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  
•       •       •

7666 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
 
2013-03-27 12:56:41 PM  
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.
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.

You're making several assumptions here, all of which are incorrect.

1. I'm some sort of nationalist, where the nationality of a person matters more to me than actual fact. This is wrong. As I've said, I don't give a rat's ass who she is or where she's from. If she was my next-door neighbor and there was any evidence at all that she was involved, or even a plausible theory that included her involvement, I'd put her on a plane back to Italy myself.

2. That I pay any attention at all to the US press. Wrong again. I don't. They're stupid and sensationalist. I have the opinion I have about this case because I've been actually following the facts of this case, mostly from the BBC. The funny thing is that the national press in the UK has been, for the most part, LAUGHABLY biased against Knox in this case. It's ridiculously transparent to someone who doesn't actually live over there. They've been even worse than the US national press about this.

3. That Americans are largely biased in favor of Knox, and Europeans are largely impartial. Once more, with feeling: wrong, of course. Are there Americans who believe she's innocent simply because she's American, without knowing the facts of the case? Of course. Are there Europeans who believe she's guilty simply because she's American, without knowing the facts of the case? Absolutely, there are. Just because you live in Europe doesn't automatically make you some bastion of impartial integrity about this. On the contrary, everything you've said (and failed to say) in this thread points the bias finger squarely back at you.

This whole case is a crock. They have no evidence. They have no plausible theory. The fact that it made it past the first week of the first trial  without being dismissed is a sick, cruel joke. At this point, it's nothing but a farcical witch hunt, and anyone with any amount of impartiality and sense of fairness sees this clearly.
 
2013-03-27 12:58:24 PM  

sudo give me more cowbell: 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.


I'm not trolling. I think she is most likely innocent.  You are saying there is no evidence - there was evidence prior to the trial, but when examined it doesn't hold up. It looks like most of it was fabricated by zealous or incompetent authorities.

Also the opinion piece that everyone is linking to seems to be at odds with other sources. The opinion piece states that Rudy Guede was not known to Knox, but other sources state that she served him at work, and they all smoked up together in the basement of the apartment a couple of weeks before the murder.
 
2013-03-27 01:10:59 PM  

R.A.Danny: 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.


She wasn't acquitted.
 
2013-03-27 01:29:46 PM  

fo_sho!: I'm not trolling. I think she is most likely innocent. You are saying there is no evidence - there was evidence prior to the trial, but when examined it doesn't hold up. It looks like most of it was fabricated by zealous or incompetent authorities.


Yes, sorry, my troll accusation was intended for Bungles, not you. My bad.
Hopefully I don't get charged with Calumnia

fo_sho!: Also the opinion piece that everyone is linking to seems to be at odds with other sources. The opinion piece states that Rudy Guede was not known to Knox, but other sources state that she served him at work, and they all smoked up together in the basement of the apartment a couple of weeks before the murder.


That's an awfully flimsy basis for a "connection". Consider how many people she probably served at the bar. And then, there may have been one occasion when she and Kercher went to visit their neighbours downstairs and Guede happened to be hanging around smoking pot. They hung around for a few minutes and then left. That's it. Didn't even speak to the guy.
If that's sufficient basis for a "connection", then you and I are probably connected to countless other criminals.
 
2013-03-27 01:39:44 PM  

sudo give me more cowbell: fo_sho!: I'm not trolling. I think she is most likely innocent. You are saying there is no evidence - there was evidence prior to the trial, but when examined it doesn't hold up. It looks like most of it was fabricated by zealous or incompetent authorities.

Yes, sorry, my troll accusation was intended for Bungles, not you. My bad.



How kind. All I've done is explain how the Italian tiered court review system worked (what a shiat of me, putting things in context for people!) and explained that the US view on this is the one which is out of kilter with public opinion (again what an ass I am! Placing this in an international context, given it's an international case)


Hopefully I don't get charged with Calumnia

fo_sho!: Also the opinion piece that everyone is linking to seems to be at odds with other sources. The opinion piece states that Rudy Guede was not known to Knox, but other sources state that she served him at work, and they all smoked up together in the basement of the apartment a couple of weeks before the murder.

