Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Yahoo)   Knox Knox.. who's there? Raffaele Sollecito arrested at the Austrian border   (uk.news.yahoo.com) divider line 233
    More: Followup, killer, identity document, Perugia, Virgin Media, borders  
•       •       •

6908 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jan 2014 at 9:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-31 11:00:35 AM  

T-Boy: I'd take a chance with her.  It might be epic, or I might get killed.  The odds are still in favor of a great time.  Crazy murderess sex.  Would you take that chance?


Yes.

Next question.
 
2014-01-31 11:01:24 AM  

Ant: walktoanarcade: Whoops, "contrary to their position,..doesn't scare me off."

Contrary, with good arguments is OK. Contrary with bad arguments, or contrary just for the sake of holding an opposing view is annoying.


You're annoyed because not only do I have the gall to disagree, but I refuse to make myself a clone of you or your cronies.
 
2014-01-31 11:02:07 AM  

raerae1980: Deathfrogg: raatz01: Poor bastard.

Thats just it. The Italians were hell bent on railroading these kids because they couldn't be bothered to do anything in the way of a real investigation, not to mention the Prosecutor openly stating that he couldn't prosecute an actual Italian national as it would make him look bad. The original prosecutor was so utterly convinced of his "theory" (which was a bizarre scenario based in his belief of how Americans really were from various b-grade movies and such) that he was almost eager to dismiss the actual physical evidence, and actually tried to have it suppressed in court while replacing it with some seriously outrageous conjecture on his part. He was also trying to redeem himself and regain credibility, as he had already used the scenario he prosecuted Knox with in several other trials and was under some serious scrutiny over malfeasances related to that. His entire case was circumstantial and required the physical evidence to be dismissed out of hand to believe.

The actual killer only got 7 years. They know he did it, and they went ahead and prosecuted the American anyway, because there are a lot of Italian folks who will always presume that Americans are really a bunch of Satan worshipers and homicidal sex maniacs. It made for good headlines, and the Prosecutor regained his credibility.

Tell me you've read Monster of Florence by Douglas Preston!!   If you haven't, you need to.



That was a very disturbing book, and not because of the murders it described. The US State Department should warn American travelers to Italy about avoiding even the semblance of a connection to criminal activity while there, because they'll never get a fair shake.
 
2014-01-31 11:02:44 AM  

walktoanarcade: Differing opinions sure do smart, eh?

Ow ow ow..;

Her story is unbelievable. She either helped or watched, albeit stoney-eyed.


Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, if you can.
 
2014-01-31 11:04:43 AM  

mjones73: walktoanarcade: mjones73: walktoanarcade: Someone REALLY wants to bang her. ;)

Anyway, there's no way she didn't know of or participate in the murder, and if the accused were a male or ugly woman, no one would care.

If the killing took place inside an epically huge mansion, then maybe I would believe her bullshiat story.

Is there some proof she was in the apartment at the time it happened?

Heh, so much for her defense that she was too stoned to notice anything(which is a lame excuse anyway).

Which is it? She had all her mental faculties and was somewhere else, or she was hopelessly drunk/stoned/otherwise drugged up and failed to notice a killing in the same room, or a nearby room.

Just asking, I didn't follow the case closely enough to know.


Oh, I wasn't getting pissy or anything, I'm glad you asked too since it's at the core of her defense.
And to your question: I don't know.

Like you, I'm not an armchair expert on this.
 
Ant
2014-01-31 11:05:12 AM  

walktoanarcade: You're annoyed because not only do I have the gall to disagree, but I refuse to make myself a clone of you or your cronies.


What's annoying is that you seem to be taking the opposite stance because you think it makes you look smart. It doesn't.
 
2014-01-31 11:06:26 AM  

MagicianNamedGob: walktoanarcade: Differing opinions sure do smart, eh?

Ow ow ow..;

Her story is unbelievable. She either helped or watched, albeit stoney-eyed.

Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, if you can.


