Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Do you think that when German tourists are mugged and murdered in Florida, the German consulate says nothing to Florida Law Enforcement or the US State Department? They make no protest, register no complaint, and just leave it to the American courts to put things right?

But you're talking about the victims here, not the alleged perpetrators. The correct analogy would be if a German tourist in Florida was charged with attacking and killing a Canadian tourist. And yes: in such an instance, the German Consulate in Miami would do no more than visit the accused, to ensure that his basic rights were being respected and that he had sufficient contact with family members in Germany (if desired) to let them know his situation.

 

[Kaosium]

These arguments, like those of Alt+4 are valid but irrelevant. Deals are made, things get down. "Diplomatic" does not necessarily mean "by the book" or even "required by law."

I think the main point LJ is making is that this is not something that's going to launch a thousand ships, there are rules to be followed and so forth.

I think it is possible to forget that this isn't the government of Italy's faux pas, and there's plenty of reasons to think they're not exactly pleased with the Italian judiciary themselves. That one top party parliamentarian is Raffaele's lawyer and another from another top party is visiting Amanda in jail, writing a nice book about her and campaigning on her behalf, is an indication that the government isn't exactly behind the judiciary here.

Italy isn't quite like the US, from how I understand it the courts are really independent, kinda like if every court was the Supreme Court. They're held hostage to this system too it appears to me, and humiliating the government of Italy isn't going to do any good from what I've seen.

 

[Kaosium]

Huh?

Re-read what you said and then apply it laterally to this case...

 

[Mary_H]

But you're talking about the victims here, not the alleged perpetrators. The correct analogy would be if a German tourist in Florida was charged with attacking and killing a Canadian tourist. And yes: in such an instance, the German Consulate in Miami would do no more than visit the accused, to ensure that his basic rights were being respected and that he had sufficient contact with family members in Germany (if desired) to let them know his situation.

No, I am talking about a victim -- Amanda Knox. What point is there in consulate officers visiting a prisoner to see if his basic rights are being respected, unless you plan to do something about it if they are not?

Amanda alleged on the first day that she had been struck in an interrogation. If you were a consulate officer, would you not request a copy of the tape of the interrogation to see for yourself?

If you were a State Department lawyer, would you not have the curiosity to closely examine the details of a controversial case involving one of your citizens in a foreign country? If laws were broken, then how can anyone argue that Amanda's rights were not violated?

 

[LondonJohn]

These arguments, like those of Alt+4 are valid but irrelevant. Deals are made, things get down. "Diplomatic" does not necessarily mean "by the book" or even "required by law."

I can be pretty certain of two things:

1) The only branch of government over which the US might have any influence (AKA blackmail) would be the executive. So it's possible that the US Government could say something like this: "We will seek to limit Italy's role in G8 - or the UN Security Council - or withdraw certain levels of cooperation from Italy, unless something is done about the Knox case". But this would be utterly ineffectual, since the Italian executive branch doesn't have any sway over the Italian judiciary itself. The two branches of Italian government are totally separate and independent of each other (as they ought to be in a modern democratic nation state). The judiciary cannot impeach the executive or legislative branches, and the executive (and legislature) cannot influence the judiciary in any way. Just ask soon-to-be-former-PM Berlusconi how difficult it is to try to improperly influence the judiciary from a position of executive power...

2) The only other possible option would be for the US executive (i.e. the State Dept or the White House itself) to directly try to influence the Italian judiciary. This could and would never happen - and I practically guarantee that the Italian judiciary would have no hesitation whatsoever in exposing such an approach.

The US cannot and will not influence the criminal justice process against Amanda Knox. That's the simple truth. It may be unpalatable to some, but to me it's exactly as it should be. Trust me - the alternative (where countries can meddle in each others' executive and judicial affairs, or the executive branch can have influence over the judiciary) is the way to dictatorships and police states. Like it or not, Knox's fate lies entirely in the hands of a couple of courts in Italy.

 

[LondonJohn]

Re-read what you said and then apply it laterally to this case...

i.e. Kaosium is pointing out that in your analogy, the German tourists getting mugged or murdered in Florida equate to Meredith Kercher getting murdered in Perugia. Meredith was British.

