Amanda Knox retrial begins

lukin · 31-01-2014 11:40AM

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

In fairness, Italy is his home and based on the evidence of the case it's understandable that he'd be confident of being exonerated.

The more I read about the case, the more I'm amazed that they've overturned the verdict.

How wrong he was.

ebbsy · 31-01-2014 11:43AM

Maybe they are going have a best of 5.

2-1 to the guilty so far.

Pepe LeFrits · 31-01-2014 11:44AM

BQQ wrote: »

Remarkable, considering she lived in the apartment.
Her DNA should be everywhere.

The only ones furnished with the full facts were the juries and they came to a guilty verdict. Twice.
The idea that they are conspiring to put innocent people in prison is laughable.
The idea that the italian police are trying to frame people when they already have someone in prison is laughable.

Believe it or not, Italians are intelligent, civilised people (just like us).

Ah, the argument from authority.

They also found them innocent.

The police denied Amanda Knox (a legally mandated) lawyer for 5 days of interrogation. They are clearly not above suspicion.

bumper234 · 31-01-2014 11:58AM

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Ah, the argument from authority.

They also found them innocent.

The police denied Amanda Knox (a legally mandated) lawyer for 5 days of interrogation. They are clearly not above suspicion.

Because this doesn't happen in any other country :rolleyes:

BQQ · 31-01-2014 12:13PM

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Ah, the argument from authority.

They also found them innocent.

The police denied Amanda Knox (a legally mandated) lawyer for 5 days of interrogation. They are clearly not above suspicion.

Ah, the ad hominem attack.
And based on a false premise, I might add.

Verdict was overturned due to the following:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/30/world/europe/italy-amanda-knox-retrial/

Italy's Supreme Court in March overturned the pair's acquittals, saying that the jury did not consider all the evidence and that discrepancies in testimony needed to be answered.

More technicality than proof of innocence, it would seem.
Those issues were no doubt addressed during the new appeal and what was the verdict? Guilty.

A Primal Nut · 31-01-2014 12:34PM

lukin wrote: »

This will drag on for years and Knox will almost certainly never serve a day in prison.

She already served four years.

humanji · 31-01-2014 12:35PM

Here's an interesting article about the Italian legal system: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/27/us-italy-knox-law-idUSBRE92Q0ZO20130327

It's widely known that it's an incredibly flawed system that's open for abuse. Knox's innocence or guilt seems to be secondary to the various legal departments trying to save face.

tigger123 · 31-01-2014 12:39PM

humanji wrote: »

Here's an interesting article about the Italian legal system: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/27/us-italy-knox-law-idUSBRE92Q0ZO20130327

It's widely known that it's an incredibly flawed system that's open for abuse. Knox's innocence or guilt seems to be secondary to the various legal departments trying to save face.

Saving face seems to be the only explaination for keeping this circus going.

Merkin · 31-01-2014 12:57PM

humanji wrote: »

Here's an interesting article about the Italian legal system: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/27/us-italy-knox-law-idUSBRE92Q0ZO20130327

It's widely known that it's an incredibly flawed system that's open for abuse. Knox's innocence or guilt seems to be secondary to the various legal departments trying to save face.

If Knox is convicted, after a final appeal to the Cassation Court, she would likely face an Italian demand for extradition, which experts here believe would not clash with U.S. double jeopardy laws because no case is final until the long process is exhausted.

As I said earlier......

humanji · 31-01-2014 01:04PM

Merkin wrote: »

If Knox is convicted, after a final appeal to the Cassation Court, she would likely face an Italian demand for extradition, which experts here believe would not clash with U.S. double jeopardy laws because no case is final until the long process is exhausted.

As I said earlier......

I bolded the important part. They can still be argued as it's not been tested before. It all hinges on whether or not the US believes the case to be finished on their terms. As was mentioned before, if it held in the US, the case wouldn't go on indefinitely, so it could be considered a final verdict.

It's all rather moot anyway, as the US are incredibly unlikely to hand Knox over to Italy. They gain nothing by doing so, but will get a hell of a lot of bad press at home.

Merkin · 31-01-2014 01:08PM

humanji wrote: »

I bolded the important part. They can still be argued as it's not been tested before. It all hinges on whether or not the US believes the case to be finished on their terms. As was mentioned before, if it held in the US, the case wouldn't go on indefinitely, so it could be considered a final verdict.

It's all rather moot anyway, as the US are incredibly unlikely to hand Knox over to Italy. They gain nothing by doing so, but will get a hell of a lot of bad press at home.

I've highlighted the important part too!