All right. When the story first broke, I remember her saying that she was there, but too drugged out to do any killing, then her story changed to her not being there at all.
 
2014-01-31 11:07:37 AM  

jaytkay: The UK press has really whipped up a hate fest for Knox.

Is that just the tabloids or do the real new outlets agree?


Just the tabloids, the BBC has the whole write-up about how the police sucked and failed forensics 101
 
2014-01-31 11:08:21 AM  

Por que tan serioso: Except that in her case there was never a not guilty verdict. Sooooooo....not double jeopardy. At all. Under American law. Or Italian.


Uh yes, actually she was.  It was a formal acquittal, i.e. the jury found her not guilty.
 
2014-01-31 11:11:15 AM  

walktoanarcade: Differing opinions sure do smart, eh?

Ow ow ow..;

Her story is unbelievable. She either helped or watched, albeit stoney-eyed.


She got high with her boyfriend and hung out all night though the details are kinda hazy to her.

Meanwhile in a blood splattered room where a horrific struggle took place there is zero evidence she was ever there.
And a guy who was there has confessed to being there, been sentenced, and changed his tune on his story so many times it'll be interesting to see what he says next.
 
2014-01-31 11:11:36 AM  

yukichigai: Por que tan serioso: Except that in her case there was never a not guilty verdict. Sooooooo....not double jeopardy. At all. Under American law. Or Italian.

Uh yes, actually she was.  It was a formal acquittal, i.e. the jury found her not guilty.


I think they're trying to play on the differences in the Italian vs. the US court system.  In the Italian court system you are not found guilty until it has gone through three levels (?) of courts.  I believe the same is true to being found not guilty.  You have to be found not guilty at all levels for it to be finished.  If someone is going by that rationale, then she was never found guilty either.
 
2014-01-31 11:12:55 AM  

walktoanarcade: mjones73: walktoanarcade: mjones73: walktoanarcade: Someone REALLY wants to bang her. ;)

Anyway, there's no way she didn't know of or participate in the murder, and if the accused were a male or ugly woman, no one would care.

If the killing took place inside an epically huge mansion, then maybe I would believe her bullshiat story.

Is there some proof she was in the apartment at the time it happened?

Heh, so much for her defense that she was too stoned to notice anything(which is a lame excuse anyway).

Which is it? She had all her mental faculties and was somewhere else, or she was hopelessly drunk/stoned/otherwise drugged up and failed to notice a killing in the same room, or a nearby room.

Just asking, I didn't follow the case closely enough to know.

Oh, I wasn't getting pissy or anything, I'm glad you asked too since it's at the core of her defense.
And to your question: I don't know.

Like you, I'm not an armchair expert on this.


Yeah, I'd have to go back and look. The guy who is actually in prison for sexual assault and murder has changed is story so many times it's not funny either. In has case, there's DNA and physical evidence backing up his involvement. I've read he's stated he was in the house with her alone, then he was kissing her, went to the bathroom and came back finding a shadowing figure over her with a knife who fled and also changing it to say he saw Knox leaving...
 
2014-01-31 11:13:06 AM  
The one thing that is true about this whole case is it probably wouldn't have gotten the press if she was ugly.  So if she was ugly she would be rotting away in an Italian jail, good thing she's not.
 
2014-01-31 11:14:20 AM  

yakmans_dad: sovietski: nekom: HotWingConspiracy:
Do you really think people here are going to be ok with shipping her off to an Italian prison after their bizarre 3rd world justice system decided they were going to convict on a do over?

Not to mention that this is a country that jailed geologists for failing to predict an earthquake.  As much contempt I have for our own justice system, theirs is FAR worse, and demonstrably so.  No way in hell I'd extradite anyone to Italy if it were up to me.

Dafuq?

Surely you jest.

/not calling you Shirley

http://bit.ly/1eDcMZB


O.o

I'm surprised the prosecutor didn't try to say that the seismologists were having a gay, Satanic, drug-fueled orgy while they were supposed to be predicting the earthquake.