 

[Mary_H]

I think the main point LJ is making is that this is not something that's going to launch a thousand ships, there are rules to be followed and so forth.

I think it is possible to forget that this isn't the government of Italy's faux pas, and there's plenty of reasons to think they're not exactly pleased by the Italian judiciary themselves. That one top party parliamentarian is Raffaele's lawyer and another from another top party is visiting Amanda in jail, writing a nice book about her and campaigning on her behalf, is an indication that the government isn't exactly behind the judiciary here.

Italy isn't quite like the US, from how I understand it the courts are really independent, kinda like if every court was the Supreme Court. They're held hostage to this system too it appears to me, and humiliating the government of Italy isn't going to do any good from what I've seen.

No, it's not a matter of humiliating the government of Italy, it's a matter of humiliating the courts of Italy. I'm sure Judge Heavey et al are well aware of the government versus judiciary system.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, I am talking about a victim -- Amanda Knox. What point is there in consulate officers visiting a prisoner to see if his basic rights are being respected, unless you plan to do something about it if they are not?

Amanda alleged on the first day that she had been struck in an interrogation. If you were a consulate officer, would you not request a copy of the tape of the interrogation to see for yourself?

If you were a State Department lawyer, would you not have the curiosity to closely examine the details of a controversial case involving one of your citizens in a foreign country? If laws were broken, then how can anyone argue that Amanda's rights were not violated?

Agggh we're at slightly crossed-purposes here I think.

Whether one believes that Knox (and Sollecito) have been victims of a miscarriage of justice*, they are still defendants in a murder trial in Italy. In such cases, the role of consular (or embassy) officials does not extend beyond ensuring that their citizen had not been denied basic human rights or the right to proper legal representation. Any more than that is deemed improper meddling in the judicial processes of another sovereign state. It's enshrined in international law that sovereign nations have the absolute right to make and apply their own laws within their own borders. That is an inviolable right.


* And both you and I would agree that Knox and Sollecito have been victims of an improper guilty verdict in the first trial. It's worth noting though that had they been found not guilty in that trial, the prosecution would very likely have appealed and there would still have been an appeal trial. The difference would have been that Knox and Sollecito would almost certainly have been released from prison immediately following the first trial, and would have remained at liberty throughout the appeal trial.

 

[Mary_H]

Agggh we're at slightly crossed-purposes here I think.

Whether one believes that Knox (and Sollecito) have been victims of a miscarriage of justice*, they are still defendants in a murder trial in Italy. In such cases, the role of consular (or embassy) officials does not extend beyond ensuring that their citizen had not been denied basic human rights or the right to proper legal representation. Any more than that is deemed improper meddling in the judicial processes of another sovereign state. It's enshrined in international law that sovereign nations have the absolute right to make and apply their own laws within their own borders. That is an inviolable right.

Nevertheless, if Amanda had been locked up for spying, in Italy or Iran or North Korea or Colombia, and the U.S. government knew she was not a spy, they would petition and bargain to get her out. All it would have taken was some investigation to figure out that there was no legitimate evidence on which to hold her as a suspect in this case. That's what the letter is asking for.

* And both you and I would agree that Knox and Sollecito have been victims of an improper guilty verdict in the first trial. It's worth noting though that had they been found not guilty in that trial, the prosecution would very likely have appealed and there would still have been an appeal trial. The difference would have been that Knox and Sollecito would almost certainly have been released from prison immediately following the first trial, and would have remained at liberty throughout the appeal trial.

True.

 

[Kaosium]

No, it's not a matter of humiliating the government of Italy, it's a matter of humiliating the courts of Italy. I'm sure Judge Heavey et al are well aware of the government versus judiciary system.

I'm all for humiliating the courts of Italy! We elect our judges here, which is fraught with peril too, but it provides a check on them trying to overstep their bounds. We've impeached some too when they start going off the reservation.

I think Judge Heavey's letter was more to why the embassy didn't object when it appeared her rights may have been violated long before she was charged with anything. When she was still in the hands of the police perhaps something might have been done differently.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think the main point LJ is making is that this is not something that's going to launch a thousand ships, there are rules to be followed and so forth.

