Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Well, thank you, that was nice. Though I have to say, PhantomWolf had a very similar post nominated last month, though I don't think it made the final. (I remember it was nominated, because I nominated it!) It was a better post too, I think.

I have to tell you that anyone on the forum reading the above with my name on it, would never guess in a million years that I had posted it in relation to the Knox/Sollecito case. It is precisely the objection I have made many times about the same mindless approach to the Megrahi case by posters on this forum, including (but by no means limited to) Alt+F4. Never a word of rational discussion of the evidence, just repeated assertions that the court verdict was all they needed to know, to know the man was guilty.

The whole point of the discussion (in that case) is that the judges were wrong, for more reasons than I can count but starting with blatant circular reasoning. Probably for political reasons. But even Darat at one stage refused to allow me to raise the point that Megrahi wasn't actually guilty, in threads started to discuss his release, or the current political situation in Libya. Because the place to discuss that was in Conspiracy Theories.

There is a very strong determination among a number of long-time JREF posters to declare any suggestion that a court verdict (any court verdict) was erroneous to be "woo", or a conspiracy theory. I think it's related to the fact that mostly, the sceptical position is on the side of the establishment. Doctors are not trying to keep you sick and man really did land on the moon and Oswald shot JFK. So there comes a time when the "establishment" position becomes the default, and anyone who disagrees is a woo.

But this simply doesn't work for miscarriages of justice. It's not uncommon for court verdicts to be overturned on appeal, because the accused simply didn't do it and the original verdict was wrong. I wish we could discuss these cases on the strength of the evidence, but unfortunately most attempts to start threads about these cases is met by someone jumping in and posting "Conspiracy Theories thataway ====>"

In fact I envy you this thread, monster though it is, because you actually have a discussion, on the evidence, even if you also have the sheeple who merely bleat that the verdict defines the reality.

Rolfe.

I totally agree with this, and I think you've captured the situation extremely accurately. I find it very interesting that many people choose to dismiss those who argue a miscarriage of justice in this case by suggesting that they are either a) full-on conspiracy theorists, who also presumable subscribe to the CTs regarding Moon landings, 9/11, JFK assassination etc; or b) people who might also campaign for the acquittal of sex killers such as Dennis Rader or Gary Ridgway.

However, I'd argue that most of us arguing for acquittal in this case are rational sceptics, with good reasoning skills and a logical approach to analysis and argument (although I guess I would say that, wouldn't I!). Speaking personally, I have little doubt that the Moon landings, 9/11 and the JFK assassination happened pretty much as per the official versions of events, and that Rader and Ridgway were correctly and safely convicted.

I'd also add that I've only ever become active in discussing or researching a potential miscarriage of justice before: the case of Barry George in the murder of Jill Dando. That murder (and the ensuing investigation and trials) had an extremely high profile here in the UK, and I remember starting to feel uneasy about the prosecution's case during the original trial of George. As I looked into it more, I became more convinced that the conviction was unjust and unsafe - even though the overwhelming majority of people in the UK believed that George deserved to be locked up for life. And, for the record, Barry George is by any measure a fairly disgusting individual, with a penchant for following random women with a camera, a bizarre fantasy life, and a filthy disorganised lifestyle. He's certainly not a moderately attractive, socially outgoing, American female college student....

 

[LondonJohn]

I was pretty sure that the power of the embassy is very limited. Is there any evidence that the embassy even reported the violations of Amanda to the state department? I have not seen evidence of this.

You're correct: the power of the embassy (or consulate) is indeed extremely limited. As I've said a few times already (and as is corroborated elsewhere here by links to US State Dept information), embassy/consular officials have the right to meet with any of their citizens who are in custody charged with criminal offences. They are not, however, permitted to intervene or even make complaint to the judicial authorities in the host country, even if they think that due process has not been followed properly.

However, if the citizen in custody has had his/her human rights abused, or if (s)he has been denied the right to appropriate legal representation, the consular officials will likely make representations to the host country, citing international law safeguarding human/legal rights. That's all. Unless the host country in question is one with whom the embassy country has serious overarching issues with its criminal justice system (e.g. the US might be far more active in intervening in Iran, China or the Congo). Not Italy.

 

[LondonJohn]

The court that found her guilty and apparently, the United States Department of State disagree with you.