I am going to have to check out the book a Farker recommended yesterday in the Knox thread, by Douglas Preston. Apparently he got a first hand glimpse of Italian prosecutorial craziness.

/such a beautiful country
//mmm buffalo mozzarella
 
2014-01-31 11:14:20 AM  

Ant: walktoanarcade: You're annoyed because not only do I have the gall to disagree, but I refuse to make myself a clone of you or your cronies.

What's annoying is that you seem to be taking the opposite stance because you think it makes you look smart. It doesn't.


That's not it because my stance on this case is based on what was reported years ago.
Do you honestly believe that I think for a second that adopting a contrary position for the sake of being contrary is smart?  I often say, rebellion for rebelling's sake is stupid.
 
2014-01-31 11:15:07 AM  

walktoanarcade: MagicianNamedGob: walktoanarcade: Differing opinions sure do smart, eh?

Ow ow ow..;

Her story is unbelievable. She either helped or watched, albeit stoney-eyed.

Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, if you can.

All right. When the story first broke, I remember her saying that she was there, but too drugged out to do any killing, then her story changed to her not being there at all.


She has always said she was at Sollecito's apartment. She never said she was in the room at the time of the murder - except once, according to police. The police claimed she made statements to that effect, but they abused her into giving a false statement. They questioned her for hours, deprived her of sleep and food, promised her she wasn't a suspect and could go if she told them what they wanted to hear, and then made her sign a statement in Italian while in that condition, without a translator, and without ever seeing an attorney. The statement named an innocent man as the killer and was completely wrong. The police fed her the innocent man's name (it was her boss at the bar where she worked) because they found texts between them sent shortly before the murder. The police then promptly "lost" the interrogation tapes. They kept their signed statement though.
 
2014-01-31 11:19:03 AM  

Kentucky Fried Children: If Knox was a smart girl, the minute she was released after the first jail stint she would've moved to a country with no extradition treaty with the Italians.


Moving to a country with no extradition treaty isn't the escape route a lot of people think it is.  Extradition treaties work both ways, as in they can allow for extradition and they can also prevent it, and they generally force the countries in question to handle the matter in a civilised fashion and in a reasonable amount of time.

Just because a country doesn't have an extradition treaty with another does  not mean they won't extradite, but it  does mean someone is subject to that country's own legal system with no protection of a treaty.  More than a few people in situations like this one have run off to countries without bilateral treaties and have found the country where they were convicted still requests extradition and the "no treaty" country just tosses them in a local hellhole prison for several years while they figure out what to do.  It's not a get out of jail free card.

But she didn't, and chose to stay in the US where we have a strong bilateral history of extradition with them.

My guess in this case, although I haven't read the treaty in question, is that there is probably something in there about refusing extradition if the trial in Italy would have been illegal by USA laws, which this would have been due to the Double Jeopardy clause.
 
2014-01-31 11:19:36 AM  

whitman00: walktoanarcade: Differing opinions sure do smart, eh?

Ow ow ow..;

Her story is unbelievable. She either helped or watched, albeit stoney-eyed.

She got high with her boyfriend and hung out all night though the details are kinda hazy to her.

Meanwhile in a blood splattered room where a horrific struggle took place there is zero evidence she was ever there.
And a guy who was there has confessed to being there, been sentenced, and changed his tune on his story so many times it'll be interesting to see what he says next.


I can't ignore that, if true. It would be quite a feat to not leave any physical evidence.  Then again, people in the U.S. have been put to death by circumstantial evidence, so being "clean" isn't a sure bet to avoid a murder rap.   We're talking about Italy, though, so I have no clue as to how they feel.
 
2014-01-31 11:24:27 AM  

ShadowKamui: jaytkay: The UK press has really whipped up a hate fest for Knox.

Is that just the tabloids or do the real new outlets agree?

