If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   It's a hard Knox life: Amanda Knox to be retried for murder in Italy   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 436
    More: Followup, Amanda Knox, American Amanda Knox, retrials, Italy, Leeds University, Kercher murder, ex-boyfriends, DNA evidence  
•       •       •

7661 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Mar 2013 at 7:01 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



436 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-26 06:30:34 PM

SkinnyHead: Bungles: SkinnyHead: R.A.Danny: Not seeing the extradition treaty (and not being a lawyer so deciphering it would be lost on me) does the US have options when it comes to extradition or are we bound to just handing her over if it gets to that point?

The extradition treaty with Italy states:  "Extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted, acquitted or pardoned, or has served the sentence imposed, by the Requested Party for the same acts for which extradition is requested."  I'm not sure whether that provision applies or not.  It could mean that extradition is barred only if she was acquitted by the "Requested Party" (i.e., the US).

Whether that provision applies or not, she can still plead the 5th Amendment Double Jeopardy clause ("nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb") to resist extradition.  Because she was already once in jeopardy for that offense, she can claim that it would be unconstitutional to extradite her for the purpose of putting her in jeopardy again for the same offense.


I'm not sure that applies, since she wasn't acquitted - she was "acquitted pending review". I'm dredging about for the specific Italian term. It's best not to use the term "acquitted" as it makes people think it's the same as the US uses the term.

That clause would apply if the this latest judge had ruled in favour of Knox..... and *then* the Italian government attempted a retrial. As far as the law is concerned, this is the same case, just with a complex layered system of appeals and checks and balances.

The question under the Double Jeopardy clause is whether she was in jeopardy when she was tried de novo and whether the not guilty verdict terminated her jeopardy.  You might be right that under Italian law, the not guilty verdict is not final and is only considered as "acquitted pending review."  But a US court hearing an extradition claim will apply US constitutional law to decide the doub ...


But the point it she wasn't acquitted. She would have been acquitted today, had things have turned out differently.

I would think that legally, under US law, they would have considered the case on-going until today, should she have had the aquittal approved.
 
2013-03-26 06:37:17 PM

pedobearapproved: Bungles: No, what I'm saying is that proving a connection isn't the crux of the case. They will have been, if she is guilty, in some way connected. But proving the connection isn't the guts of the case: proving her connection to the murder is. The how and why of the Guede connection is interesting and potentially important, but it isn't the holy grail of the case.

So your theory is that Knox and her boyfriend killed her, then Guede broke in later and had sex with the corpse?

Tell us Sherlock if they aren't connected to Guede whose DNA was INSIDE the dead girl, and whose bloody handprint was beside the body, what's the connection?



I don't have "a theory".

Are you suggesting that Kercher's parents are insane, and are happy with today's decision because they've had some sort of psychotic break and can't fathom a world where Knox wasn't involved? Or perhaps they, who know more about this case than anyone bar the victim and the perpetrator/s having sat through every minute of testimony, realise that the current version of events doesn't stack up?

Are you saying it's outrageous that two people could have hooked up with a stranger, returned home, tried to expand that threesome to a foursome, and that situation couldn't have turned horrific?

Perhaps they had nothing to do with the murder, but were involved with the proceeding events, and are lying because they realise that doesn't look good and means they have no alibi?
 
2013-03-26 06:39:52 PM

Phoenix_M: eggrolls: Phoenix_M: It's amusing how naive people are in this thread, Yes Amanda Knox will be extradited back to Italy. The DOJ extradites people back to the EU all the time. This case just has a little more press then the others.

Not when they've been exonerated they don't. Plus, she's affluent, educated, cute... and white. That will keep any extradition effort from ever getting off the ground.

She hasn't been exonerated yet and she'll be back in Italy by this time next year.  If not she'll spend the rest of her life looking over her shoulder and on the interpol wanted list. She gets pulled over for a traffic ticket in Wenatchee  bamm she's back in jail awaiting extradition.


She's out, and she's home in the States. Italy can bloviate all they want, they ain't getting her back.
 
2013-03-26 06:43:17 PM

eggrolls: Phoenix_M: eggrolls: Phoenix_M: It's amusing how naive people are in this thread, Yes Amanda Knox will be extradited back to Italy. The DOJ extradites people back to the EU all the time. This case just has a little more press then the others.

Not when they've been exonerated they don't. Plus, she's affluent, educated, cute... and white. That will keep any extradition effort from ever getting off the ground.

She hasn't been exonerated yet and she'll be back in Italy by this time next year.  If not she'll spend the rest of her life looking over her shoulder and on the interpol wanted list. She gets pulled over for a traffic ticket in Wenatchee  bamm she's back in jail awaiting extradition.

She's out, and she's home in the States. Italy can bloviate all they want, they ain't getting her back.


For someone who clearly liked international travel, never being able to leave the country again at such a young age is an major punishment.
 
2013-03-26 06:46:51 PM

Bungles: For someone who clearly liked international travel


I think that statement is written in the correct tense.
 
2013-03-26 06:59:20 PM

Bungles: pedobearapproved: Bungles: No, what I'm saying is that proving a connection isn't the crux of the case. They will have been, if she is guilty, in some way connected. But proving the connection isn't the guts of the case: proving her connection to the murder is. The how and why of the Guede connection is interesting and potentially important, but it isn't the holy grail of the case.

So your theory is that Knox and her boyfriend killed her, then Guede broke in later and had sex with the corpse?

Tell us Sherlock if they aren't connected to Guede whose DNA was INSIDE the dead girl, and whose bloody handprint was beside the body, what's the connection?


I don't have "a theory".