I think it is possible to forget that this isn't the government of Italy's faux pas, and there's plenty of reasons to think they're not exactly pleased with the Italian judiciary themselves. That one top party parliamentarian is Raffaele's lawyer and another from another top party is visiting Amanda in jail, writing a nice book about her and campaigning on her behalf, is an indication that the government isn't exactly behind the judiciary here.

Italy isn't quite like the US, from how I understand it the courts are really independent, kinda like if every court was the Supreme Court. They're held hostage to this system too it appears to me, and humiliating the government of Italy isn't going to do any good from what I've seen.

Your last paragraph is perhaps very relevant. As I've mentioned before, I imagine that most inhabitants of the US are well used to the strange (and extremely undemocratic) practice of the executive exerting influence over judicial processes. State Governors and Presidents routinely ride roughshod over judicial decisions by overturning, pardoning or commuting.

I have to point out that this is not the case in most other democratic countries. In the UK, for example, it is unheard of for anyone in the executive branch of government to have any influence whatsoever over the application of justice. There used to be one small anomaly in the case of the position of Lord Chancellor (not to be confused with Chancellor of the Exchequer, AKA Finance Minister), who is a member of the executive but who had some minor judicial authority until this authority was properly removed in the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005.

But no member of the British executive branch of government has any influence whatsoever in the application of justice. Neither David Cameron nor anyone else in political power can put any pressure on judges or courts - they have absolute independence enshrined in law. The same situation exists in Italy.

 

[Mary_H]

I'm all for humiliating the courts of Italy! We elect our judges here, which is fraught with peril too, but it provides a check on them trying to overstep their bounds. We've impeached some too when they start going off the reservation.

I think Judge Heavey's letter was more to why the embassy didn't object when it appeared her rights may have been violated long before she was charged with anything. When she was still in the hands of the police perhaps something might have been done differently.

Exactly.

 

[LondonJohn]

Nevertheless, if Amanda had been locked up for spying, in Italy or Iran or North Korea or Colombia, and the U.S. government knew she was not a spy, they would petition and bargain to get her out. All it would have taken was some investigation to figure out that there was no legitimate evidence on which to hold her as a suspect in this case. That's what the letter is asking for.

Ah but spying is a special circumstance, with automatic international dimensions by definition. Spy swaps can and do occur. But no intervention takes place in ordinary criminal cases in democratic nation states.

As an aside, you may or may not be aware about the furore that has been caused around the early release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Al-Megrahi - who was convicted of a major terrorist atrocity with multinational dimensions. If one puts to one side the issue of whether he was correctly convicted (which is a different matter from this argument), the issue is one of whether the executive branches of government in either London or Edinburgh exerted undue and improper influence over the Scottish justice system in order to get Al-Megrahi out of jail and back to Libya. My personal view is that something untoward very probably happened, but has been well disguised beneath a web of plausible deniability. Nonetheless, if any improper influence were ever to be proven, it would have major implications and would be the subject of large-scale inquiry.

 

[Mary_H]

Apropos of our discussion

This appeared on IIP, posted by "Girolamo" (highlighting mine):

I am new to this forum and, being Italian I will start from begging everyone's pardon for what my country is doing to Amanda and Raffaele.
That said, I would suggest you look at things from a different point od view. Italian judiciary has been the main topic of discussion in Italian politics for the last 20 years or so. To make a long story short, the right - Berlusconi's party - claims that our judiciary is rotten, while the left defends it and allows no criticism of it.
As you probably know Berlusconi is the joke of lefties, and therefore of the big press all over the world. Mentioning the pitiful state of our judiciary, and therefore also Amanda's trial, is therefore impossible for most liberals because it would be like admitting Berlusconi is right when he says our judiciary is rotten, like anyone who followed Amanda's case well knows (unfortunately many in Italy have problems like Amanda). Ever wonder how come the New York Times takes so little interest in Amanda?Amanda is a victim not only of that idiotic Mr. Mignini, but also of something much bigger, that is the fight against Berlusconi which imples also defending the ways of Mr. Mignini: his ways are not an exception for Italy but, sadly, the norm.
I hope I have been sufficiently clear but, if not, I'm ready for questions.