Just the tabloids, the BBC has the whole write-up about how the police sucked and failed forensics 101




In their article on her conviction yesterday they conveniently left out that Rudy Guede had been found guilty of the murder and his hand print in the victims blood was found at the scene along with a bloody footprint. I don't know how Knox gets convicted when the only physical evidence points to someone else. A lot of the coverage leaves out that crucial part.
 
2014-01-31 11:25:15 AM  

mjones73: walktoanarcade: mjones73: walktoanarcade: mjones73: walktoanarcade: Someone REALLY wants to bang her. ;)

Anyway, there's no way she didn't know of or participate in the murder, and if the accused were a male or ugly woman, no one would care.

If the killing took place inside an epically huge mansion, then maybe I would believe her bullshiat story.

Is there some proof she was in the apartment at the time it happened?

Heh, so much for her defense that she was too stoned to notice anything(which is a lame excuse anyway).

Which is it? She had all her mental faculties and was somewhere else, or she was hopelessly drunk/stoned/otherwise drugged up and failed to notice a killing in the same room, or a nearby room.

Just asking, I didn't follow the case closely enough to know.

Oh, I wasn't getting pissy or anything, I'm glad you asked too since it's at the core of her defense.
And to your question: I don't know.

Like you, I'm not an armchair expert on this.

Yeah, I'd have to go back and look. The guy who is actually in prison for sexual assault and murder has changed is story so many times it's not funny either. In has case, there's DNA and physical evidence backing up his involvement. I've read he's stated he was in the house with her alone, then he was kissing her, went to the bathroom and came back finding a shadowing figure over her with a knife who fled and also changing it to say he saw Knox leaving...


At least he's in prison, huh? This still makes me wonder how in the world Knox didn't know anything if she was there, if she wasn't, does she have an alibi?

We'll probably never know what happened exactly.
 
2014-01-31 11:27:43 AM  

MagicianNamedGob: walktoanarcade: MagicianNamedGob: walktoanarcade: Differing opinions sure do smart, eh?

Ow ow ow..;

Her story is unbelievable. She either helped or watched, albeit stoney-eyed.

Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, if you can.

All right. When the story first broke, I remember her saying that she was there, but too drugged out to do any killing, then her story changed to her not being there at all.

She has always said she was at Sollecito's apartment. She never said she was in the room at the time of the murder - except once, according to police. The police claimed she made statements to that effect, but they abused her into giving a false statement. They questioned her for hours, deprived her of sleep and food, promised her she wasn't a suspect and could go if she told them what they wanted to hear, and then made her sign a statement in Italian while in that condition, without a translator, and without ever seeing an attorney. The statement named an innocent man as the killer and was completely wrong. The police fed her the innocent man's name (it was her boss at the bar where she worked) because they found texts between them sent shortly before the murder. The police then promptly "lost" the interrogation tapes. They kept their signed statement though.


If that's all true, then she's been railroaded, and it's a travesty of injustice.

The losing of the tapes sounds oh so convenient I must admit.
 
2014-01-31 11:28:38 AM  

Headso: [www.pepperidgefarm.com image 372x397]

RIP Mr. Sausalito


Mmmmmmm.  Yummy.  Now I need a refreshing glass of cold whole milk.  I'm sure my cubicle neighbors won't mind my lactose intolerance.
 
2014-01-31 11:30:34 AM  

discount sushi: ShadowKamui: jaytkay: The UK press has really whipped up a hate fest for Knox.

Is that just the tabloids or do the real new outlets agree?

Just the tabloids, the BBC has the whole write-up about how the police sucked and failed forensics 101

In their article on her conviction yesterday they conveniently left out that Rudy Guede had been found guilty of the murder and his hand print in the victims blood was found at the scene along with a bloody footprint. I don't know how Knox gets convicted when the only physical evidence points to someone else. A lot of the coverage leaves out that crucial part.


As mentioned by parties on all sides of this -- the burglar vagrant man raping and murdering a woman angle is nowhere as lurid or headline-inspiring as the Privileged-Imperialist-American-Sex-Murdering-Sociopath-Femme-Fatale-S atanist-Orgy-Murder angle.