That's an awfully flimsy basis for a "connection". Consider how many people she probably served at the bar. And then, there may have been one occasion when she and Kercher went to visit their neighbours downstairs and Guede happened to be hanging around smoking pot. They hung around for a few minutes and then left. That's it. Didn't even speak to the guy.
If that's sufficient basis for a "connection", then you and I are probably connected to countless other criminals.



What you're doing there is considering the balance of evidence. You know, the thing they want to do in court.
 
2013-03-27 01:48:44 PM  

Bungles: What you're doing there is considering the balance of evidence. You know, the thing they want to do in court.


Let's return to my example for a second: have you ever sat down in a bus at the same time as a child-molester?
Well then we'd better ascertain whether or not you are a child-molester by putting you on trial and inviting frenzied media speculation to run wild.  You know... just to be sure.

Do you or do you not think it would be reasonable to put you on trial for child-molestation?
 
2013-03-27 01:51:15 PM  

sudo give me more cowbell: Bungles: What you're doing there is considering the balance of evidence. You know, the thing they want to do in court.

Let's return to my example for a second: have you ever sat down in a bus at the same time as a child-molester?
Well then we'd better ascertain whether or not you are a child-molester by putting you on trial and inviting frenzied media speculation to run wild.  You know... just to be sure.

Do you or do you not think it would be reasonable to put you on trial for child-molestation?



Well, that's terribly interesting, but not really relevant.

There is a suggestion of a connection, however flimsy on the surface. The sort of thing that needs to be investigated in court.

Earlier in this thread it was suggested that finding a connection was key. The hint that though could have been smoking buddies is therefore something rather critical.
 
2013-03-27 01:56:30 PM  

Bungles: SnarfVader: Bungles: SnarfVader: Bungles: SnarfVader: Bungles: TwistedFark: Bungles: I was on a trip in the US at the height of the case.... the USA had coverage that is radically different from how the rest of the world perceived it.

Be aware that if you're in the US, you've been presented this case through an incredibly strong prism of "innocent American girl abroad", with a massive PR campaign focused on a "corrupt system".. Check out the coverage in essentially neutral countries on this, like Australia or Germany. It is not positive of Knox.

I live in Australia, it's not negative towards Knox. If anything, the take away is - corrupt and incompetant prosecutor, girl is probably innocent.


That's just not true, I was in Melbourne for a huge chunk of this trial. The common view was "corrupt mess of a system" that was pushed into collapse by a massive US media interest, but that at the core of the case, Knox was not innocent (not premeditated, but some sort of manslaughter "everything went wrong" style narrative).


It's not entirely different from certain current views of the Pistorius case..

I haven't heard anybody here claim Pistorius is innocent. I think you're just making things up now.

Ummmmm.... I didn't suggest anyone has.

Then the Pistorius case is not an apt comparison to the Knox case.


I'm not quite sure you've grasped the comparison I was making.

Alright. Can you clarify what type of comparison you are making between the two cases, please? I thought perhaps you were trying to say the American media views Pistorius as innocent and the system in South Africa as corrupt.

I mean that something widely viewed as a mess of a judicial system (SA local courts and Italian local courts) that were pushed into collapse by a massive media interest (like the circus around the bail trial and the whole of the Knox trial) where essentially lowish level district officials are suddenly dancing for an international crowd (and basking amateurishly in the limelight), ...


We'll have to agree to disagree about the guilt or innocence of Knox, but I do see your point now. Thanks for the clarification.
 
2013-03-27 01:59:09 PM  

Bungles: sudo give me more cowbell: fo_sho!: I'm not trolling. I think she is most likely innocent. You are saying there is no evidence - there was evidence prior to the trial, but when examined it doesn't hold up. It looks like most of it was fabricated by zealous or incompetent authorities.

Yes, sorry, my troll accusation was intended for Bungles, not you. My bad.