Are you suggesting that Kercher's parents are insane, and are happy with today's decision because they've had some sort of psychotic break and can't fathom a world where Knox wasn't involved? Or perhaps they, who know more about this case than anyone bar the victim and the perpetrator/s having sat through every minute of testimony, realise that the current version of events doesn't stack up?

Are you saying it's outrageous that two people could have hooked up with a stranger, returned home, tried to expand that threesome to a foursome, and that situation couldn't have turned horrific?

Perhaps they had nothing to do with the murder, but were involved with the proceeding events, and are lying because they realise that doesn't look good and means they have no alibi?


Yes, completely outrageous and idiotic.
 
2013-03-26 07:05:58 PM

steverockson: Bungles: pedobearapproved: Bungles: No, what I'm saying is that proving a connection isn't the crux of the case. They will have been, if she is guilty, in some way connected. But proving the connection isn't the guts of the case: proving her connection to the murder is. The how and why of the Guede connection is interesting and potentially important, but it isn't the holy grail of the case.

So your theory is that Knox and her boyfriend killed her, then Guede broke in later and had sex with the corpse?

Tell us Sherlock if they aren't connected to Guede whose DNA was INSIDE the dead girl, and whose bloody handprint was beside the body, what's the connection?


I don't have "a theory".

Are you suggesting that Kercher's parents are insane, and are happy with today's decision because they've had some sort of psychotic break and can't fathom a world where Knox wasn't involved? Or perhaps they, who know more about this case than anyone bar the victim and the perpetrator/s having sat through every minute of testimony, realise that the current version of events doesn't stack up?

Are you saying it's outrageous that two people could have hooked up with a stranger, returned home, tried to expand that threesome to a foursome, and that situation couldn't have turned horrific?

Perhaps they had nothing to do with the murder, but were involved with the proceeding events, and are lying because they realise that doesn't look good and means they have no alibi?

Yes, completely outrageous and idiotic.


You're saying that no time in the history of Man have people hooked up with dangerous strangers?
 
2013-03-26 07:20:27 PM

Bungles: steverockson: Bungles: pedobearapproved: Bungles: No, what I'm saying is that proving a connection isn't the crux of the case. They will have been, if she is guilty, in some way connected. But proving the connection isn't the guts of the case: proving her connection to the murder is. The how and why of the Guede connection is interesting and potentially important, but it isn't the holy grail of the case.

So your theory is that Knox and her boyfriend killed her, then Guede broke in later and had sex with the corpse?

Tell us Sherlock if they aren't connected to Guede whose DNA was INSIDE the dead girl, and whose bloody handprint was beside the body, what's the connection?


I don't have "a theory".

Are you suggesting that Kercher's parents are insane, and are happy with today's decision because they've had some sort of psychotic break and can't fathom a world where Knox wasn't involved? Or perhaps they, who know more about this case than anyone bar the victim and the perpetrator/s having sat through every minute of testimony, realise that the current version of events doesn't stack up?

Are you saying it's outrageous that two people could have hooked up with a stranger, returned home, tried to expand that threesome to a foursome, and that situation couldn't have turned horrific?

Perhaps they had nothing to do with the murder, but were involved with the proceeding events, and are lying because they realise that doesn't look good and means they have no alibi?

Yes, completely outrageous and idiotic.

You're saying that no time in the history of Man have people hooked up with dangerous strangers?


The idea that a girl and her boyfriend "hooked up with a dangerous stranger" and took him home and helped him brutally rape and murder her roommate, then went back the next day and called the cops on themselves is ridiculous.
 
2013-03-26 07:21:34 PM

steverockson: Bungles: steverockson: Bungles: pedobearapproved: Bungles: No, what I'm saying is that proving a connection isn't the crux of the case. They will have been, if she is guilty, in some way connected. But proving the connection isn't the guts of the case: proving her connection to the murder is. The how and why of the Guede connection is interesting and potentially important, but it isn't the holy grail of the case.

So your theory is that Knox and her boyfriend killed her, then Guede broke in later and had sex with the corpse?

Tell us Sherlock if they aren't connected to Guede whose DNA was INSIDE the dead girl, and whose bloody handprint was beside the body, what's the connection?


I don't have "a theory".

Are you suggesting that Kercher's parents are insane, and are happy with today's decision because they've had some sort of psychotic break and can't fathom a world where Knox wasn't involved? Or perhaps they, who know more about this case than anyone bar the victim and the perpetrator/s having sat through every minute of testimony, realise that the current version of events doesn't stack up?

Are you saying it's outrageous that two people could have hooked up with a stranger, returned home, tried to expand that threesome to a foursome, and that situation couldn't have turned horrific?

Perhaps they had nothing to do with the murder, but were involved with the proceeding events, and are lying because they realise that doesn't look good and means they have no alibi?

Yes, completely outrageous and idiotic.

You're saying that no time in the history of Man have people hooked up with dangerous strangers?

The idea that a girl and her boyfriend "hooked up with a dangerous stranger" and took him home and helped him brutally rape and murder her roommate, then went back the next day and called the cops on themselves is ridiculous.



I didn't say they helped him.
 
2013-03-26 07:25:27 PM

Bungles: I don't have "a theory".

Are you suggesting that Kercher's parents are insane, and are happy with today's decision because they've had some sort of psychotic break and can't fathom a world where Knox wasn't involved? Or perhaps they, who know more about this case than anyone bar the victim and the perpetrator/s having sat through every minute of testimony, realise that the current version of events doesn't stack up?

Are you saying it's outrageous that two people could have hooked up with a stranger, returned home, tried to expand that threesome to a foursome, and that situation couldn't have turned horrific?

Perhaps they had nothing to do with the murder, but were involved with the proceeding events, and are lying because they realise that doesn't look good and means they have no alibi?