The only difference is: some people note that there's no public, physical evidence of her involvement or proximity in a gruesome stabbing and murder, only of the one guy who's already in prison, and some people say they just know that she's guilty because she has that look in her eye and was just obviously there.
 
2014-01-31 11:32:42 AM  

SlothB77: He had apparently crossed over the border into Austria late last night - but returned to Italy of his own accord, Sky's Nick Pisa said.


dumbass.


I don't know, 28 years in prison vs living in Austria? Tough choice.
 
2014-01-31 11:34:01 AM  

walktoanarcade: whitman00: walktoanarcade: Differing opinions sure do smart, eh?

Ow ow ow..;

Her story is unbelievable. She either helped or watched, albeit stoney-eyed.

She got high with her boyfriend and hung out all night though the details are kinda hazy to her.

Meanwhile in a blood splattered room where a horrific struggle took place there is zero evidence she was ever there.
And a guy who was there has confessed to being there, been sentenced, and changed his tune on his story so many times it'll be interesting to see what he says next.

I can't ignore that, if true. It would be quite a feat to not leave any physical evidence.  Then again, people in the U.S. have been put to death by circumstantial evidence, so being "clean" isn't a sure bet to avoid a murder rap.   We're talking about Italy, though, so I have no clue as to how they feel.


People convicted based on circumstantial evidence usually have a clear motive or the exclusive opportunity to commit murder. Generally people are not convicted on circumstantial evidence when another person's DNA is found in the victim's vagina and under her fingernails, left bloody fingerprints on her bed, and that person also happens to be a serial burglar and drug dealer who was recently arrested with a knife and then caught trying to flee to Germany. The killer, Rudy Guede, also confessed and did so without naming Knox or Sollecito.
 
2014-01-31 11:34:21 AM  

SurelyShirley: SlothB77: He had apparently crossed over the border into Austria late last night - but returned to Italy of his own accord, Sky's Nick Pisa said.


dumbass.

I don't know, 28 years in prison vs living in Austria? Tough choice.


What, people don't just sit around, get stoned and jam in Austria?

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-31 11:35:35 AM  

walktoanarcade: No, but it's true in a lot of cases. (see Casey Anthony)


Who the fark defended Casey Anthony other than her lawyer? Everybody knew she was guilty. Was she smoking hot, hells yes, but that didn't change anybody's opinion that she killed her daughter other than maybe a handful of crazy people who probably also defend Michael Jackson.

You're an idiot.

Some drifter with a history of breaking into homes broke into their apartment and raped and killed Kercher, and Knox and Sollecito decided to participate? What world do you live in?
 
2014-01-31 11:37:26 AM  

SurelyShirley: SlothB77: He had apparently crossed over the border into Austria late last night - but returned to Italy of his own accord, Sky's Nick Pisa said.


dumbass.

I don't know, 28 years in prison vs living in Austria? Tough choice.


Seriously. Austria makes those that wish to divorce wait six months.
 
2014-01-31 11:42:51 AM  

walktoanarcade: Whoops, "contrary to their position,..doesn't scare me off."

Grow some thicker skin, some of you.




www.tacomaworld.com
 
2014-01-31 11:43:06 AM  
Amanda Knox needs to stop doing interviews. Seriously.

They have no evidence and botched the whole investigation and the prosecutor is a lunatic and the entire justice system over there is a joke.

Yet when Amanda talks, I swear I think she's guilty. Anybody see her this morning on GMA? She was crying, but no tears were coming out of her eyes. There's just something...off...about her.
 
2014-01-31 11:43:24 AM  

MagicianNamedGob: walktoanarcade: whitman00: walktoanarcade: Differing opinions sure do smart, eh?

Ow ow ow..;

Her story is unbelievable. She either helped or watched, albeit stoney-eyed.

She got high with her boyfriend and hung out all night though the details are kinda hazy to her.

