Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Diocletus]

The US (as well as Italy) can find other legal reasons to refuse extradition which do not have to do with double jeopardy. But this is not my buisness, not my responsibility: if the US decide to protect a murderer on silly reasons, they will take their responsibility and their consequences on international relations.

It would be so great if Italy tried to extradite her. Could you imagine a US federal judge presiding over an extradition proceeding where the police misconduct during the interrogation, the prosecutorial misconduct, the trial by media, and Knox's treatment in prison were all at issue? This would be the trial of the century and Italy would lose for sure. So I say "go for it." But unfortunately I have a strong feeling that this will never happen because of the amount of face that would be lost.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

ETA: **"Guilter" in this context refers to people who are just random people on the Internet and such, no relation to Ms. Kercher's family who might have a vested interest in the case, etc., but people who, despite having no vested interest, have acted for the past several years to try to influence the conviction of Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito, despite there being little to no evidence against them, and despite them both being acquitted at the court of second instance, still run around claiming that they're guilty, guilty, guilty, etc. and trying to influence public opinion in that regard.

You're assuming they have no vested interest... I have a wee suspicion that the Kercher family and the nexus of prosecution identities in Italy might be aware of the various internet forums discussing the matter and one or more members of those groups might have been tempted to stick their oar in from the safety of their anonymous keyboards.

I don't think all the guilters have a vested interest, needless to say, just that I don't think all the people with a vested interest have stayed away from the internet discussions about the case.

 

[RoseMontague]

I would be pleased if Italy hosts, let's say, some members of Al Qaida, as a retaliation, so that you feel the same kind of approach, and that would be "justice served" to me.

Thanks for giving us a lesson on your definition of justice served. I will try to remember this when next you talk about my lack of morality.

 

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by Kaosium 
No, like I've told you before, the Italian Justice system and the reputation of Perugia is on 'trial.'

Machevelli answers….By whom?

And I chime in….By The European Court Of Human Rights that’s who….or soon to be so anyway. Which will come as no surprise to Italy since they already hold the distinction for most Human Rights violations of any European country. And not by some small margin but by the sheer number of recorded violations charged against the Italian Judicial system. Guess who leads the world for violations of Human Rights in the areas of right to a fair trial and the right to a speedy trial…. ??? Bizzazz times up …that would be Italy. Its notable that for one examined time period Italy is charged for 2, 012 violations while during the exact same time period Russia had a total of 150 violations. You don’t have to believe me the records are online available for everyone to see.

They sure are! Here we have a nice overview of the ECHR and neato charts on pages 690-694 dedicated to the wisdom and efficiency of the Italian Court System. I especially like this one, as going through it for the first time under the auspices of Machiavelli mostly explaining how they could do whatever horrible things they wanted to Amanda and Raffaele's rights and there was always some loophole so that allowed it I labeled it 'Byzantine' and later found it amusing they were only outdone by the heirs of Byzantium in violations for that half-century of abuse. A nice breakdown of just what exactly they're famous for is available here as it was once a talking point in Bunnyland that Italian justice was just slow, but as you can see they also dominate the 'right to a fair trial' category, which means you can wait forever and still get screwed! Kinda like Amanda on the calunnia charge, isn't it?

Yummi is close to Mignini…very close. This is why you hear the same convoluted ideas and illogical argument and may wonder about the ringing bells you are hearing. Yummy is looking for a way to save his hero Mignini…and he is running argument past what he considers the most knowledgeable group in the whole world to see if any of it “sticks”.

Hmmm....I've wondered about this. If you go back to the First Continuation I was looking for insight on Mignini and asked Machiavelli point blank, as either earlier here or elsewhere he said something to the effect that he didn't move in the same circles, but around the same circles as Mignini, rather cleverly phrased the way he put it, merely speaking of the prose there.

However, before you make too much of that, keep in mind that Perugia is about the same size as Green Bay, Wisconsin. In a community that size even if you are involved in a relatively famous court case you still live there and there's places you have to go and people will see you, especially if they want to. You might run into Charles Woodson any number of times, and he has the assets to avoid that (if he wished) being as he could buy and sell Mignini and his whole family with just what he gave the University of Michigan hospital or whatever it was a few years back. You could see several dozen millionaire Packers all throughout the week, go to training camp and practices and talk to them through the fence, and hear them speak at any number of charity and other functions. Just putting it in perspective.


As for the latter, I've wondered about that, it seems so unlikely, but Mignini has posted online in Italian himself, (he wandered across it or somesuch he said) he filed charges on bloggers like Joe Cottonwood and Steve Shay for what they posted, and we all know what he did to Frank Sfarzo. We know Mignini can't speak English though he supposedly thinks in Latin, so he'd have to have someone who did....