You are right that you don't have a theory because nothing you said makes sense. There is a reason we don't let the family try cases. And while they might feel in their heart with all sincerity that Knox was involved there is ZERO evidence of it, convincing or otherwise.

Why didn't Rudy Guede instantly say "hey, it was the other two people in the house. I was having sex with Kercher and went to the bathroom, those people came in killed her, I discovered her body when I went back to the bedroom and they threatened me, so I got out of town!" Instead he said "it was some random racist Italian dude," that he didn't recognize.  Also if it was a three-some going to 4-some gone wrong, why hasn't Guede EVER said that at some point. He admitted he was there during the time of the murder, why wouldn't he have said something that made himself look less guilty...oh because it didn't happen!

The only scenario that matches the evidence is that Guede broke in to steal (which he had been doing around town prior to the murder). This time he got caught when Kercher came home, he raped and murdered her then fled town.
 

newsimg.bbc.co.uk
 
2013-03-26 07:29:44 PM

pedobearapproved: Bungles: I don't have "a theory".

Are you suggesting that Kercher's parents are insane, and are happy with today's decision because they've had some sort of psychotic break and can't fathom a world where Knox wasn't involved? Or perhaps they, who know more about this case than anyone bar the victim and the perpetrator/s having sat through every minute of testimony, realise that the current version of events doesn't stack up?

Are you saying it's outrageous that two people could have hooked up with a stranger, returned home, tried to expand that threesome to a foursome, and that situation couldn't have turned horrific?

Perhaps they had nothing to do with the murder, but were involved with the proceeding events, and are lying because they realise that doesn't look good and means they have no alibi?

You are right that you don't have a theory because nothing you said makes sense. There is a reason we don't let the family try cases. And while they might feel in their heart with all sincerity that Knox was involved there is ZERO evidence of it, convincing or otherwise.

Why didn't Rudy Guede instantly say "hey, it was the other two people in the house. I was having sex with Kercher and went to the bathroom, those people came in killed her, I discovered her body when I went back to the bedroom and they threatened me, so I got out of town!" Instead he said "it was some random racist Italian dude," that he didn't recognize.  Also if it was a three-some going to 4-some gone wrong, why hasn't Guede EVER said that at some point. He admitted he was there during the time of the murder, why wouldn't he have said something that made himself look less guilty...oh because it didn't happen!

The only scenario that matches the evidence is that Guede broke in to steal (which he had been doing around town prior to the murder). This time he got caught when Kercher came home, he raped and murdered her then fled town.
 

[newsimg.bbc.co.uk image 466x600]


Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you that it's so cut and dry, armchair Poirot.

Which is why there will now be a new phase in the trial.
 
2013-03-26 07:47:37 PM

Bungles: Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you that it's so cut and dry, armchair Poirot.

Which is why there will now be a new phase in the trial.


Which is precisely why we are all thinking that the intellectual jurisprudence  of the Italian supreme court  is about as good as that of day-old dogshiat.

Propose some evidence that is even remotely incriminating against her. You can't. There just isn't any, and this whole thing is a sick farking circus that's ruining the lives of two innocent people.
 
2013-03-26 07:56:05 PM

sudo give me more cowbell: Bungles: Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you that it's so cut and dry, armchair Poirot.

Which is why there will now be a new phase in the trial.

Which is precisely why we are all thinking that the intellectual jurisprudence  of the Italian supreme court  is about as good as that of day-old dogshiat.

Propose some evidence that is even remotely incriminating against her. You can't. There just isn't any, and this whole thing is a sick farking circus that's ruining the lives of two innocent people.


They aren't innocent by definition.
 
2013-03-26 08:00:35 PM
Bungles: Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you that it's so cut and dry, armchair Poirot.

Which is why there will now be a new phase in the trial.

Except you have no clue why the supreme court said there has to be a re-trial, for all we know it's stupidly procedural. The only thing we do know if they supreme court didn't rule on the guilt or innocence of Knox, however the last court did, and they found her not guilty, where they said the association between Guede, Knox and Sollecito was "not corroborated by any evidence" and "far from probable."

so judge judy, it's not about if she's guilty or not for you, it's about what? never admitting you're wrong? Trying to go through life with a complete lack of common sense?
 
2013-03-26 08:02:36 PM

Bungles: sudo give me more cowbell: Bungles: Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you that it's so cut and dry, armchair Poirot.

Which is why there will now be a new phase in the trial.

Which is precisely why we are all thinking that the intellectual jurisprudence  of the Italian supreme court  is about as good as that of day-old dogshiat.

Propose some evidence that is even remotely incriminating against her. You can't. There just isn't any, and this whole thing is a sick farking circus that's ruining the lives of two innocent people.

They aren't innocent by definition.


Yes they are. In Italy just like the US it's innocent until proven guilty. They were last proven not guilty. A new trial would start over with the same assumption on innocence.
 
2013-03-26 08:05:28 PM
Shouldn't fellow hottie Casey Anthony be giving her a shoulder to cry on by now?  Don't hate them because they're pretty.
 
2013-03-26 08:05:31 PM

pedobearapproved: Bungles: sudo give me more cowbell: Bungles: Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you that it's so cut and dry, armchair Poirot.

Which is why there will now be a new phase in the trial.

Which is precisely why we are all thinking that the intellectual jurisprudence  of the Italian supreme court  is about as good as that of day-old dogshiat.

Propose some evidence that is even remotely incriminating against her. You can't. There just isn't any, and this whole thing is a sick farking circus that's ruining the lives of two innocent people.

They aren't innocent by definition.

Yes they are. In Italy just like the US it's innocent until proven guilty. They were last proven not guilty. A new trial would start over with the same assumption on innocence.


A "presumption of innocence" is not the same as you saying "they are innocent".
 