The State Department will never comment on whether or not it believed a miscarriage of justice occurred in the case of one of its citizens being tried in a friendly westernised nation state - either in internal or external communications. It's not part of its remit to make such judgements in such circumstances. And it would cause potentially large diplomatic waves if it was ever shown that the US government was questioning the validity or competency of the Italian criminal justice system.

So I would say that you have no basis for arguing the highlighted portion of your post.

 

[Poppy1016]

It's a shame LJ. But in Italy (or at least Perugia) that there are no rights when dealing with legal problems. I sure would never allow my son or daughter to study or visit Italy. Anyone can be framed or illegally charged and aressted with no help or recourse available. Pretty scary!

 

[Alt+F4]

The State Department will never comment on whether or not it believed a miscarriage of justice occurred in the case of one of its citizens being tried in a friendly westernised nation state - either in internal or external communications.

How do you know what is and isn't said in internal communications at the U.S. State Department?

 

[Antony]

Most parents would be concerned about the brutal senseless murder of a student and this would weigh on any decision concerning their child’s wish to study abroad, now you and others focus on the judicial process which of course is your choice. My wife and I were very very concerned with our daughters wish to study abroad one year after Meredith was murdered, for us the murder of an innocent young women for no apparent reason was our focus rather than the judicial process in Italy.

Coulsdon, hasn't it occurred to you that if it had been Amanda who had come home alone shortly after Guede broke in, and if Meredith had been first on the scene in the morning, then Amanda would be dead and Meredith would be in prison?

I've often read comments to the effect that we should "remember who the real victim is" - i.e. Meredith and not Amanda - but it is pointless and distasteful to compare the misfortune of being murdered and being wrongly imprisoned. Most people look to the police to protect us from what happened to Meredith - or at least to establish the truth when a tragedy of that sort happens; but it's clear that in this case, from their actions, the police were part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Nothing can bring Meredith back. But the other victims of this train-wreck of a case, Amanda and Raffaele, can be given their lives back. If the Italian judicial system can correct the injustice against them, then it will be the best thing it can now do to show respect for Meredith Kercher. It will also be a small step in boosting the credibility of the system where it really matters - and that is with the likes of Rudy Guede, her real murderer.

 

[LondonJohn]

The EU takes a very dim view of accused persons being questioned without a lawyer. The Scottish courts have got themselves into big trouble on that one in the recent past. An ultimate appeal the the European Court of Human Rights would have a huge chance of success if it ever came to that, I think.

Rolfe.

But the Italian courts have already addressed the issue of Knox being questioned without a lawyer (as well as the non-recording issue) by ruling that anything that Knox said or wrote up to around midday on the 6th November was inadmissible in evidence against her. So the judicial panel should not even have been allowed to know about this evidence, far less use it as part of their determination.

Unfortunately however, a clearly crazy and unlawful ruling by Massei in the first trial meant that the judicial panel heard all this evidence since it was admissible in the slander trial with Lumumba - a trial which Massei ruled could run concurrently with the murder trial. And even though the judges and lay jurors should still have known that they couldn't use this stuff against Knox (and Sollecito) in the murder trial, I'd argue that it must have had some sort of subliminal effect on their thinking.

I'd therefore argue that if this case ever gets as far as the Italian Supreme Court, this issue might be a major point of contention. I'd also point out that Hellmann's court will get no exposure whatsoever to this evidence - another reason why I believe the first appeal court will most likely vote to acquit Knox and Sollecito.

 

[Alt+F4]

But in Italy (or at least Perugia) that there are no rights when dealing with legal problems.

No rights? Really? Evidence?

Anyone can be framed or illegally charged and aressted with no help or recourse available.

Again, no rights, no help? Really? Evidence?

 

[LondonJohn]

How do you know what is and isn't said in internal communications at the U.S. State Department?

By "internal communications", I'm referring to formal communications within the State Department (including cables between foreign outposts and HQ in Washington). I'm not referring to chats in corridors - I'm talking about anything which may be subject to discovery or exposure (either through leaks or through official channels).

Criticism of another country's political or judicial systems - if that other country is a friend and ally, and is regarded as a modern industrialised democracy - is an absolute no-go area. And all countries' foreign missions take special measures to avoid criticizing host countries in this way, in order to avoid provoking diplomatic (and sometimes even inter-governmental) ire.

 

[Poppy1016]

Really

 

[Mary_H]

Just off the top of my head right now I can think of Lori Berenson. Look at what all the attention got her....15 years in prison.

Lori Berenson is well known now, but there is no way her face and sexual history were splashed all over the tabloids worldwide when she was first arrested in 1995.