Meanwhile in a blood splattered room where a horrific struggle took place there is zero evidence she was ever there.
And a guy who was there has confessed to being there, been sentenced, and changed his tune on his story so many times it'll be interesting to see what he says next.

I can't ignore that, if true. It would be quite a feat to not leave any physical evidence.  Then again, people in the U.S. have been put to death by circumstantial evidence, so being "clean" isn't a sure bet to avoid a murder rap.   We're talking about Italy, though, so I have no clue as to how they feel.

People convicted based on circumstantial evidence usually have a clear motive or the exclusive opportunity to commit murder. Generally people are not convicted on circumstantial evidence when another person's DNA is found in the victim's vagina and under her fingernails, left bloody fingerprints on her bed, and that person also happens to be a serial burglar and drug dealer who was recently arrested with a knife and then caught trying to flee to Germany. The killer, Rudy Guede, also confessed and did so without naming Knox or Sollecito.


Ah, thanks for sharing that with me. *vomits*  No, really, though.

If you're wondering if I'm reconsidering based on what you've said, you're right.  She still strikes me as guilty in some way and the story from "Rudy" could be apocryphal, buy hey, I could be wrong.
 
2014-01-31 11:44:56 AM  

mudesi: Amanda Knox needs to stop doing interviews. Seriously.

They have no evidence and botched the whole investigation and the prosecutor is a lunatic and the entire justice system over there is a joke.

Yet when Amanda talks, I swear I think she's guilty. Anybody see her this morning on GMA? She was crying, but no tears were coming out of her eyes. There's just something...off...about her.


That's my biggest problem with her new appearances. Yes.
 
2014-01-31 11:45:21 AM  

walktoanarcade: SurelyShirley: SlothB77: He had apparently crossed over the border into Austria late last night - but returned to Italy of his own accord, Sky's Nick Pisa said.


dumbass.

I don't know, 28 years in prison vs living in Austria? Tough choice.

Seriously. Austria makes those that wish to divorce wait six months.


Sollecito strikes me as having a serious case of Honour Before Reason. I get that he wants his name cleared and he's been railroaded to hell and back, but seriously, once you're out of the country, STAY OUT. Though I'm pretty sure Austria would have extradited him to Italy in any case, he could have gone from there to somewhere less friendly to Italian "justice" at the moment.
 
2014-01-31 11:46:17 AM  

Kit Fister: Say what you want about the American justice system, but this case is a prime example of why Double Jeopardy is a valuable thing.


This also lets you write books called, If I Did It
 
2014-01-31 11:48:14 AM  

walktoanarcade: mudesi: Amanda Knox needs to stop doing interviews. Seriously.

They have no evidence and botched the whole investigation and the prosecutor is a lunatic and the entire justice system over there is a joke.

Yet when Amanda talks, I swear I think she's guilty. Anybody see her this morning on GMA? She was crying, but no tears were coming out of her eyes. There's just something...off...about her.

That's my biggest problem with her new appearances. Yes.


I think that was part of her problem to begin with -- she just presents herself oddly. In a way she reminds me of some of the kids on the spectrum at my son's school (no, I'm NOT saying she's on the spectrum, just drawing a comparison) in the way that they don't quite seem to really get what "appropriate" reactions to something are, and often have to learn to do them by rote. None of which means they're more likely to kill someone or have magical DNA-erasing powers, but for someone who doesn't know much about the case, unfortunately they're likely to look at her and think "There's something off about that chick."

Of course, the five years of being internationally reviled as a witch and four years in prison probably didn't help her presentation either.
 
2014-01-31 11:50:52 AM  

Por que tan serioso: yukichigai: Por que tan serioso: the8re: It's simple: if other countries won't extradite to the US because capital punishment, then we should refuse to export Amanda because FARK YOU THAT'S WHY! double jeopardy.

Except that, as has been stated many many many times, it is not double jeopardy. At all. According to American law. Or Italian.