2013-03-26 08:07:39 PM

pedobearapproved: Bungles: Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you that it's so cut and dry, armchair Poirot.

Which is why there will now be a new phase in the trial.

Except you have no clue why the supreme court said there has to be a re-trial, for all we know it's stupidly procedural. The only thing we do know if they supreme court didn't rule on the guilt or innocence of Knox, however the last court did, and they found her not guilty, where they said the association between Guede, Knox and Sollecito was "not corroborated by any evidence" and "far from probable."

so judge judy, it's not about if she's guilty or not for you, it's about what? never admitting you're wrong? Trying to go through life with a complete lack of common sense?


What we do know is that it was the appeal court's finding of aquittal that was specifically overturned. The judgement may have also overturned the initial trial's findings too, we just don't know that yet.

I find it odd that you don't want to know what actually happened.
 
2013-03-26 08:24:14 PM

Bungles: pedobearapproved: Bungles: Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you that it's so cut and dry, armchair Poirot.

Which is why there will now be a new phase in the trial.

Except you have no clue why the supreme court said there has to be a re-trial, for all we know it's stupidly procedural. The only thing we do know if they supreme court didn't rule on the guilt or innocence of Knox, however the last court did, and they found her not guilty, where they said the association between Guede, Knox and Sollecito was "not corroborated by any evidence" and "far from probable."

so judge judy, it's not about if she's guilty or not for you, it's about what? never admitting you're wrong? Trying to go through life with a complete lack of common sense?

What we do know is that it was the appeal court's finding of aquittal that was specifically overturned. The judgement may have also overturned the initial trial's findings too, we just don't know that yet.

I find it odd that you don't want to know what actually happened.


We know what happened. A burglar and common criminal broke into Meredith Kercher's apartment and brutally raped and murdered her. Due to prosecutorial misconduct an innocent couple were charged with the murder despite minimal evidence against them.
Apparently due to politics the Supreme Court has ordered a new trial and unless the prosecution is sitting on some bombshell they withheld in the previous trial they've got next to nothing on Ms. Knox and her boyfriend.
 
2013-03-26 08:33:05 PM

steverockson: Bungles: pedobearapproved: Bungles: Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you that it's so cut and dry, armchair Poirot.

Which is why there will now be a new phase in the trial.

Except you have no clue why the supreme court said there has to be a re-trial, for all we know it's stupidly procedural. The only thing we do know if they supreme court didn't rule on the guilt or innocence of Knox, however the last court did, and they found her not guilty, where they said the association between Guede, Knox and Sollecito was "not corroborated by any evidence" and "far from probable."

so judge judy, it's not about if she's guilty or not for you, it's about what? never admitting you're wrong? Trying to go through life with a complete lack of common sense?

What we do know is that it was the appeal court's finding of aquittal that was specifically overturned. The judgement may have also overturned the initial trial's findings too, we just don't know that yet.

I find it odd that you don't want to know what actually happened.

We know what happened. A burglar and common criminal broke into Meredith Kercher's apartment and brutally raped and murdered her. Due to prosecutorial misconduct an innocent couple were charged with the murder despite minimal evidence against them.
Apparently due to politics the Supreme Court has ordered a new trial and unless the prosecution is sitting on some bombshell they withheld in the previous trial they've got next to nothing on Ms. Knox and her boyfriend.


No, that's your spin of events. When you say "due to politics" you mean "has had their aquittal quashed for reasons I don't know, and I don't like it".

The reason the the majority of non-Americans do not agree with you is not because they are insane, or stupid, or anti-American. It's because they haven't been feed a steady diet of media poo-pooing the case.

Outside the US, UK, and Italian media, the general opinion of is Knox's involvement.
 
2013-03-26 08:36:36 PM

Bungles: Falin: How anyone who has paid any real amount of attention to this case can side with anyone besides Knox is completely beyond me. I guess the biases in place here are very complex.


That's a very US-centric view, and it's understandable, given the nature of the coverage there, especially the weight that certain books were given.

Most people in Europe don't know precisely what happened, because the prosecution was so botched, but not many think Knox is innocent.  There are gaping holes in the story, and hopefully this retrial will address them.

Frankly, the people I trust most in this are the Kerchers, who have remained superhumanly calm throughout the entire procedure, and they have welcomed this turn of events.


No, it's not. It's a very FACT-centric view.

Look, the US isn't North Korea. We have unfettered access to information from the rest of the world here. The facts of the case are just as available to people in the US as they are to people anywhere else in the world. Knowing the facts of the case would cause any UNBIASED person to be shocked at the fact that the first trial didn't end in acquittal, and would think that the fact that she spent any time in prison at all as a gross miscarriage of justice. In the United States, this case wouldn't have even made trial in the first place, because there is NO REAL EVIDENCE that Knox was involved with the murder at all. The justice system in Italy is different. I get that. So it goes to trial, even without evidence. Ok. But even given that, the fact that she was convicted and spent time in prison is beyond the pale, and a "different" system of justice simply doesn't account for that unless "different" means "corrupt and unfair".

Did she behave weirdly? Maybe. Did she do some things that were unwise? Probably. Are either of those things crimes in Italy? I don't think so. Maybe I'm wrong. But, as someone who simply doesn't care who Knox is, where she's from, and where the crimes and trial took place, this whole thing is a sick joke.

Thankfully, she's out of reach of the corruption and craziness over there if this farce continues. Sure, maybe she might not be able to go to Italy or anywhere else in the EU ever again... but after what she's been through, why would she want to? Even if this DOES end in a final acquittal, she'd be wise never to go back anyways, because she'd likely end up in trouble for some other imagined thing as revenge for making people over there look like fools.
 
2013-03-26 08:45:19 PM

Falin: Bungles: Falin: How anyone who has paid any real amount of attention to this case can side with anyone besides Knox is completely beyond me. I guess the biases in place here are very complex.


