how stupid it is, that she has to pay for the blunders of others, sitting in a jail cell along with Raffaele. However I know there's also places in this world where scraping splatterings of half-rotten tomatoes off a pier is considered good eating. They will get something out of it too, if they want it. I'm also interested in whether the perpetrators of this fiasco get what they have coming. The initial mistakes are perhaps understandable, the cover-up and especially the scapegoating is not.



I think it's rolling downhill now, and no force on earth can stop it. Too many people know, it will get too much media coverage, and the trial should go very differently this time, as the prosecution has no cards to play as far as I can see, it should just be week after week of embarrassments and losses. That should build with the media, who might just get bored of the trial and start asking the questions outside it that will lead to the whole truth.

There's technicians out there that know what happened to those computers, there's four police that didn't choose to be a part of the calunnia charge, someone ought to be asking Patrick the tough questions, especially if he's going to come to the trial every week like I heard. His 'martyrdom' is at this point absurd, if he had any peripheral part to play in the jailing of two innocents for more than three years now. Why does he blame Amanda and not the police as he should, especially being as they ruined him pointlessly long after he was released?

I hope this is a good indication of things to come:

The forces of Righteousness defeated the minions of Corruption today. That's right, "after further review, the Bears still suck!"

The more I learn about this case, the more I'm convinced that the defence teams did a woefully substandard job in the first trial. I realise that there were issues outside their control (such as many of Mignini's manoeuvres and Massei's "reasoning"), but even so, their failure to deal properly with Curatolo, Quintavalle and Capezalli, coupled with their seeming inability to properly assimilate and refute much of the key scientific and medical evidence (the DNA validity, time of death, cellphone evidence) is worrying and absolutely not to their credit.

However, at least they seem to have learned from their (many) mistakes, and they've also benefited from some additional legal firepower behind the scenes. I hope they realise that they've only really got one more try to get it right........

 

[LondonJohn]

The forces of Righteousness defeated the minions of Corruption today. That's right, "after further review, the Bears still suck!"

Hahahaha. You're not a Cheesehead, are you?!!

(Mind you, for my sins, I'm a Bills fan. I saw them play (and met Jim Kelly and Marv Levy) as a teenager when they played an exhibition match at Wembley Stadium in around 1991, so I've followed them ever since. Question is, do I stay up for the rest of the AFC Championship game....? I think the answer will have to be yes )

 

[Kaosium]

Sure. American politicians have no desire to interfere with the internal affairs of a US ally. They are hoping the Italian court system will get this right. At the same time, the US Senate is a collegial environment. Cantwell wouldn't have made her statement without vetting it. She has broad support, but for now, it is quiet support.

If you look at people like Megyn Kelly on FOX, or Peter van Sant on CBS, they are a good indicator of where the well-informed US public stands on this case. We Americans are not going to sit on our hands while Amanda Knox serves a 26 year prison sentence. Our elected leaders will, if they must, impose a tangible political and economic burden on Italy in an effort to extract Amanda from the vise of a wrongful conviction. But it is a last resort.

I wouldn't think they'd have to, what does Italy as a nation or the Italian people gain from all this? You would certainly know better than I, but it seems to me a court corruption scandal is just what some people over there might need right now. Who owns all those TV stations?

 

[billyryan]

The more I learn about this case, the more I'm convinced that the defence teams did a woefully substandard job in the first trial. I realise that there were issues outside their control (such as many of Mignini's manoeuvres and Massei's "reasoning"), but even so, their failure to deal properly with Curatolo, Quintavalle and Capezalli, coupled with their seeming inability to properly assimilate and refute much of the key scientific and medical evidence (the DNA validity, time of death, cellphone evidence) is worrying and absolutely not to their credit.

However, at least they seem to have learned from their (many) mistakes, and they've also benefited from some additional legal firepower behind the scenes. I hope they realise that they've only really got one more try to get it right........

I agree LJ,when Curatolo takes the witness stand in March they must wipe the floor with him

 

[CDHost]

Pardons.

I imagine that the Presidential power to pardon or commute any conviction/sentence might well be a hangover from the times of the lovely Sig. Mussolini. It's certainly extraordinarily undemocratic (as is the similar power vested in state governors and the President in the USA). These sorts of powers should absolutely be abolished in 21st century democracies, and they are rarely used - for obvious reasons.

Wow we really are disagreeing.

Just so that we are agreeing on the definition of "rarely" here is the list for 8 years of GW Bush (who is not exactly a softee). I think its pretty heavily used on this side of the pond. So was that point just a difference or rarely or you didn't realize it was still this heavily used?

As for abolished let me just give an example. Had it not been for the first 2 pardons: Philip Vigol and John Mitchell from George Washington Western Pennsylvania and Ohio would have been essentially occupied territory in 1791. They still had Fries rebellion even with most people liking how the Whisky rebellion ended and so the hostilities ended by the end of the 18th century. If you count Shays rebellion where they pardoned the leaders in Mass which was essentially the same thing but a bit north.

Think about what the war of 1812 looks like without those pardons. The US national government was having to fight an enemy at sea at the same time it had to maintain a hostile occupation on the other side of the adirondack mountains. I think you Brits would have won the war of 1812 and recaptured your colony. Jefferson, if he is even on the side of the National government and not trying to split Virginia off doesn't dare make the Louisiana purchase for fear or adding more western lands. Heck those western parts of the country might be actively trying to side with the French.

Its hard to know how this turns out but my guess is that the states fall apart and the territory which is now the USA at looks like Africa. And all so we could hang a few extra guys?

To pick a recent British example your judiciary was only too happy to essentially engage in an act of war by trying to arrest Tzipi Livni. And there were a few other earlier incidents where the executive had to leak these warrants to avoid committing acts of war. I would never trust judges on political matters. Fundamentally why have judges issue ruling the executive will not enforce?

And I think that similarly there would be an outcry if Knox's sentence were confirmed in the appeals, but if she was then extradited to the US on a spurious and far more minor charge. I'd certainly oppose this as a legitimate mechanism.

Why? They could be honest about it. The government could just say, "we don't think holding Knox is in Italy's interest so we are sending her back". What would the outcry be? I have yet to hear anyone even try and defend how this is in Italy's interest.

 

[billyryan]

I wouldn't think they'd have to, what does Italy as a nation or the Italian people gain from all this? You would certainly know better than I, but it seems to me a court corruption scandal is just what some people over there might need right now. Who owns all those TV stations?

Why can't it be a joint effort between US Senators and Italian parliamentarians an Italian citizen Raffaele has been just as wronged in this trial as Amanda