He wonders how can Stefanoni get away from the false evidence she provided… most likely at the behest of Biondo, a shame that he has strangely disappeared from the case during the appeal though.

He's an interesting devil, Stefanoni's boss who approved her work in the first trial, the 'independent review' as they put it. He could either be a stuffed shirt who has no idea what was done, or he could have just simply not cared, knowing it's in his best interest to please the police in Perugia, or he could have ordered it done. In any event he ought to have been taking some responsibility for it, instead Stefanoni got the tire treads of the independent experts all over her nicely pressed skirt that Biondi had been hiding behind before he gave that push.

Notice how you “hear “ much table pounding in YummyMacs arguments but no real pieces of evidence? There is a reason for that…and its because it is all that’s left of their argument.

They have the calunnia charge now though! I wish they'd actually make an argument regarding the potential Motivations Report on it though, I've tried and it seems to require Masseian-level obfuscation and cherry-picking.

Even if AK or RS lawyers are afraid to go after these thugs they must still face The Court Of Human Rights. And we all know how that will turn out…given Italy’s “high” standing with them. And so Yummi Mac can blather on with ridiculous claims and high sounding themes but the law is coming after those who wish to pervert justice and who use the laws one way for others and another way for them.

I hope both calunnia charges end up in the ECHR. I want to see how they'd deal with that whole interrogation and the idea of them lying wholesale about it, not having tapes then trying to potentially jail her for daring to tell her side of the story. With that other calunnia charge from the police, it may not be impossible for them to declare that Amanda has time to serve on it if added to the three years from the Patrick one as the other has a potential six year sentence. Though come to think of it, that (six years) might have been because of something aggrivated from the murder charge. Broken_English went through it at IIP somewhere, it's a formula they use.

Knox could never be extradited to a country who actually has a court that allows defendants to be called witch or she devil. And that this countries court allowed those slanders without objection by any judge and certainly without any proofs or facts in that regard then how can any civilized court extradite anyone for any charge given this courts own behavior? There is no need to talk about treaties when one party in the treaty is a known violator of Human Rights and in addition whose prosecutors and judges still believe in witches and even Mason devil worship and call and imply in open court these beliefs…its barbaric.

I'd like to see what occurs on this front regarding the EAW (European Arrest Warrant) considering some of the bizarre actions of the Italian judiciary, like against those scientists for not 'predicting' the earth quake, that cook in Staffordshire convicted in absentia despite being in England at the time, the google executives for not yanking a youtube fast enough for them, the soldier they wanted to try for murder for a friendly-fire incident in Iraq amongst other curious decisions in recent years. The EAW basically makes it so that any Italian prosecutor can start an 'investigation' on anyone in Europe and have them extradited for political or other reasons, perhaps after convicting them in absentia on bogus evidence as the prosecutors are 'infallible'--just like Mignini. A nice racket for them I suppose!

 

[Paninaro]

I consider the innocentisti as a bunch of irrational witch-hunters, and a dangerous wave of ignorants who protect and cover murderers and criminals, and claim a license to kill in my home, see it like that. I am rather annoyed by the creation of "agencies" that protect people who murder in my territory and spread lies and mafia campaigns to protect them.

Come on, you're way over the top. You can't really believe that yourself. If so, you've left the rational reasoning behind.

The simple truth is that there is not enough proof to convict Knox and Sollecito. Judge Hellmann's verdict is in accordance with international views on reasonable doubt. Therefore the case is over. That the verdict will be overturned are fantasies, whatever you believe is the truth about guilt or innocence.

The main missing evidence is the lack of a murder weapon, the lack of credible witnesses to place them near the murder scene, the lack of connection between Guede and Knox and Sollecito, the inability of the prosecutors to break their alibi, the lack of proof in the immediate surroundings of the victim( i.e the murder room) and the lack of anything that resembles an reasonable motive. The other circumstancial evidence that suggests the pairs involvement is simply not enough. I would see this even if I believed in guilt. You seem unable to do so, and I suspect the reasons are emotional, whatever you try to convince yourself.

The innocentisti believe that Rudy Guede was the only murderer in this case. This is entirely rational to begin with and the evidence doesn't contradict that. That is PMF-biased wishful thinking speaking. Evidence doesn't work that way - to theoretically and without gaps and doubts rule out a whole scenario of a crime that ultimately we don't know the details of. Exactly what took place we cannot know. I have reasonable doubt on the innocence of Knox and Sollecito, but I find it very unlikely they had something to with the murder.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Thanks for giving us a lesson on your definition of justice served. I will try to remember this when next you talk about my lack of morality.

Watching this conversation and also the reactions and comments in Italian media more and more it dawns on me, how I underestimated the "international" issues underlying this case from the beginning.