How kind. All I've done is explain how the Italian tiered court review system worked (what a shiat of me, putting things in context for people!) and explained that the US view on this is the one which is out of kilter with public opinion (again what an ass I am! Placing this in an international context, given it's an international case)


Hopefully I don't get charged with Calumnia

fo_sho!: Also the opinion piece that everyone is linking to seems to be at odds with other sources. The opinion piece states that Rudy Guede was not known to Knox, but other sources state that she served him at work, and they all smoked up together in the basement of the apartment a couple of weeks before the murder.

That's an awfully flimsy basis for a "connection". Consider how many people she probably served at the bar. And then, there may have been one occasion when she and Kercher went to visit their neighbours downstairs and Guede happened to be hanging around smoking pot. They hung around for a few minutes and then left. That's it. Didn't even speak to the guy.
If that's sufficient basis for a "connection", then you and I are probably connected to countless other criminals.


What you're doing there is considering the balance of evidence. You know, the thing they want to do in court.



What do you mean "the thing they want to do in court"?  There was already a trial, the judges on the appeals panel said that there is "no corroborating evidence of a connection between Knox/Sollecito and Guede" and that a connection was "far from probable" which I interpret as meaning "very improbable".
This is nuts.
 
2013-03-27 02:02:40 PM  

Bungles: How kind. All I've done is explain how the Italian tiered court review system worked (what a shiat of me, putting things in context for people!) and explained that the US view on this is the one which is out of kilter with public opinion (again what an ass I am! Placing this in an international context, given it's an international case)


While you've gotten something of a bad rap on the notion of the court system, your attempts to give value judgments on the court of public opinion have been pretty weak.  You've attempted to do far more than simply state that the US view is out of kilter, you've actively attempted to make that mean that US opinion is more biased and wrong.  Please don't waste time denying it.  Trouble is, that doesn't really seem to be the case.

You asked what bias reporting in other countries would have, as if this would be a nationalist issue alone and that countries with no dog in the game (Germany) could be trusted to be impartial, but that's a remarkably naive idea to even attempt to foster in your head, because it ignores the MOST important bias ANY reporter is going to have: newsworthiness and marketability.  So tell me which makes the better story to sell newspapers:

--Drifting thief breaks in, rapes and murders girl
--Threesome sex ritual amongst sex-starved college kids featuring supposedly wholesome American girl who is actually a drug-fueled sex vixen gets unwelcome advance on fourth party and leads to sordid sex death

One makes for great tabloid coverage.  One happens too often to even get mentioned.  Which one gets covered by anyone who has no skin in the game?
 
2013-03-27 02:03:07 PM  

Bungles: Well, that's terribly interesting, but not really relevant.


It is extremely relevent. The burden of evidence that I have just satisfied to put you on trial for child-molestation is about the same as what's currently being used by the insane prosecutor in perugia.
 
2013-03-27 02:53:16 PM  

Bungles: She wasn't acquitted.


Liar.
 
2013-03-27 03:12:58 PM  

R.A.Danny: Bungles: She wasn't acquitted.

Liar.


How is this a lie? She was acquitted pending review by the higher court, because the appeal and the trial disagreed.

That's not the same as the American "acquitted". It was made very clear at the verdict.

You're the one demonstrably lying. You can disagree with the Italian system, you can damn the press coverage, but you can't pretend she was "acquitted" in the American sense. The trial, under Italian law, would have only concluded two days ago. This isn't a new thing, the date was set on the very day of the original announcement.

She was not acquitted.
 
2013-03-27 03:25:16 PM  

Bungles: How is this a lie? She was acquitted pending review by the higher court, because the appeal and the trial disagreed.


She was either acquitted or not acquitted. The very definition of the word tells you there is no if, and, or, or but.
 
2013-03-27 03:32:08 PM  

R.A.Danny: Bungles: How is this a lie? She was acquitted pending review by the higher court, because the appeal and the trial disagreed.

She was either acquitted or not acquitted. The very definition of the word tells you there is no if, and, or, or but.



This isn't an American court. That's like saying someone in the UK can't be charged with Grievous Bodily Harm because you, watching in the US, don't have the same precise crime.
 