That's a very US-centric view, and it's understandable, given the nature of the coverage there, especially the weight that certain books were given.

Most people in Europe don't know precisely what happened, because the prosecution was so botched, but not many think Knox is innocent.  There are gaping holes in the story, and hopefully this retrial will address them.

Frankly, the people I trust most in this are the Kerchers, who have remained superhumanly calm throughout the entire procedure, and they have welcomed this turn of events.

No, it's not. It's a very FACT-centric view.

Look, the US isn't North Korea. We have unfettered access to information from the rest of the world here. The facts of the case are just as available to people in the US as they are to people anywhere else in the world. Knowing the facts of the case would cause any UNBIASED person to be shocked at the fact that the first trial didn't end in acquittal, and would think that the fact that she spent any time in prison at all as a gross miscarriage of justice. In the United States, this case wouldn't have even made trial in the first place, because there is NO REAL EVIDENCE that Knox was involved with the murder at all. The justice system in Italy is different. I get that. So it goes to trial, even without evidence. Ok. But even given that, the fact that she was convicted and spent time in prison is beyond the pale, and a "different" system of justice simply doesn't account for that unless "different" means "corrupt and unfair".

Did she behave weirdly? Maybe. Did she do some things that were unwise? Probably. Are either of those things crimes in Italy? I don't think so. Maybe I'm wrong. But, as someone who simply doesn't care who Knox is, where she's from, and where the crimes and trial took place, thi ...


So why do you think that the average opinion in say Germany - a country with no dog in this fight whatsoever and a very conservative press - is of Knox's involvement? I was there for a month at the height of the circus, and while it was only page 4 news, it was greatly discussed, with an overwhelming opinion that the prosecution were incompetent and that she was readily lying.

Why, uniquely, does the US public believe on mass of her innocence? it's two reasons: nationalism - as occurs in any country when one of their own is charge abroad - and the lens of the US press.
 
2013-03-26 08:51:26 PM

Bungles: Falin: Bungles: Falin: How anyone who has paid any real amount of attention to this case can side with anyone besides Knox is completely beyond me. I guess the biases in place here are very complex.


That's a very US-centric view, and it's understandable, given the nature of the coverage there, especially the weight that certain books were given.

Most people in Europe don't know precisely what happened, because the prosecution was so botched, but not many think Knox is innocent.  There are gaping holes in the story, and hopefully this retrial will address them.

Frankly, the people I trust most in this are the Kerchers, who have remained superhumanly calm throughout the entire procedure, and they have welcomed this turn of events.

No, it's not. It's a very FACT-centric view.

Look, the US isn't North Korea. We have unfettered access to information from the rest of the world here. The facts of the case are just as available to people in the US as they are to people anywhere else in the world. Knowing the facts of the case would cause any UNBIASED person to be shocked at the fact that the first trial didn't end in acquittal, and would think that the fact that she spent any time in prison at all as a gross miscarriage of justice. In the United States, this case wouldn't have even made trial in the first place, because there is NO REAL EVIDENCE that Knox was involved with the murder at all. The justice system in Italy is different. I get that. So it goes to trial, even without evidence. Ok. But even given that, the fact that she was convicted and spent time in prison is beyond the pale, and a "different" system of justice simply doesn't account for that unless "different" means "corrupt and unfair".

Did she behave weirdly? Maybe. Did she do some things that were unwise? Probably. Are either of those things crimes in Italy? I don't think so. Maybe I'm wrong. But, as someone who simply doesn't care who Knox is, where she's from, and where the crimes and trial took place, thi ...

So why do you think that the average opinion in say Germany - a country with no dog in this fight whatsoever and a very conservative press - is of Knox's involvement? I was there for a month at the height of the circus, and while it was only page 4 news, it was greatly discussed, with an overwhelming opinion that the prosecution were incompetent and that she was readily lying.

Why, uniquely, does the US public believe on mass of her innocence? it's two reasons: nationalism - as occurs in any country when one of their own is charge abroad - and the lens of the US press.


Bulkshiat, I believe she's innocent because there's no credible evidence that shows that she or her boyfriend had a damn thing to do with this rape/murder.
 
2013-03-26 09:03:21 PM

Bungles: Falin: Bungles: Falin: How anyone who has paid any real amount of attention to this case can side with anyone besides Knox is completely beyond me. I guess the biases in place here are very complex.


(snippage)



So why do you think that the average opinion in say Germany - a country with no dog in this fight whatsoever and a very conservative press - is of Knox's involvement? I was there for a month at the height of the circus, and while it was only page 4 news, it was greatly discussed, with an overwhelming opinion that the prosecution were incompetent and that she was readily lying.
Why, uniquely, does the US public believe on mass of her innocence? it's two reasons: nationalism - as occurs in any country when one of their own is charge abroad - and the lens of the US press.


If you've spent any time in Europe as you say you have, you've seen the schadenfreude demonstrated with an almost 'Mean Girls' level of cruelty towards stupid, loud overbearing Americans from almost every quarter. Even from the countries like us. Now add a sensationalist culture of journalistic free for all, the kind that printed excerpts from Hitler's diaries without validating them first, killed Princess Di for a picture and hacked the phones of dead children. Stir in a little procedural zealotry on behalf of a poorly run Italian police force, and you've got a perfect storm of bullshiat and utter indifference to the truth.
 
2013-03-26 09:08:19 PM

eggrolls: Bungles: Falin: Bungles: Falin: How anyone who has paid any real amount of attention to this case can side with anyone besides Knox is completely beyond me. I guess the biases in place here are very complex.