It is very clear that many Italians view this case in the light of ill-understood patriotism and simply anti-Americanism. There is a lot of bitterness against USA related to various incidents, most of them involving US military and intelligence presence in Italy.

Apparently many Italians, even the well educated view this case as an opportunity to "get back" at USA. Mach's comments show that a lot can be justified to achieve that goal. Of course when all you have at hand is a crying girl, you really need to demonize her properly first, to not look like a total monster yourself. That had been done.

Possibly that quiet implication, that it's not about criminal justice but really "justice for the Italy" helped to push the case despite all it's shakiness through all the legal hoops up to the initial convictions. The prosecution dropped all subtlety in the second trial and said upfront that it is about patriotism and not allowing an American to "escape" again.

Thankfully this view is not universal among Italians, as the verdict made clear. There are also objective judges, journalists, bloggers

 

[RoseMontague]

(snip)
I'd like to see what occurs on this front regarding the EAW (European Arrest Warrant) considering some of the bizarre actions of the Italian judiciary, like against those scientists for not 'predicting' the earth quake, that cook in Staffordshire convicted in absentia despite being in England at the time, the google executives for not yanking a youtube fast enough for them, the soldier they wanted to try for murder for a friendly-fire incident in Iraq amongst other curious decisions in recent years. The EAW basically makes it so that any Italian prosecutor can start an 'investigation' on anyone in Europe and have them extradited for political or other reasons, perhaps after convicting them in absentia on bogus evidence as the prosecutors are 'infallible'--just like Mignini. A nice racket for them I suppose!

Another great post, Kaosium. I have a question about the cook convicted in his absence. I tried to find some more information on this and did not have a lot of luck. Evidently he was convicted because his name came up on a wiretap and the real killer just happened to use the cook's name as one of his aliases.

So all this time Italy convicts a person based on having the same name as some criminal's alias. This thing went through both a trial and an appeal and the cook was provided a defense, which never even bothered to tell the cook that he was on trial for murder in Italy. Then an EAW was issued for the cook's arrest which was accomplished the next time he went through an airport. Did they ever catch the real killer?

 

[icerat]

A bit more info on the Edmund Arapi case (the cook) here, from Fair Trials International, which is a group I was unfamiliar with and happy to find.

This article, dated June 2010, from another interesting looking group, Lawyers without Borders, indicates the real culprit is still at large.

 

[Diocletus]

That Machiavelli is an interesting character. He thinks:

1. There were leaks, but the leaks did not prejudice the defendants;

2. The police might have (probably did) hit Knox, but her ensuing statements were neverthless voluntary; and

3. Stefanoni could have lied about her lab work, but even if so, her DNA findings are still reliable.

This is weird. Most guilters would deny each of these things until they're blue in the face because they understand that these facts would so severely undermine the case against Knox/Sollecito. Machiavelli is realistic about what might have actually happened, but denies the consequences.

Machiavelli seems not to care about process. He doesn't care if rules were broken as long as he feels that the right result was reached. This is kind of like the guilter argument against C&V: yes, a few rules were broken, but at the end, the DNA was still there. Machiavelli extrapolates this argument into the entire case against Knox/Sollecito: yes the police, prosecution, and courts may have broken a few rules here or there, but this doesn't matter because the right result was reached (by Massei).

What Machiavelli doesn't understand is that the rules are made so that justice can be done: authorities who leak are thrown off the case; police who hit are prosecuted; technicians who lie are thrown out of court. If none of the rules matter, then the system is capable only of issuing a judgment and not of rendering justice. Just like when DNA collection/sampling rules are broken your result might be just contamination instead of the real thing.

 

[Chris C]

The calling her a liar does not expres my approval of the court's decision or reasoning (which I don't know). But expresses my claim of a legal legitimacy of my judgement. If I call her a liar I am within my duties as a citizen, it is a just thing to point this out if we speak of her as a public figure.

Whats she proven to be a liar of? Who typed up that first statement in a language knox can't read? How did they know what to write in the statement word for word without a taped interrogation? If knox is guilty of being a liar then its just as logical to declare that there was a taped interrogation of the whole event. If they typed up that statement without a taped copy, then hows it a legitimate confession or statement from Knox to be used against her? After all, its the interrogators typing up their own interpretation, from their memory, of a statement that knoxs doesn't believe in the verity of to begin with. Of course it could be just as simple as them not understanding the definition of verity.

 

[GreyFox]

@ Machiavelli
Why would you want terrorist in your country competing with Mignini and the Mafia. Civil war would be certain. Both parties (Mignini vs Al Quada) calling each other the devil. To think you cried foul when some suggested you may have slapped Amanda yourself or not translated fairly for her and in the end your wisdom speaks to letting terrorist in your country ? Really what's the difference. IMO Amanda was a hostage for 4 years anyhow!!