Double Jeopardy protection kicks in the minute there is a verdict of Not Guilty.  So long as that verdict was made by a court which had jurisdiction at the time then that's it.

The only way this wouldn't be Double Jeopardy as the US defines it is if the higher Italian court overturned the Not Guilty verdict because the lower court was bribed or similar.  If there was a risk she could have been convicted (or was "in jeopardy") and then she wasn't then the protection stands.

walktoanarcade: Someone REALLY wants to bang her. ;)

Anyway, there's no way she didn't know of or participate in the murder, and if the accused were a male or ugly woman, no one would care.

If the killing took place inside an epically huge mansion, then maybe I would believe her bullshiat story.

4/10.  Might get a few nibbles, but anybody who spent more than about five minutes reading the details of the events is going to know better.

Except that in her case there was never a not guilty verdict. Sooooooo....not double jeopardy. At all. Under American law. Or Italian.


I thought once there was ANY verdict, DJ came into play.  Any lawyers wanna help us out?
 
2014-01-31 11:51:08 AM  

BgJonson79: Por que tan serioso: the8re: It's simple: if other countries won't extradite to the US because capital punishment, then we should refuse to export Amanda because FARK YOU THAT'S WHY! double jeopardy.

Except that, as has been stated many many many times, it is not double jeopardy. At all. According to American law. Or Italian.

Source?


In the article posted to the main page yesterday it was discussed near the end.
 
2014-01-31 11:52:08 AM  

RenownedCurator: walktoanarcade: mudesi: Amanda Knox needs to stop doing interviews. Seriously.

They have no evidence and botched the whole investigation and the prosecutor is a lunatic and the entire justice system over there is a joke.

Yet when Amanda talks, I swear I think she's guilty. Anybody see her this morning on GMA? She was crying, but no tears were coming out of her eyes. There's just something...off...about her.

That's my biggest problem with her new appearances. Yes.

I think that was part of her problem to begin with -- she just presents herself oddly. In a way she reminds me of some of the kids on the spectrum at my son's school (no, I'm NOT saying she's on the spectrum, just drawing a comparison) in the way that they don't quite seem to really get what "appropriate" reactions to something are, and often have to learn to do them by rote. None of which means they're more likely to kill someone or have magical DNA-erasing powers, but for someone who doesn't know much about the case, unfortunately they're likely to look at her and think "There's something off about that chick."

Of course, the five years of being internationally reviled as a witch and four years in prison probably didn't help her presentation either.


I don't know...If you saw her on GMA this morning, I swear she looked like she was fake crying. It's possible she was involved in this murder, but they most certainly can't prove it.
 
2014-01-31 11:53:18 AM  

mjbok: Por que tan serioso: Except that in her case there was never a not guilty verdict. Sooooooo....not double jeopardy. At all. Under American law. Or Italian.

Her guilty verdict was over-turned and she was acquitted.  You are wrong.  http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/15/world/europe/italy-amanda-knox/


Nope. I afraid we have reached the point in a fark thread where i can continue to explain it but I will never be able to understand it for you.
 
2014-01-31 11:53:48 AM  

Por que tan serioso: BgJonson79: Por que tan serioso: the8re: It's simple: if other countries won't extradite to the US because capital punishment, then we should refuse to export Amanda because FARK YOU THAT'S WHY! double jeopardy.

Except that, as has been stated many many many times, it is not double jeopardy. At all. According to American law. Or Italian.

Source?

In the article posted to the main page yesterday it was discussed near the end.


So I have to go digging for your proof?  Sounds like the Italian legal system.
 
2014-01-31 11:54:07 AM  

RenownedCurator: walktoanarcade: mudesi: Amanda Knox needs to stop doing interviews. Seriously.

They have no evidence and botched the whole investigation and the prosecutor is a lunatic and the entire justice system over there is a joke.

Yet when Amanda talks, I swear I think she's guilty. Anybody see her this morning on GMA? She was crying, but no tears were coming out of her eyes. There's just something...off...about her.