(snippage)


So why do you think that the average opinion in say Germany - a country with no dog in this fight whatsoever and a very conservative press - is of Knox's involvement? I was there for a month at the height of the circus, and while it was only page 4 news, it was greatly discussed, with an overwhelming opinion that the prosecution were incompetent and that she was readily lying.
Why, uniquely, does the US public believe on mass of her innocence? it's two reasons: nationalism - as occurs in any country when one of their own is charge abroad - and the lens of the US press.

If you've spent any time in Europe as you say you have, you've seen the schadenfreude demonstrated with an almost 'Mean Girls' level of cruelty towards stupid, loud overbearing Americans from almost every quarter. Even from the countries like us. Now add a sensationalist culture of journalistic free for all, the kind that printed excerpts from Hitler's diaries without validating them first, killed Princess Di for a picture and hacked the phones of dead children. Stir in a little procedural zealotry on behalf of a poorly run Italian police force, and you've got a perfect storm of bullshiat and utter indifference to the truth.


Exactly. It's not that America is biased TOWARDS Americans, it's that Europe is biased AGAINST Americans.
 
2013-03-26 09:48:59 PM

eggrolls: Bungles: Falin: Bungles: Falin: How anyone who has paid any real amount of attention to this case can side with anyone besides Knox is completely beyond me. I guess the biases in place here are very complex.


(snippage)


So why do you think that the average opinion in say Germany - a country with no dog in this fight whatsoever and a very conservative press - is of Knox's involvement? I was there for a month at the height of the circus, and while it was only page 4 news, it was greatly discussed, with an overwhelming opinion that the prosecution were incompetent and that she was readily lying.
Why, uniquely, does the US public believe on mass of her innocence? it's two reasons: nationalism - as occurs in any country when one of their own is charge abroad - and the lens of the US press.

If you've spent any time in Europe as you say you have, you've seen the schadenfreude demonstrated with an almost 'Mean Girls' level of cruelty towards stupid, loud overbearing Americans from almost every quarter. Even from the countries like us. Now add a sensationalist culture of journalistic free for all, the kind that printed excerpts from Hitler's diaries without validating them first, killed Princess Di for a picture and hacked the phones of dead children. Stir in a little procedural zealotry on behalf of a poorly run Italian police force, and you've got a perfect storm of bullshiat and utter indifference to the truth.



Well, I'm European, so yes, I've spent a lot of time in Europe.

What you're saying is just simply untrue. Yes, lots of people dislike loud, overbearing Americans, including many Americans. That doesn't mean that people want them framed for murder.
 
2013-03-26 10:03:51 PM
Maybe it's payback for this ugly american in Italy incident:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalese_cable_car_disaster_(1998)
 
2013-03-26 10:07:19 PM

fo_sho!: Maybe it's payback for this ugly american in Italy incident:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalese_cable_car_disaster_(1998)


That was REEEEEEEEALY bad.  Those guys...wow.  Homicidal negligence and destroying/hiding evidence.
 
2013-03-27 01:58:32 AM

Bungles: So why do you think that the average opinion in say Germany - a country with no dog in this fight whatsoever and a very conservative press - is of Knox's involvement? I was there for a month at the height of the circus, and while it was only page 4 news, it was greatly discussed, with an overwhelming opinion that the prosecution were incompetent and that she was readily lying.


I haven't the faintest idea, as I can't read German. Why don't you tell us why the Germans think she was involved?

In fact, why won't you tell us anything about why the rest of the EU think she's guilty of something, instead of just repeatedly assuring us that they do (and burying the thread in minutiae as to why the present ruling doesn't constitute double jeopardy)?
 
2013-03-27 06:23:10 AM

steverockson: Exactly. It's not that America is biased TOWARDS Americans, it's that Europe is biased AGAINST Americans.


Exactly, if she had done it she shouldn't see another sunrise that isn't framed by bars, but she didn't. The dude that did... well he raped and murdered an innocent girl and he might be able to get out as early as 2016. Why? He said he was sorry. And this guy beyond a shadow of a doubt raped and killed that woman.
 
2013-03-27 06:38:09 AM

Bungles: pedobearapproved: Bungles: sudo give me more cowbell: Bungles: Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you that it's so cut and dry, armchair Poirot.

Which is why there will now be a new phase in the trial.

Which is precisely why we are all thinking that the intellectual jurisprudence  of the Italian supreme court  is about as good as that of day-old dogshiat.

Propose some evidence that is even remotely incriminating against her. You can't. There just isn't any, and this whole thing is a sick farking circus that's ruining the lives of two innocent people.

They aren't innocent by definition.

Yes they are. In Italy just like the US it's innocent until proven guilty. They were last proven not guilty. A new trial would start over with the same assumption on innocence.

A "presumption of innocence" is not the same as you saying "they are innocent".


Maybe if I say it ONE more time you'll get it in your head. innocent by definition means blameless. You said they aren't by definition innocent, but they were proved that at the last trial.The judge even specifically pointed that out. So because I assumed you aren't a total moron (my bad), and that you meant that as a legal definition and that the court judgement yesterday somehow rendered them guilty (it did not). So what did you mean? This whole time you can't point to ANY motive other than a sex game, but no other bodily fuilds were in the room other than from the victim and Rudy. Speaking of, you can't point to ANY specific evidence that shows they were in the apartment at the time, or that they harmed the girl in anyway. Whereas I can point to specific evidence that they weren't there (Rudy, the man that had raped and murdered the girl not saying "they were in the apartment").

fark it, you can't argue with stupid.

BTW what do you think of Rudy's 16 years? You think that was a fair time? Do you even think he did it, or was he set up?
 
2013-03-27 07:59:21 AM

Bungles: eggrolls: Bungles: Falin: Bungles: Falin: How anyone who has paid any real amount of attention to this case can side with anyone besides Knox is completely beyond me. I guess the biases in place here are very complex.