 

[Mary_H]

That doesn't mean they are getting good advice. Someone writing a letter to the President of the United States regarding how they believe that someone elses rights have been violated when that someone else has not publicy stated that they believe their rights were violated....just looks stupid.

I don't know who it looks stupid to, other than you and LondonJohn. Whether the president reads the letter is not the issue; the issue is whether the letter receives publicity, and it has. Every member of Congress is a recipient of the letter, as well, and the letter will have been effective if any of them choose to speak out about it, or if any of their constituents contact them about it.

 

[LondonJohn]

I've not looked in for a while, but I betcha there's bunnies and kittens just dancing with glee right now, thus I don't want to provide them with any more entertainment. However I suspect the democratic system that works admirably in Britain would be disastrous in the United States, and may well be in Italy as well. I think the corruption of the judiciary and legal system evident in this case and reflected in the ECHR suggests that it would be better off with some checks and balances introduced into its system.

The modern United Kingdom came to be with a legacy of a thousand years as England which slowly added three neighbors every couple or few centuries. The legal system and government grew out of the culture, as opposed to just invented willy-nilly like the US and Italy. Thus the UK does fine with a ceremonial executive, a legislature unchecked by any possible legacy, and a gentleman's agreement constitution. Imagine the American party you dislike most coming to power in one of those heady landslide elections under those rules...

Italy is kind of like between the US and Yugoslavia as I see it, just which one it's closer to remains to be seen.

Ah no: the UK's executive branch is not the monarch. It consists of the Prime Minister and other ministers appointed by the PM. All ministers are either elected MPs or members of the House of Lords. Technically, the monarch appoints the PM and all ministers, and has to sign all legislation before it's passed into law ("Royal Assent"), but this is nothing more than an empty technicality.

The British monarch has had no executive power since Oliver Cromwell overthrew and executed King Charles the First in the mid-17th century, followed by the "Glorious Revolution" some 30 years later which removed the last vestiges of monarchic power. Since then, the role of the monarch has been almost wholly ceremonial and non-political - even though the monarch retains certain important rights over the entire political system (the right to dissolve parliament, the right to appoint and remove ministers, etc), no British monarch would ever dare exercise those rights unilaterally.

You're correct that the UK has no written constitution (although some argue that the Magna Carta of 1215 is a form of written constitution). But the legislature (the UK parliament, consisting of the lower chamber (wholly-elected House of Commons) and the upper chamber (partially-appointed but soon-to-be-elected House of Lords)) seems to work pretty well, and has served as a template for legislatures in many other countries.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't know who it looks stupid to, other than you and LondonJohn. Whether the president reads the letter is not the issue; the issue is whether the letter receives publicity, and it has. Every member of Congress is a recipient of the letter, as well, and the letter will have been effective if any of them choose to speak out about it, or if any of their constituents contact them about it.

I don't think it looks stupid. I think it's pointless, poorly-aimed and ill-judged, and I think that there may be some other motivation behind publicising it. But I agree with most of the content of the letter (barring some of the hyperbole)

 

[Alt+F4]

By "internal communications", I'm referring to formal communications within the State Department (including cables between foreign outposts and HQ in Washington). I'm not referring to chats in corridors - I'm talking about anything which may be subject to discovery or exposure (either through leaks or through official channels).

How do you know what and how many "formal communications" occured at the State Department regarding this case, beyond this:

http://www.seattlepi.com/amanda-kno...ate-Department-has-monitored-Knox-1383417.php

So what evidence do you have that other then the above there was never a comment on it internally?

Criticism of another country's political or judicial systems - if that other country is a friend and ally, and is regarded as a modern industrialised democracy - is an absolute no-go area.

Evidence?

 

[Alt+F4]

Lori Berenson is well known now, but there is no way her face and sexual history were splashed all over the tabloids worldwide when she was first arrested in 1995.

I don't know how old you are Mary, (I'm 47), but Lori's story was headline news when she went to trial and then retrial (probably because of the terrorism angle). As for her face and sexual history...good question, why do you think Amanda got that attention and Lori didn't?

 

[LondonJohn]

This exchange from the press briefing suggests the State Department can bend the rules when necessary:



One wonders whether the United States could reach a point where they become convinced the Italian legal system was not transparent in Amanda's case, and that they do have problems with it.

Well, you may be right. But Kelly is differentiating here (in a very diplomatically-couched way) between open westernised democracies on the one hand, and despotic regimes / police states on the other hand.