That's my biggest problem with her new appearances. Yes.

I think that was part of her problem to begin with -- she just presents herself oddly. In a way she reminds me of some of the kids on the spectrum at my son's school (no, I'm NOT saying she's on the spectrum, just drawing a comparison) in the way that they don't quite seem to really get what "appropriate" reactions to something are, and often have to learn to do them by rote. None of which means they're more likely to kill someone or have magical DNA-erasing powers, but for someone who doesn't know much about the case, unfortunately they're likely to look at her and think "There's something off about that chick."

Of course, the five years of being internationally reviled as a witch and four years in prison probably didn't help her presentation either.


Maybe that's the whole reason why I tend to think she's guilty. If so, I apologize to the world, if not, then no sorries and take backsies.

As I was reading what you wrote, I was remembering that I react oddly sometimes, like if someone accuses me of something ridiculous, I tend to laugh even if it's serious(not all the time). It can be a problem, but I stifle it as much as I can(like if I'm pulled over for speeding).

It has caused people to "know" I was lying, but then they find out I was telling the truth and they're like, "then why were you acting silly/funny?", and I tell them, "that's the way I am."

Remind me never to go to Italy to party. Visit yes, party, no. If something happens, they'll never believe me.
 
2014-01-31 11:54:26 AM  

Por que tan serioso: mjbok: Por que tan serioso: Except that in her case there was never a not guilty verdict. Sooooooo....not double jeopardy. At all. Under American law. Or Italian.

Her guilty verdict was over-turned and she was acquitted.  You are wrong.  http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/15/world/europe/italy-amanda-knox/

Nope. I afraid we have reached the point in a fark thread where i can continue to explain it but I will never be able to understand it for you.


So even though the article said she was acquitted, she wasn't acquitted?
 
2014-01-31 11:54:58 AM  
Jeez. Everybody's a Judge WOPner.
 
2014-01-31 11:56:02 AM  

yukichigai: Por que tan serioso: Except that in her case there was never a not guilty verdict. Sooooooo....not double jeopardy. At all. Under American law. Or Italian.

Uh yes, actually she was.  It was a formal acquittal, i.e. the jury found her not guilty.


Alan Dershowitz disagrees.
 
2014-01-31 11:59:56 AM  
I know he does not have the combined legal experience of a cnn article but I am going with his opinion on this. As well as 10+ years in criminal defense.
 
2014-01-31 12:00:08 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-01-31 12:00:57 PM  
www.troll.me
 
2014-01-31 12:01:40 PM  

BgJonson79: Por que tan serioso: BgJonson79: Por que tan serioso: the8re: It's simple: if other countries won't extradite to the US because capital punishment, then we should refuse to export Amanda because FARK YOU THAT'S WHY! double jeopardy.

Except that, as has been stated many many many times, it is not double jeopardy. At all. According to American law. Or Italian.

Source?

In the article posted to the main page yesterday it was discussed near the end.

So I have to go digging for your proof?  Sounds like the Italian legal system.


Ha!! Im on a mobile. Google "alan dershowitz amanda knox".
 
2014-01-31 12:02:02 PM  
BgJonson79:
So even though the article said she was acquitted, she wasn't acquitted?

It's more like when someone in the U.S. gets a conviction turned over on appeal. It's not an acquittal and the case can be retried if the prosecution decides to do so. Double Jeopardy is not attached. Which is why people need to stop talking about double jeopardy being a reason she won't be extradited. It just doesn't apply.
 
2014-01-31 12:04:10 PM  

Por que tan serioso: yukichigai: Por que tan serioso: Except that in her case there was never a not guilty verdict. Sooooooo....not double jeopardy. At all. Under American law. Or Italian.

Uh yes, actually she was.  It was a formal acquittal, i.e. the jury found her not guilty.

Alan Dershowitz disagrees.


I gave a GED in law, and even I know that Knox wasn't found not guilty and acquitted.
 
Displayed 50 of 233 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report