 

[LondonJohn]

This appeared on IIP, posted by "Girolamo" (highlighting mine):

I'd agree that the Italian judiciary has issues around its organisation, length of proceedings, and apparently some basic competency issues too. But that doesn't mean that Berlusconi (or anyone else in the Italian executive) has any power to rectify this. All the executive can do is to propose new legislation which may serve to change the way in which the judiciary functions - which is a very indirect remedy.

Interestingly, there's a debate taking place in the UK at the moment about whether the judiciary have assumed too much power in a specific area - the issuing of injunctions and so-called super injunctions. It would appear that courts are all too ready to issue such injunctions to celebrities who are aiming to prevent information about their private lives being made public. Some members of the legislature (the UK parliament) are suggesting that judges are in effect modifying privacy laws by issuing so many injunctions so readily, and argue that such injunctions were only designed for very specific (and short-term) application. But the only way in which the situation will change is either if judges change their own policy, or if new legislation is passed which placed explicit and strict limitations on the application of injunctions.

 

[platonov]

'Put up' - very well.

Platonov,

You misunderstood the reason why I used the word "possibly." There is no doubt in my mind that the forensic files were not released. What I cannot say with certainty is which (if any) laws were violated. Raffaele's appeal discusses the lack of discovery, and references articles 415 and 416; therefore, I suspect that these statutes are among the critical ones for this discussion. As best I understand your argument it is that the defense failed to file some sort of motion to release the forensic files. That is your claim, not mine. My claim is that the defense asked for these files repeatedly, and I have cited Dan Krane and Carlo dalla Vedova in this regard. Are you saying that they lied?

I find your ideas on this subject very interesting much as I did your claims that AK didn't perform cartwheels in the police station despite direct testimony from AK herself that she did.
Claims you have repeated several times even after this testimony had been posted in direct response. I make this comparison as your earlier 'curiosity' over mendacious arguments brought it to mind.

On this.

They filed or they didn't. Asking as you put it or making comments outside the courtroom whether to barmen or journos counts for precisely nothing.

We both know they didn't - so give it up.

Your argument here is on a par with your cartwheel argument referenced above. You are obviously entitled to make them (and many others in a similar vein) but I hold them both (all) in the same esteem.

You asked me to 'put up' - I hope this will suffice

 

[Alt+F4]

These arguments, like those of Alt+4 are valid but irrelevant. Deals are made, things get done. "Diplomatic" does not necessarily mean "by the book" or even "required by law."

Hey Mary,

Sure "deals get done" when you're a diplomat, spy or a member of the military. Can you cite any cases where such a deal got done for someone like Amanda?

 

[Alt+F4]

We elect our judges here, which is fraught with peril too, but it provides a check on them trying to overstep their bounds. We've impeached some too when they start going off the reservation.

Is your here the United States?

 

[babycondor]

They filed or they didn't. Asking as you put it or making comments outside the courtroom whether to barmen or journos counts for precisely nothing.

We both know they didn't - so give it up.

I really don't see how you can claim to know "they didn't." Have you reviewed every motion filed in the case? Have you communicated with the clerk of the court in Italy and been told that no such motion was filed?

Why, if there were no discovery motion filed by the defense, did Hellmann write that note to Stefanoni instructing her to hand over the files?

It's also curious that you claim to know what halides1 knows or doesn't know.

 

[platonov]

Known Knowns

I really don't see how you can claim to know "they didn't." Have you reviewed every motion filed in the case? Have you communicated with the clerk of the court in Italy and been told that no such motion was filed?

Why, if there were no discovery motion filed by the defense, did Hellmann write that note to Stefanoni instructing her to hand over the files?

It's also curious that you claim to know what halides1 knows or doesn't know.

In much the same way as I knew where your 'argument' over 'left the flat' vs 'wasn't with me in the flat' was going after the unfortunate confusion over 'silence' and 'cropping up' recently

Now halides1 can speak for himself - this tag teaming doesn't have the desired effect you know