(snippage)


So why do you think that the average opinion in say Germany - a country with no dog in this fight whatsoever and a very conservative press - is of Knox's involvement? I was there for a month at the height of the circus, and while it was only page 4 news, it was greatly discussed, with an overwhelming opinion that the prosecution were incompetent and that she was readily lying.
Why, uniquely, does the US public believe on mass of her innocence? it's two reasons: nationalism - as occurs in any country when one of their own is charge abroad - and the lens of the US press.

If you've spent any time in Europe as you say you have, you've seen the schadenfreude demonstrated with an almost 'Mean Girls' level of cruelty towards stupid, loud overbearing Americans from almost every quarter. Even from the countries like us. Now add a sensationalist culture of journalistic free for all, the kind that printed excerpts from Hitler's diaries without validating them first, killed Princess Di for a picture and hacked the phones of dead children. Stir in a little procedural zealotry on behalf of a poorly run Italian police force, and you've got a perfect storm of bullshiat and utter indifference to the truth.


Well, I'm European, so yes, I've spent a lot of time in Europe.

What you're saying is just simply untrue. Yes, lots of people dislike loud, overbearing Americans, including many Americans. That doesn't mean that people want them framed for murder.


I don't think they really care if someone is innocent or not, as long as the media circus never ends.
 
2013-03-27 08:12:44 AM

Bungles: So why do you think that the average opinion in say Germany - a country with no dog in this fight whatsoever and a very conservative press - is of Knox's involvement? I was there for a month at the height of the circus, and while it was only page 4 news, it was greatly discussed, with an overwhelming opinion that the prosecution were incompetent and that she was readily lying.


I'm Canadian, currently living in Germany long enough to call myself German. I have no loyalty whatsoever to the U.S. government, and think that the world-wide hostility directed towards the US government over Iraq was completely justified, and that George W. Bosh was a colossal POS.

That doesn't change the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to support accusations against Knox or Sollecito; it doesn't change the fact that the overwhelmingly more plausible explanation for everything is one in which both of them are totally innocent of any involvement, and it doesn't make Knox responsible for the actions of her government's foreign policy -something which I think a lot of people in Europe are forgetting.
 
2013-03-27 10:51:31 AM
Basically Bungles is full of shiat and refuses to answer any legitimate questions as to why Knox is guilty.

Just like every other fart sniffing European that is so sure that they are right about everything.
 
2013-03-27 11:16:49 AM

Bungles: pedobearapproved: Are you suggesting that Kercher's parents are insane, and are happy with today's decision because they've had some sort of psychotic break and can't fathom a world where Knox wasn't involved?


Yes, that seems the long and short of it, based  on finding this:

Are you saying it's outrageous that two people could have hooked up with a stranger, returned home, tried to expand that threesome to a foursome, and that situation couldn't have turned horrific?

to be a reasonable scenario.  This sounds like something that would make a grieving tabloid journalist salivate in a Pavlovian style.  To the sane amongst us, it sounds like something made up by people who watched way too much daytime European television.
 
2013-03-27 11:28:17 AM
Actually, just amend that to "too much daytime television".  I don't want to give the impression that our Soap Operas are any better than elsewhere.  They remain Soap Operas, just like the Prosecution's notion of a threesome foursome gone wrong.
 
2013-03-27 11:29:08 AM

crab66: Basically Bungles is full of shiat and refuses to answer any legitimate questions as to why Knox is guilty.

Just like every other fart sniffing European that is so sure that they are right about everything.



Why are you afraid of having a proper trial?
 
2013-03-27 11:37:09 AM

crab66: Basically Bungles is full of shiat and refuses to answer any legitimate questions as to why Knox is guilty.

Just like every other fart sniffing European that is so sure that they are right about everything.


Hey, I consider myself European, and I'm fully on board with you that the persecution of Knox is completely looney-toons.

This isn't a USA vs. the world thing. Although there is a touch of the "let's stick to American's" in the European public perception of the case, the case itself is more of an example of how Judicial systems everywhere can be horribly screwed up and unfair at times... -plenty of black men who've gone through the American Justice system have been treated just as unfairly.
 
2013-03-27 11:40:59 AM

Bungles: Why are you afraid of having a proper trial?


A proper trial would be predicated on the assumption that there's even enough evidence to bring this bullshiat case to trial in the first place. And there isn't.

Your usage of "proper trial" would be analogous to me dragging you into court for a "proper trial" on charges of Child molestation, and putting your name all over the papers in the process. I have absolutely no shred of evidence to support the claim that you are a child-molester, but don't you think we should have a proper trial (with full media scrutiny) before we jump to any conclusions about whether you are, or are not, a child-molester?
 
2013-03-27 11:50:08 AM

Bungles: Why are you afraid of having a proper trial?


There was one. As far as any civilized nation is concerned, there's no asterisk after an acquittal. It's over. Italy can go fark itself. I don't even care if she IS guilty, it's better to let a hundred guilty go than to lock up an innocent person.
 
2013-03-27 12:03:29 PM

R.A.Danny: Bungles: Why are you afraid of having a proper trial?

There was one. As far as any civilized nation is concerned, there's no asterisk after an acquittal. It's over. Italy can go fark itself. I don't even care if she IS guilty, it's better to let a hundred guilty go than to lock up an innocent person.



The fact that there wasn't is the entire point of this ruling.

We will find out the details very soon, I imagine.
 
2013-03-27 12:12:25 PM

Bungles: R.A.Danny: Bungles: Why are you afraid of having a proper trial?

There was one. As far as any civilized nation is concerned, there's no asterisk after an acquittal. It's over. Italy can go fark itself. I don't even care if she IS guilty, it's better to let a hundred guilty go than to lock up an innocent person.