2013-03-27 03:45:34 PM  
Bungles continues to be allergic to any and all discussion of the actual facts of the case. The only things he seems able to discuss are the procedural details of the Italian legal system and why they should be considered trustworthy, and the media coverage of the case in Europe and why that should be considered superior to the "biased" coverage in the US. Except even there, he still doesn't want to talk about what the "biased" US press won't tell us.

I would like to remind you, sir, that you are posting on Fark, which is a no representative sample of Internet commenters, and the US posters are not a representative sample of Americans. Though individual variations exist, we tend to have a jaundiced view of the ability and willingness of police and courts in general to arrive at justice - and more importantly, we tend to have a jaundiced view of the news and entertainment media. Indeed, the belief that the press tends to favor sensationalism over facts is the very idea on which this site was founded.

Given that, please understand that expecting us to blindly trust the Italian justice system isn't a winning argument around here, and expecting us to blindly trust the EU media and the "court of public opinion" is even less so. If you want to actually persuade anyone here, you should be prepared to provide specific facts that call Amanda Knox's innocence into question - and be prepared to face a dismissive attitude if the facts you present cover only her demeanor, her personal life, or her coerced testimony while imprisoned.

Of course, maybe you just want to see your name in purple bold. That's part of Fark too.
 
2013-03-27 03:47:30 PM  

Bungles: This isn't an American court.


But it is a reason for the US to block extradition. Americans are guaranteed certain rights, and the right against double jeopardy is HUGE. It doesn't matter that Italy is a backassed shiathole, handing her over to the Italians would be a grievous crime against her as far as we are concerned. Not unlike the Italians not handing someone over who is facing the death penalty. As far as the US is concerned, she was acquitted. None of this "pending" crap counts.
 
2013-03-27 04:02:37 PM  

pedobearapproved: furry satanic sex orgy


www.retrocrush.com
 
2013-03-27 04:17:25 PM  

R.A.Danny: Bungles: This isn't an American court.

But it is a reason for the US to block extradition. Americans are guaranteed certain rights, and the right against double jeopardy is HUGE. It doesn't matter that Italy is a backassed shiathole, handing her over to the Italians would be a grievous crime against her as far as we are concerned. Not unlike the Italians not handing someone over who is facing the death penalty. As far as the US is concerned, she was acquitted. None of this "pending" crap counts.


I've no doubt the US would never extradite her. I've never said otherwise.
 
2013-03-27 04:23:04 PM  

Mithiwithi: Bungles continues to be allergic to any and all discussion of the actual facts of the case. The only things he seems able to discuss are the procedural details of the Italian legal system and why they should be considered trustworthy, and the media coverage of the case in Europe and why that should be considered superior to the "biased" coverage in the US. Except even there, he still doesn't want to talk about what the "biased" US press won't tell us.

I would like to remind you, sir, that you are posting on Fark, which is a no representative sample of Internet commenters, and the US posters are not a representative sample of Americans. Though individual variations exist, we tend to have a jaundiced view of the ability and willingness of police and courts in general to arrive at justice - and more importantly, we tend to have a jaundiced view of the news and entertainment media. Indeed, the belief that the press tends to favor sensationalism over facts is the very idea on which this site was founded.

Given that, please understand that expecting us to blindly trust the Italian justice system isn't a winning argument around here, and expecting us to blindly trust the EU media and the "court of public opinion" is even less so. If you want to actually persuade anyone here, you should be prepared to provide specific facts that call Amanda Knox's innocence into question - and be prepared to face a dismissive attitude if the facts you present cover only her demeanor, her personal life, or her coerced testimony while imprisoned.

Of course, maybe you just want to see your name in purple bold. That's part of Fark too.


I've no wish to play Miss Marple here, and I think all this armchair detective work is frankly daft.

None of us can discuss the "evidence", because all anyone here knows, including me, if the dribble and drabs of whatever media they listened to at the time. Playing internet sleuth using random flotsam isn't helping anyone, and it happens in every case here on Fark, and it always just looks ridiculous.


I'm not saying blindly trust the Italian system, all I'm saying is that the demonisation of it here is ridiculous, that she was never acquitted in the US sense, and that the view from much of the world is not as homogeneous as it seems to be in the US.