 

[GreyFox]

Why did Amanda get charged for an imaginary knife in her bag that couldn't be proven, yet Rudy was caught red handed with a knife in his back pack. What's the difference?

 

[Rhea]

I consider the innocentisti as a bunch of irrational witch-hunters, and a dangerous wave of ignorants who protect and cover murderers and criminals, and claim a license to kill in my home

who have been vindicated by an Italian court and most likely will be vindicated by the supreme court as well.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Just throwing in something here in the way of an observation, when reflecting on some of the back and forth. I had thought, or hoped, that in light of the acquittals, certain sites and posters thereon would seriously take stock, question their original assumptions, etc. I am surprised that this has not occurred to any perceptible degree.

I think Festinger, in his famous Cognitive Dissonance of the 1950s, sums it up aptly:

A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.

We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.

But man's resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.

 

[Rhea]

I think Festinger, in his famous Cognitive Dissonance of the 1950s, sums it up aptly:

… finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.

exactly what is happening on PMF right now, there was a time when they at least acknowledged a small chance that Raffaele and Amanda might be innocent, there is no such concession anymore.

The fact that a court convicted them beoynd reasonable doubt used to be their best and indestructible argument, now that the court has decided the other way the court's opionion is basically considered useless.

Italy's legal system used to be perfect and unassailable as long as they were convicted, now it's simply corrupt and mafia influenced …

 

[snook1]

I can prove.

You can't prove a thing.
You're the one who's on the rant mode since the verdict. You're opinions are delusional at best and lack any sense or logic.

Amanda is not going back to Perugia, the Supreme Court will confirm Hellmann's verdicts. The case is so closed and so over.

You say she's under trial for murder. At the same time she's still innocent under Italian law, correct?

 

[Grinder]

It is easy to forget at times how wacky most at P** truly are.

ETA - I still don't think the Italian system works that well. I didn't like through the first trial and even with the results of the second the system still seems flawed.

 

[Rhea]

It is easy to forget at times how wacky most at P** truly are.

ETA - I still don't think the Italian system works that well. I didn't like through the first trial and even with the results of the second the system still seems flawed.

It doesn't …, this case should have never gotten into court, much less should anybody on earth be convicted with such ridicolous evidence and crime theories.

But the good thing – and I always thought that – is that they have this three-steps process where you have these automatical appeals, and what are they intended for if not for correcting mistakes and therefore are also an acknowledgement that mistakes can easily happen.

In some places it is much more difficult to have an appeal, in Germany for example "legal peace" is considered important than possible innocents in prison, so it is very hard to get an appeal. It is intended like this to assure that a conviction remains a conviction and doesn't get changed the whole time, they don't want that (the politicians at least) and the price they pay is that it can be very difficult for an innocent person to even get an appeal granted, I think that is horrible …

So, the appeal system is great, but they should do their job better in the first round and shorten the whole procedure, now they are letting innocent people rot in prison for years until they finally get justice.

 

[smkovalinksy]

exactly what is happening on PMF right now, there was a time when they at least acknowledged a small chance that Raffaele and Amanda might be innocent, there is no such concession anymore.

The fact that a court convicted them beoynd reasonable doubt used to be their best and indestructible argument, now that the court has decided the other way the court's opionion is basically considered useless.

Italy's legal system used to be perfect and unassailable as long as they were convicted, now it's simply corrupt and mafia influenced …

You said it. Looks like cognitive dissonance is in full swing, and the lessons will remain unlearned. Such is fanaticism.

 

[smkovalinksy]

You can't prove a thing.
You're the one who's on the rant mode since the verdict. You're opinions are delusional at best and lack any sense or logic.

Amanda is not going back to Perugia, the Supreme Court will confirm Hellmann's verdicts. The case is so closed and so over.

You say she's under trial for murder. At the same time she's still innocent under Italian law, correct?

I think it is futile to even try and correct this poster. He has the need to cling to his beliefs against all evidence, and counter to all reason and logic. Why even dignify his stupidity with a response, as if you are speaking to a logical person? It is like arguing with one of those evangelicals, who will cling the more fiercely to their beliefs the more evidence proves it to be false. Yes, the case is OVER. No, Knox and Sollecito will never serve another day in jail. Yes, the SC will uphold Hellman's ruling. And denial will not change a thing. Let him go over on PMF, where fanaticism overtakes logic, and time is wasted, and lunacy prevails. "If you were blind, you would be without sin. But since you say, "We see", your sin remains." The sin of illogic.
By the way , the real Machiavelli would never, ever tolerate such stupidity. NEVER.