Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Dagless, Dec 4, 2009.
Sentenced to 26 years.
I wonder if she really did it. From what I heard of the case it sounds like she didn't get the fairest of trials.
Yeah, there was no DNA evidence on her or at the crime scene. One "expert" interviewed claims that it's not possible to not leave DNA evidence behind at the scene of a violent struggle, or to not take incriminating DNA from the scene. I don't understand the basis of the conviction. Perhaps the newspapers and magazines will be able to do a better job of explaining that than they have time for on TV.
The only people who heard all the evidence were those in the court room and it is their oppinion that the accuseds guilt was shown. You will never be able to fully understand the basis of conviction without actually being there, you dont see the witnesses give evidence and you cant therefore properly discern their credibility. No magazine article is ever going to be able to explain what happened in that court room properly.
Also on the DNA point there was a rather famous Scottish criminal case where there was no DNA evidence and a conviction was still secured and upheld on appeal- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4098795.stm
Agreed, if it really was bad justice, then they can appeal.
I find it funny (well, sad, really) that the media focuses on Knox and pretends Sollecito doesn't exist. All the headlines read "Amanda Knox guilty," if you were just skimming the news articles you wouldn't realize two people were convicted. Why? Because Knox is hot.
I think the real shame of it is they were there and know what happened, yet the parents will always wonder what really happened to their little girl.
Maybe the Jury got it right, maybe they didn't. I find some of the evidence to cast doubt (knife used, DNA, etc.), but with three people (first guy got convicted in a separate trial), nobody came forward to tell the truth. They tried to blame it on some homeless guy at first. If it wasn't for that, I would have thought more highly of her.
All three have plenty of time to think about it now though...
Sollecito is Italian, no? The American media are focusing on Knox because she is American.
if she didn't get a fair trial then they should appeal...
Italy is about the most dysfunctional country in Europe. I don't know if they were guilty, but it's pretty clear this conviction wasn't based upon credible evidence.
Reasonable doubt takes a back seat to Italian machismo and anti-American sentiment that was appropriate at the time of the murder (dont tell me you forgot it happened in 2007...bush's endtime)
Whether they did it or not, reasonable doubt for MURDER wasn't met at any point and no one disputes this from a logical evidential standpoint. But, me being American and they Italian, I have no clue how their justice system works, but from where I stand, it dont work very well at all. No sequestering? Prosecutors under review during the trial? Wow.
Video for a quick comparison between US and Italian justice systems:
Maybe, though the British media also focused on Knox; anyone just glimpsing some of the newspaper headlines on Saturday would have thought that Sollecito got off.
You also have to remember that in the Italian system, they only have to have a majority to convict, it doesn't have to be unanimous. The results of the vote on each count should be filed within the next 90 days to see how the jury was swaying.
Apparently the prosecution pulled out a nice video reenactment of what they thought happened, which apparently was pretty influential when they showed it to the jury.
According to the authorities, there were a couple of things that really didn't add up, one was that they said there was a break-in, but she didn't enter the girls room and nothing was taken. Yet somehow on her forced confession, she knew what position the body was in.
So was it scared reaction to an accident? I don't think anyone but those three will ever know.
Edit: Retract that last comment. This article explains the evidence quite clearly (embarrassingly from The Daily Mail):
Yes, this does seem like shaky evidence to me. None of it proves her innocence, but it doesn't appear to prove her (or her boyfriend's) guilt. I hope there is more to the case than this because this stuff is extremely troubling.
Yes, all this is extremely odd.
One of the worst things for me, and something that I haven't seen remarked on before, is the destruction of the hard drives of three seperate laptops (one belonging to Sollecito and two to Knox.) by the police forensic expert examining them.
How is it possible to destroy a HD while examining it? Don't you have to leave it untouched?
There are various forensic HDD imaging tools available - they are certified to make a read-only connection to a HDD to let you make a bit-for-bit duplicate of the HDD for investigation. They will block any write attempt, even accidental, in order to let you certify the original HDD was untouched in court.
and there are many others. From Wiki:
This isn't rare or exotic equipment, it's standard for any police IT lab, and it doesn't cost much.
So, given all that, how is it possible for the police 'expert' to 'destroy' THREE laptops in a row? Especially as these laptops could well have exonerated Knox and Sollecito or confirmed their guilt.
Destruction of evidence I call it.
what i find interesting is all those comments about the italian justice system: wasn't it the US (or the UK?) a few years ago where the one teacher got a lesser penalty for sleeping with her pupil because she was "too good looking for prison" ?
26 Mar 2013: Italy court: Amanda Knox to be retried for Meredith Kercher murder
This is why you want the 5th Amendment and the Double Jeopardy provision. The U.S. would be very wrong to allow her extradition. I have no idea if she is innocent or guilty, but there is no reason why an individual should be subjected to multiple trials until the State gets the verdict it wants...
Agreed. While I think that she may have been involved, I don't think she should be extradited.
Mmmm Foxy Knoxy.
I guess the US would drag its heels over any extradition requests, not looking so good for Raffaele though?
I don't think she should either, but...
...the U.S. constitution doesn't apply in Italy.
If she doesn't get extradited, then Americans will soon realize they can commit any crime they like here then flee to Italy for safe haven, knowing that (to return the favor), Italy won't send them back for trial here.
I think it is pretty normal for countries to to put restrictions on extradition e.g not extraditing citizens , not extraditing people who would face the death penalty. And of course the US has kidnapped people from Italy in the past.
She was already tried. Just keep trying until you get it right I guess?
Just heard, basically it's like an appeal by the defense. The trial has to go through 3 courts before it's done. The issue is that they 3rd level sent it back to the 2nd level, which means it's being retried. Said it could take as long as 3 years.
I could understand sending it to the 3rd level, but just going back through the evidence to try again to get it right, keeping her locked up for years? Outrageous.
Too hot to be guilty of anything...
This would be called double jeopardy in the USA.
That's why she will never be extradited .
Seems like an incredible waste of time and money not to mention the unusual interpretation of Italian law which allows almost unlimited bites of the apple by the prosecution.