All those things are demonstrably true, so I'm not quite sure why people are getting so angry about it.
 
2013-03-27 04:28:20 PM  

Bungles: Mithiwithi: Bungles continues to be allergic to any and all discussion of the actual facts of the case. The only things he seems able to discuss are the procedural details of the Italian legal system and why they should be considered trustworthy, and the media coverage of the case in Europe and why that should be considered superior to the "biased" coverage in the US. Except even there, he still doesn't want to talk about what the "biased" US press won't tell us.

I would like to remind you, sir, that you are posting on Fark, which is a no representative sample of Internet commenters, and the US posters are not a representative sample of Americans. Though individual variations exist, we tend to have a jaundiced view of the ability and willingness of police and courts in general to arrive at justice - and more importantly, we tend to have a jaundiced view of the news and entertainment media. Indeed, the belief that the press tends to favor sensationalism over facts is the very idea on which this site was founded.

Given that, please understand that expecting us to blindly trust the Italian justice system isn't a winning argument around here, and expecting us to blindly trust the EU media and the "court of public opinion" is even less so. If you want to actually persuade anyone here, you should be prepared to provide specific facts that call Amanda Knox's innocence into question - and be prepared to face a dismissive attitude if the facts you present cover only her demeanor, her personal life, or her coerced testimony while imprisoned.

Of course, maybe you just want to see your name in purple bold. That's part of Fark too.

I've no wish to play Miss Marple here, and I think all this armchair detective work is frankly daft.

None of us can discuss the "evidence", because all anyone here knows, including me, if the dribble and drabs of whatever media they listened to at the time. Playing internet sleuth using random flotsam isn't helping anyone, and it happens in every ...


But the facts came out in court!  They are there for us to peruse.
 
2013-03-27 04:41:32 PM  

steverockson: Bungles: Mithiwithi: Bungles continues to be allergic to any and all discussion of the actual facts of the case. The only things he seems able to discuss are the procedural details of the Italian legal system and why they should be considered trustworthy, and the media coverage of the case in Europe and why that should be considered superior to the "biased" coverage in the US. Except even there, he still doesn't want to talk about what the "biased" US press won't tell us.

I would like to remind you, sir, that you are posting on Fark, which is a no representative sample of Internet commenters, and the US posters are not a representative sample of Americans. Though individual variations exist, we tend to have a jaundiced view of the ability and willingness of police and courts in general to arrive at justice - and more importantly, we tend to have a jaundiced view of the news and entertainment media. Indeed, the belief that the press tends to favor sensationalism over facts is the very idea on which this site was founded.

Given that, please understand that expecting us to blindly trust the Italian justice system isn't a winning argument around here, and expecting us to blindly trust the EU media and the "court of public opinion" is even less so. If you want to actually persuade anyone here, you should be prepared to provide specific facts that call Amanda Knox's innocence into question - and be prepared to face a dismissive attitude if the facts you present cover only her demeanor, her personal life, or her coerced testimony while imprisoned.

Of course, maybe you just want to see your name in purple bold. That's part of Fark too.

I've no wish to play Miss Marple here, and I think all this armchair detective work is frankly daft.

None of us can discuss the "evidence", because all anyone here knows, including me, if the dribble and drabs of whatever media they listened to at the time. Playing internet sleuth using random flotsam isn't helping anyone, and it happens ...



But the facts came out in court!  They are there for us to peruse. First, I'm impressed by your mastery of Italian legalese.

Secondly, the entire reason that the Supreme Court has initiated a retrial is because, presumably in his opinion, the trial was flawed. You can't say "But we know everything! There was a trial!" when the entire point of this is because the judge has found the trial, for reasons we don't yet know, legally unsound.

That's a little like saying that appeals are pointless, because they retread facts we already know.