But yes, I agree, it's moot really - it's highly unlikely she will extradited but I think they will base their decision on political grounds as opposed to anything set in law.

humanji · 31-01-2014 01:12PM

That's a certainty. As someone said earlier, it's sad that the victim is forgotten in all the wrangling.

Pepe LeFrits · 31-01-2014 01:35PM

bumper234 wrote: »

Because this doesn't happen in any other country :rolleyes:

Did I say otherwise?

BQQ wrote: »

Ah, the ad hominem attack.
And based on a false premise, I might add.

There was no ad hominen attack in my post. The police's actions have been demonstrably dubious in relation to this case. Both police and prosecutors often pursue innocent people, they are no more immune to bias and personal agendas than anyone else.

Verdict was overturned due to the following:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/30/world/europe/italy-amanda-knox-retrial/

More technicality than proof of innocence, it would seem.

The judge that acquitted them did so quite emphatically; it wasn't on a technicality.

The lack of proof or any kind of coherent motive in this case is quite striking, and it'll be very interesting to read what the judge writes regarding the jury's ruling.

BQQ · 31-01-2014 01:59PM

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

There was no ad hominen attack in my post. The police's actions have been demonstrably dubious in relation to this case. Both police and prosecutors often pursue innocent people, they are no more immune to bias and personal agendas than anyone else.

Well, it reads like you are saying I'm someone in authority and my argument is coloured by that.
That's an ad hominem in my book.

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

The lack of proof or any kind of coherent motive in this case is quite striking, and it'll be very interesting to read what the judge writes regarding the jury's ruling.

If you don't have the full facts, I don't know how you can make judgments on the evidence or lack thereof.
I'd be interested in seeing evidence or motive for the frame-job some people believe is going on.

robbiezero · 31-01-2014 02:16PM

BQQ wrote: »

Well, it reads like you are saying I'm someone in authority and my argument is coloured by that.
That's an ad hominem in my book.

If you don't have the full facts, I don't know how you can make judgments on the evidence or lack thereof.
I'd be interested in seeing evidence or motive for the frame-job some people believe is going on.

Or ideally evidence or motive for locking her up.

Hitchens · 31-01-2014 02:19PM

"knock, knock"

"who's there?"

"Amanda"

"Amanda who?"

"Amanda Knox" :pac:

Pepe LeFrits · 31-01-2014 02:20PM

BQQ wrote: »

Well, it reads like you are saying I'm someone in authority and my argument is coloured by that.
That's an ad hominem in my book.

You've misunderstood then - you said the jury had better information than anyone else, ergo they should be trusted and therefore they are right and I'm wrong. That's what I was referring to - an argument from authority.

If you don't have the full facts, I don't know how you can make judgments on the evidence or lack thereof.

Well, I'm discussing the (considerable) evidence that is available and am offering opinions on it. You believe the truth is whatever the court of the day says it is. That's fine. I think the legal system is human and often fails to find the truth, as is the case here.

I'd be interested in seeing evidence or motive for the frame-job some people believe is going on.

There doesn't have to be a frame-job for a prosecution to pursue an innocent person.

pickarooney · 31-01-2014 03:33PM

I am the one!
Who?
Knox!

DexyDrain · 31-01-2014 04:06PM

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Ah, the argument from authority.

They also found them innocent.

The police denied Amanda Knox (a legally mandated) lawyer for 5 days of interrogation. They are clearly not above suspicion.

Not true. They called Raffaele in for questioning on 5th Nov. and when he started to contradict his own alibi they decided to question Amanda on this as a witness, not as a suspect. The translator arrived at 12:30am and by 1:45am Amanda had found out Raffaele had withdrawn her alibi and she then 'confessed' that Patrick had killed Meredith while she covered her ears in the kitchen, wrote down her account and signed it. They then arrested her and stopped questioning her so she could have representation present. She repeated her 'confession' the following morning.

So, she was questioned as a witness for about an hour before she cracked and was made a suspect. This is all documented in her own letters to her solicitors so there's no room for this myth in any rational discussion about the case.

DexyDrain · 31-01-2014 04:11PM

humanji wrote: »

I bolded the important part. They can still be argued as it's not been tested before. It all hinges on whether or not the US believes the case to be finished on their terms. As was mentioned before, if it held in the US, the case wouldn't go on indefinitely, so it could be considered a final verdict.

It's all rather moot anyway, as the US are incredibly unlikely to hand Knox over to Italy. They gain nothing by doing so, but will get a hell of a lot of bad press at home.