Heck, there are enough problems with the US (and UK) justice systems, including a number of pretty egregious miscarriages of justice, railroadings, improper procedures and bad rulings. It doesn't just happen in Italy, you know. And it's the job of the justice system in such countries to recognise and fix its own failings - nobody else's. In the same way as the US is not prepared to hear Italian government criticism of the US justice system (nor should it be), the US is not prepared to offer any criticism of the Italian justice system.

 

[Rolfe]

Sorry to be off topic but where did I ever post that I thought al-Megrahi was guilty or innocent? So where's the evidence of my mindless approach to that case?

Maybe later. Too many threads to dig up and search, for now, with a brand new hour-long documentary on the Lockerbie miscarriage of justice newly uploaded to YouTube. And two separate activists badgering me for information in relation to imminent submissions.

I don't care if all your contributions were framed as questions, I do recall you posted without ever once referring to any part of the evidence, and were extremely keen on noting that the court brought in a guilty verdict.

I note you take the same approach to this case. Why is that?

As for relying on actual evidence, even you admitted that you never bothered to read the entire al-Megrahi trial transcript because it's too long. As for this case, there is no trial transcript to read. Over a hundred witnesses testified and we have the verbatim testimony of only one....Amanda Knox.

Bothered. It's 1,847,271 words long. Would you like to try? But that doesn't mean I'm not trying. However, I have it as a searchable pdf. What would you like to know? Which witness would you like summarised? Which item of evidence would you like to know the provenance of?

Of course, it is not essential to read it all, although I'm trying. That and six pretty chunky books. Not to mention that new documentary and a dozen others from The Maltese Double Cross on.

Nobody without an axe to grind who has read even the Opinion of the Court, never mind the critiques of the people who attended the trial starting with the official UN observer is in any doubt that Megrahi had nothing to do with it. The information is there, to be read.

If you're suggesting that those who have bust a gut and sat up late at night to read enormous swathes of it, can be summarily dismissed because you feel comfortable there's something hidden on page 6,394 (which you haven't read, just as you have read none of the rest of it) that proves guilt, then I don't think we have anything more to say to each other.

Your attitude in this thread is the same. You repeatedly post the insinuation that there's some killer argument for guilt hidden in the parts of the evidence nobody has reported on and nobody has highlighted. I don't really know why you would waste so much time on that.

Rolfe.

 

[Mary_H]

Two different topics. AK's appeal lists how she thinks her rights were violated by the Italians. The judge's letter is in regard to how he thinks her rights as an American citizen arrested abroad were disregarded by the Americans.

It is well known that Amanda believes her rights were violated. People are working to free her because of what Amanda has told her family and what her family has told the public.

It would not get Amanda very far if she were to state from her prison cell that her rights are being violated. She could end up dead.

We may infer from what Amanda testified about how she was treated during the interrogation that she believes her rights were violated. We also may infer it from the fact that she continues to maintain her innocence in court. As far as I know, pretty much everybody who is convicted and goes to jail because of a crime they did not commit feels like their rights were violated. And once they are released, pretty much everybody else agrees with them.

 

[Rolfe]

I'd also add that I've only ever become active in discussing or researching a potential miscarriage of justice before: the case of Barry George in the murder of Jill Dando. That murder (and the ensuing investigation and trials) had an extremely high profile here in the UK, and I remember starting to feel uneasy about the prosecution's case during the original trial of George. As I looked into it more, I became more convinced that the conviction was unjust and unsafe - even though the overwhelming majority of people in the UK believed that George deserved to be locked up for life. And, for the record, Barry George is by any measure a fairly disgusting individual, with a penchant for following random women with a camera, a bizarre fantasy life, and a filthy disorganised lifestyle. He's certainly not a moderately attractive, socially outgoing, American female college student....

I was very interested in that one as well. There was no credible evidence against him. He was a borderline idiot, social inadequate with a gun fetish, a stalker habit and previous for sexual assault. And he was in the right place at almost the right time. He couldn't possibly have done it. But they had this daft photo of the poor man playing dress-up like a little kid, posing with a fake gun and a gas mask in front of the most hideous curtains the world has ever seen, so he must have done it. A bit like the cartwheel and Foxy Knoxy.

I couldn't believe it when they turned down his first appeal. At least justice was done in the end.

Are you familiar with the Sion Jenkins case? That's another horrorshow.

Rolfe.