Look, I've never said I think Knox is going to be found guilty. All I've said is I find what I know about her testimony suspicious and probably an invention, and the media circus that came about the first time incredibly distasteful (and still is: her book deal - not a penny of which is going to the Kercher Memorial Scholarship - even more distasteful). That doesn't mean I think she's guilty of this crime, only lying (for reasons unknown, but there are a lot of possibilities of varying innocence). My opinion isn't unusual, and is pretty mainstream, outside the US.
 
2013-03-27 04:53:39 PM  

Bungles: steverockson: Bungles: Mithiwithi: Bungles continues to be allergic to any and all discussion of the actual facts of the case. The only things he seems able to discuss are the procedural details of the Italian legal system and why they should be considered trustworthy, and the media coverage of the case in Europe and why that should be considered superior to the "biased" coverage in the US. Except even there, he still doesn't want to talk about what the "biased" US press won't tell us.

I would like to remind you, sir, that you are posting on Fark, which is a no representative sample of Internet commenters, and the US posters are not a representative sample of Americans. Though individual variations exist, we tend to have a jaundiced view of the ability and willingness of police and courts in general to arrive at justice - and more importantly, we tend to have a jaundiced view of the news and entertainment media. Indeed, the belief that the press tends to favor sensationalism over facts is the very idea on which this site was founded.

Given that, please understand that expecting us to blindly trust the Italian justice system isn't a winning argument around here, and expecting us to blindly trust the EU media and the "court of public opinion" is even less so. If you want to actually persuade anyone here, you should be prepared to provide specific facts that call Amanda Knox's innocence into question - and be prepared to face a dismissive attitude if the facts you present cover only her demeanor, her personal life, or her coerced testimony while imprisoned.

Of course, maybe you just want to see your name in purple bold. That's part of Fark too.

I've no wish to play Miss Marple here, and I think all this armchair detective work is frankly daft.

None of us can discuss the "evidence", because all anyone here knows, including me, if the dribble and drabs of whatever media they listened to at the time. Playing internet sleuth using random flotsam isn't helping anyone, ...


So what you're saying is that in the do-over that was inexplicably granted that some new facts that the prosecution forgot to present at the original trial are going to come to light.  Brilliant.
 
2013-03-27 06:34:37 PM  

Bungles: My opinion isn't unusual, and is pretty mainstream, outside the US.


You keep saying stuff like this as if it actually has any bearing AT ALL on whether or not you're actually correct.

It doesn't.
 
2013-03-27 07:14:26 PM  

Falin: Bungles: My opinion isn't unusual, and is pretty mainstream, outside the US.

You keep saying stuff like this as if it actually has any bearing AT ALL on whether or not you're actually correct.

It doesn't.


It has a massive bearing on the general given in the US that this is some sort of injustice. Most people are delighted at the checks and balances here.
 
2013-03-27 07:17:27 PM  

steverockson: Bungles: steverockson: Bungles: Mithiwithi: Bungles continues to be allergic to any and all discussion of the actual facts of the case. The only things he seems able to discuss are the procedural details of the Italian legal system and why they should be considered trustworthy, and the media coverage of the case in Europe and why that should be considered superior to the "biased" coverage in the US. Except even there, he still doesn't want to talk about what the "biased" US press won't tell us.

I would like to remind you, sir, that you are posting on Fark, which is a no representative sample of Internet commenters, and the US posters are not a representative sample of Americans. Though individual variations exist, we tend to have a jaundiced view of the ability and willingness of police and courts in general to arrive at justice - and more importantly, we tend to have a jaundiced view of the news and entertainment media. Indeed, the belief that the press tends to favor sensationalism over facts is the very idea on which this site was founded.

Given that, please understand that expecting us to blindly trust the Italian justice system isn't a winning argument around here, and expecting us to blindly trust the EU media and the "court of public opinion" is even less so. If you want to actually persuade anyone here, you should be prepared to provide specific facts that call Amanda Knox's innocence into question - and be prepared to face a dismissive attitude if the facts you present cover only her demeanor, her personal life, or her coerced testimony while imprisoned.

Of course, maybe you just want to see your name in purple bold. That's part of Fark too.

I've no wish to play Miss Marple here, and I think all this armchair detective work is frankly daft.