The extradition treaty means the process is pretty much automatic, there is no room for argument if the appeals process has been completed. They have no choice but to extradite. Italy will move to extradite, like they extradited Rudy from Germany before his trial.

end of the road · 31-01-2014 04:20PM

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

I find it hilariously ironic that the US, which has in the last 13 years routinely engaged in kidnapping of suspects (including one from Italy), paying off African police to simply throw suspects on a plane rather than go through due extradition process, outsourced interrogation to 3rd world states to relieve themselves of activity that is considered human rights abuse if the one doing it is North Korean or Iranian, and took it upon itself to land its troops in an allied country and shoot a suspect dead in his bedroom without giving a clear answer as to how it was all legally done (not to mention carrying out a corpse kidnapping and improper body disposal) , is talking about dragging its heels on extraditing a woman found guilty in a court system that while probably not perfect is relatively accepted by the international community If Knox turned up in Italy next week after having been snatched, drugged, smuggled to Mexico and flown out by Italian special forces you can be sure they would be complaining without the slightest hint of irony.

thats america for you, hypicritical to the last

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

I actually couldn't give two **** about the US violating the human rights and due process of Al Quaeda members.

we all should though, if only to let america know that really their no better, its all good dictating to the likes of syria and whining about how syria isn't destroying its chemicl weapons quick enough all the while being armed to the teeth with nukes

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

I just find the hypocrisy hilarious

i can see why one would but when the likes of america start wars against rogue states (which they supported and used to do dirty work originally) it stops being funny

Lingua Franca · 31-01-2014 04:24PM

BQQ wrote: »

I'd be interested in seeing evidence or motive for the frame-job some people believe is going on.

Google "Giuliano Migini". Mystery solved.

Interestingly, he himself has been found guilty - acquitted - is awaiting retrial for abuse of office in connection with an older case.

DexyDrain · 31-01-2014 04:25PM

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Google "Giuliano Migini". Mystery solved.

Interestingly, he himself has been found guilty - acquitted - is awaiting retrial for abuse of office in connection with an older case.

Found not guilty recently.

tigger123 · 31-01-2014 04:50PM

DexyDrain wrote: »

The extradition treaty means the process is pretty much automatic, there is no room for argument if the appeals process has been completed. They have no choice but to extradite. Italy will move to extradite, like they extradited Rudy from Germany before his trial.

I'm not so sure about that. In order for Knox to be extradited there would need to be a huge amount of cooperation by the US legal system, there's nothing automatic about it at all, it would be a long complex affair. I can't see the US handing her over, the political will to protect her would be far too great.

DexyDrain · 31-01-2014 05:01PM

tigger123 wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that. In order for Knox to be extradited there would need to be a huge amount of cooperation by the US legal system, there's nothing automatic about it at all, it would be a long complex affair. I can't see the US handing her over, the political will to protect her would be far too great.

According to US legal opinion it's a case of formalities- http://www.businessinsider.com/amanda-knox-extradition-2014-1

Holsten · 31-01-2014 05:07PM

She should get herself out of the US asap and to a non extradition country.

28 years? Screw that.

Busted Flat. · 31-01-2014 05:09PM

Holsten wrote: »

She should get herself out of the US asap and to a non extradition country.

28 years? Screw that.

What country would take a problem like that.

Merkin · 31-01-2014 05:30PM

DexyDrain wrote: »

According to US legal opinion it's a case of formalities- http://www.businessinsider.com/amanda-knox-extradition-2014-1

Good article.

tigger123 · 31-01-2014 06:04PM

DexyDrain wrote: »

According to US legal opinion it's a case of formalities- http://www.businessinsider.com/amanda-knox-extradition-2014-1

The guy who wrote the article also reckons they got a fair trial;

"I followed the trial, it was slow but I never got the sense that it was unfair," he said.

I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

Infini · 31-01-2014 06:14PM

From what I've seen from the facts and such its quite possible that shes innnocent. The fact that the Italian legal system has notorious conflicts not to mention the fact that the DNA evidence in the case is shoddy at best as well as the fact that the crime scene was messed up fairly badly makes it difficult to believe shes anywhere near guilty. If anything she acted stupidly in the early days but being a twat doesnt neccessarily make her a murderer. Not to mention the fact that there IS an a convicted killer for Meredith already in jail for 16 years and who was convicted with strong evidence. Take into account shes been convicted with questionable evidence along with being aquitted then retrialled again and convicted with NO new evidence and its quite possible she is a victim in all this.

Fact is theres no strong evidence shown to say she was involved and neither is their any strong DNA links only shoddy links from items that would be picked up by anyone at anytime in the house back then. If their was a solid case in evidence that showed her there then yes I would agree with the sentence but from whats been presented so far it hasnt been solid to stand up to scrutiny so it looks like something else is at work.

Amanda Knox retrial begins

Comments