The fact that there wasn't is the entire point of this ruling.

We will find out the details very soon, I imagine.


Funny, no one in Italy took the position that the trial was improper when Know was convicted. It was only when the verdict was overturned that certain people started demanding a do-over.
 
2013-03-27 12:13:36 PM

Bungles: The fact that there wasn't is the entire point of this ruling.


How can you seriously say that there wasn't a trial?

Are you just jerking off to this?
 
2013-03-27 12:14:16 PM

Bungles: R.A.Danny: Bungles: Why are you afraid of having a proper trial?

There was one. As far as any civilized nation is concerned, there's no asterisk after an acquittal. It's over. Italy can go fark itself. I don't even care if she IS guilty, it's better to let a hundred guilty go than to lock up an innocent person.


The fact that there wasn't is the entire point of this ruling.

We will find out the details very soon, I imagine.


 I agree that if there isn't a proper trial, there should be the possibility for appeal. I think that there should be more pressure on the state to prove its case the first time, but I can understand a nation that allows its own prosecutors to appeal an acquittal, so from a procedural point of view, I'm ok with the fact that a case can be appealed in this way.

But this still doesn't address the underlying reality that there is no farking evidence against the accused, and that any rational human being who's spent more than 10 minutes looking at the facts would easily conclude that she obviously had nothing to do with this crime.

I don't really give a shiat about proceduralistic/legalistic bullshiat, I care about two innocent people having their lives destroyed over nothing. Anyone who thinks they're guilty has been reading sensationalized tabloid bullshiat and is completely ignorant of the facts in the case, or is some combination of stupid and crazy. Sorry, but that's just how it is.

Do you agree that the basic facts of the case should matter, even a little?
 
2013-03-27 12:17:20 PM

eggrolls: Bungles: R.A.Danny: Bungles: Why are you afraid of having a proper trial?

There was one. As far as any civilized nation is concerned, there's no asterisk after an acquittal. It's over. Italy can go fark itself. I don't even care if she IS guilty, it's better to let a hundred guilty go than to lock up an innocent person.


The fact that there wasn't is the entire point of this ruling.

We will find out the details very soon, I imagine.

Funny, no one in Italy took the position that the trial was improper when Know was convicted. It was only when the verdict was overturned that certain people started demanding a do-over.


Right, so if they lose this one is going to be "Ok guys best 3 out of 5! Go!".?
The crazy thing is THEY CAUGHT THE PERPETRATOR ALREADY.  The theory that this was a Blood Satan Sex Orgy gone wrong is completely idiotic, and no evidence exists to back up the lunatic prosecutors claim.
 
2013-03-27 12:30:04 PM

sudo give me more cowbell: Bungles: R.A.Danny: Bungles: Why are you afraid of having a proper trial?

There was one. As far as any civilized nation is concerned, there's no asterisk after an acquittal. It's over. Italy can go fark itself. I don't even care if she IS guilty, it's better to let a hundred guilty go than to lock up an innocent person.


The fact that there wasn't is the entire point of this ruling.

We will find out the details very soon, I imagine.

 I agree that if there isn't a proper trial, there should be the possibility for appeal. I think that there should be more pressure on the state to prove its case the first time, but I can understand a nation that allows its own prosecutors to appeal an acquittal, so from a procedural point of view, I'm ok with the fact that a case can be appealed in this way.

But this still doesn't address the underlying reality that there is no farking evidence against the accused, and that any rational human being who's spent more than 10 minutes looking at the facts would easily conclude that she obviously had nothing to do with this crime.

I don't really give a shiat about proceduralistic/legalistic bullshiat, I care about two innocent people having their lives destroyed over nothing. Anyone who thinks they're guilty has been reading sensationalized tabloid bullshiat and is completely ignorant of the facts in the case, or is some combination of stupid and crazy. Sorry, but that's just how it is.

Do you agree that the basic facts of the case should matter, even a little?


Well, there was evidence - a confession, eyewitness accounts and DNA evidence. During the trial, it was all determined to be very suspect evidence.
 
2013-03-27 12:32:30 PM

R.A.Danny: Bungles: The fact that there wasn't is the entire point of this ruling.

How can you seriously say that there wasn't a trial?

Are you just jerking off to this?



Why exactly do you think this ruling has happened?
 
2013-03-27 12:43:59 PM

fo_sho!: During the trial, it was all determined to be very suspect evidence.


Indeed.

sigh... you're a troll. I'm going to stop feeding you.
 
2013-03-27 12:51:47 PM

Bungles: R.A.Danny: Bungles: The fact that there wasn't is the entire point of this ruling.

How can you seriously say that there wasn't a trial?

Are you just jerking off to this?


Why exactly do you think this ruling has happened?


It happened because unlike most first world countries, Italy allows appeals of acquittals.  In those other countries, there's no such thing as "acquittal pending appeal/review".  It's an acquittal, period.

Even if Amanda Knox is convicted in a new trial, you can bet no US judge will allow her to be extradited.  Just as European countries will not extradite to the United States if the death penalty is a possibility, I seriously doubt the United States would extradite if Italy pulls this stunt, which in the United States would be considered double jeopardy.
 
2013-03-27 12:52:10 PM

Bungles: R.A.Danny: Bungles: The fact that there wasn't is the entire point of this ruling.

How can you seriously say that there wasn't a trial?

Are you just jerking off to this?


Why exactly do you think this ruling has happened?


Why do I think she was acquitted? Because either A) She's not guilty of B) She may or may not be guilty but the prosecution was unable to prove its case.

In either case, she's not guilty. Going back and trying to find new ways to twist a losing argument goes against everything a fair court stands for.
 
Displayed 50 of 436 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report