None of us can discuss the "evidence", because all anyone here knows, including me, if the dribble and drabs of whatever media they listened to at the time. Playing internet sleuth using random flotsam isn't helping ...


So what you're saying is that in the do-over that was inexplicably granted that some new facts that the prosecution forgot to present at the original trial are going to come to light.  Brilliant.

When two courts disagree, a third steps in to see why, and to judge if the trial was flawed to begin with.

That's how it works. It's not the US system, but it's an entirely logically sound system.


Shall we bring up US conviction and overturn rates, if we want to see which system brings a more reliable justice?
 
2013-03-27 07:18:38 PM  

Bungles: Falin: Bungles: My opinion isn't unusual, and is pretty mainstream, outside the US.

You keep saying stuff like this as if it actually has any bearing AT ALL on whether or not you're actually correct.

It doesn't.

It has a massive bearing on the general given in the US that this is some sort of injustice. Most people are delighted at the checks and balances here.


Again, not American. Zero loyalty to the United States. Still pretty sure that this is a huge injustice. The fact that you take pleasure in subjecting an obviously innocent person to this kind of persecution and media tar/feathering makes you a huge tool no matter what country you come from.
 
2013-03-27 07:25:33 PM  

sudo give me more cowbell: Bungles: Falin: Bungles: My opinion isn't unusual, and is pretty mainstream, outside the US.

You keep saying stuff like this as if it actually has any bearing AT ALL on whether or not you're actually correct.

It doesn't.

It has a massive bearing on the general given in the US that this is some sort of injustice. Most people are delighted at the checks and balances here.

Again, not American. Zero loyalty to the United States. Still pretty sure that this is a huge injustice. The fact that you take pleasure in subjecting an obviously innocent person to this kind of persecution and media tar/feathering makes you a huge tool no matter what country you come from.


The level of presumption if your post is pretty impressive.

"Obviously innocent" - many disagree. In fact, most. Including the court. And the victim's family.

"Persecution" - many disagree. Most see the time served as being barely adequate for the slandering of an innocent man.

How is it being a tool to want a proper trial? And to follow the law of the land?

The tool here is you, not giving two shiats about the Kercher family -  you know the family of the actual victim here.
 
2013-03-27 07:40:10 PM  

Bungles: The level of presumption if your post is pretty impressive.

"Obviously innocent" - many disagree. In fact, most. Including the court. And the victim's family.


Facts are not determined by the democratic process. Throughout this entire process youve offered absolutely nothing by way of logical reasons to think that she might have been involved in the crime.

"Persecution" - many disagree. Most see the time served as being barely adequate for the slandering of an innocent man.

She suggested a lead for the police to follow up on. The fact that they accused him was their mistake, rather than acknowledge this mistake they've doubled down by blaming everything on the pretty American girl.

How is it being a tool to want a proper trial? And to follow the law of the land?

That would be respectable if the people in charge of the prosecution were demonstrating even the slightest bit of reasonable fairness. They're not. They're egomaniacs who can't admit that they're wrong and are drunk off of the tabloid spectable that has brought attention to their otherwise unimportant lives.

The tool here is you, not giving two shiats about the Kercher family - you know the family of the actual victim here.

At this point, my sympathy for them has been utterly exhausted. It must be horrible to lose a loved-one to a senseless crime, but to be so vindictive as to seek the lives of two other people that obviously (yes, I will use that word again, it is obvious to anyone with more than two farking neurons in their brain who's willing to look at the situation objectively) wasn't responsible for it is petty and vindictive.

It occurs to me now that perhaps you are a member of the Kercher family. In fact, that's really the only explanation that I can come up with for how you could stick so strictly to a conviction that is so drastically at odds with reason. If that's the case, all I can say is this isn't going to bring her back. Ruining someone else's life just isn't going to make you feel any better.
 
2013-03-27 07:47:03 PM  

sudo give me more cowbell: Bungles: The level of presumption if your post is pretty impressive.

"Obviously innocent" - many disagree. In fact, most. Including the court. And the victim's family.

Facts are not determined by the democratic process. Throughout this entire process youve offered absolutely nothing by way of logical reasons to think that she might have been involved in the crime.

"Persecution" - many disagree. Most see the time served as being barely adequate for the slandering of an innocent man.

She suggested a lead for the police to follow up on. The fact that they accused him was their mistake, rather than acknowledge this mistake they've doubled down by blaming everything on the pretty American girl.

How is it being a tool to want a proper trial? And to follow the law of the land?

That would be respectable if the people in charge of the prosecution were demonstrating even the slightest bit of reasonable fairness. They're not. They're egomaniacs who can't admit that they're wrong and are drunk off of the tabloid spectable that has brought attention to their otherwise unimportant lives.

The tool here is you, not giving two shiats about the Kercher family - you know the family of the actual victim here.

At this point, my sympathy for them has been utterly exhausted. It must be horrible to lose a loved-one to a senseless crime, but to be so vindictive as to seek the lives of two other people that obviously (yes, I will use that word again, it is obvious to anyone with more than two farking neurons in their brain who's willing to look at the situation objectively) wasn't responsible for it is petty and vindictive.

It occurs to me now that perhaps you are a member of the Kercher family. In fact, that's really the only explanation that I can come up with for how you could stick so strictly to a conviction that is so drastically at odds with reason. If that's the case, all I can say is this isn't going to bring her back. Ruining someone else's life just isn't going to make yo ...


I've no connection to the Kercher familiy whatsoever (I do, incidentally, know several people who have met Knox, but that has little bearing on my opinion.... what they describe could be explained as someone who was brutally changed by 3 years in jail and innocent, as much as someone broken and dangerous from the beginning).

If you're not American I find it odd that you find my view so odd. I'm positively pro-Knox compared to the non-US mainstream. People are demanding blood. I'd just like a proper trial, run by competent people.
 
2013-03-27 08:17:36 PM  

Bungles: If you're not American I find it odd that you find my view so odd. I'm positively pro-Knox compared to the non-US mainstream. People are demanding blood. I'd just like a proper trial, run by competent people.


Before you can justify that, there has to be credible reason to accuse her of a crime.
 
2013-03-27 08:31:18 PM  

Mithiwithi: Bungles: If you're not American I find it odd that you find my view so odd. I'm positively pro-Knox compared to the non-US mainstream. People are demanding blood. I'd just like a proper trial, run by competent people.

Before you can justify that, there has to be credible reason to accuse her of a crime.


The list of issues has been posted previously in this thread.
 
2013-03-27 08:33:13 PM  

Bungles: Mithiwithi: Bungles: If you're not American I find it odd that you find my view so odd. I'm positively pro-Knox compared to the non-US mainstream. People are demanding blood. I'd just like a proper trial, run by competent people.

Before you can justify that, there has to be credible reason to accuse her of a crime.

The list of issues has been posted previously in this thread.


Exactly.
 
2013-03-27 10:21:46 PM  

Mithiwithi: Bungles: Mithiwithi: Bungles: If you're not American I find it odd that you find my view so odd. I'm positively pro-Knox compared to the non-US mainstream. People are demanding blood. I'd just like a proper trial, run by competent people.

Before you can justify that, there has to be credible reason to accuse her of a crime.

The list of issues has been posted previously in this thread.

Exactly.



It's clearly enough to launch a case, unless you're already pre-judged your opinion.
 
2013-03-28 12:13:58 AM  
A fun question for Bungles - did Rudy Guede rape and murder Meredith Kircher, yes or no?
 
2013-03-28 12:42:09 PM  

Bungles: I'm not saying blindly trust the Italian system, all I'm saying is that the demonisation of it here is ridiculous, that she was never acquitted in the US sense, and that the view from much of the world is not as homogeneous as it seems to be in the US.


You keep saying this, but the problem is, you're wrong. In the US you only get one shot. They got their shot. In our book its over. that's what you arent getting. The reason you only get one shot is the strain it places on the individual and the incredible resources the prosecution has to make its case. It's a fair system. Putting an individual through years of court wrangling to be essentially at the mercy of forces beyond his control is cruel and unusual.
 
Displayed 36 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report