Amanda Knox retrial begins

Amazingfun · 03-02-2014 07:20PM

mitosis wrote: »

Let me see if I understand. The buffoons in Italy got it right when they found the ugly black man guilty, and wrong when the same judiciary found the pretty white people guilty. Does that sum it up?

:pac: This is so pathetic a comment it actually made me laugh.

Uh, try this:
When the "ugly black man" (your words) left his DNA all about the place and INSIDE the woman he murdered, then yeah, finding him guilty was very, very good.

And since said "ugly black man" (again--your words) initially admitted he did it and that Knox and Raffaelo weren't there, but after getting a clever defense lawyer claims later they were, and gets his sentence reduced by half for implicating them, then yes, it was (and is) very, very bad.

Amazingfun · 03-02-2014 07:25PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

That may be the way out for Sollectio..... Maybe that is what is really bothering the defence, that he might agree to tell what happened? Why did he not agree to cross examination, clearly not ax talented as knox in deceit?

Knox didn't kill her, so she didn't lie.

Many defendants don't take the stand on the advice of their lawyers. It's hardly a rare occurrence.

And I hope that does mean a way out for both he and Knox. In fact, some are suggesting that Judge might have done this on purpose, knowing this option would come about as a result of his actions

Defiler Of The Coffin · 03-02-2014 07:32PM

This is one of worst legal shambles I've ever seen played out. If it had happened in Ireland I would be ashamed. How on Earth anyone could think this is a safe conviction is beyond me. A sex game gone wrong?! Don't make me laugh!

The fact that the hatchet job on Knox by the media still continues to this day sickens me.

Mr.Micro · 03-02-2014 07:33PM

Amazingfun wrote: »

Knox didn't kill her, so she didn't lie.

Many defendants don't take the stand on the advice of their lawyers. It's hardly a rare occurrence.

And I hope that does mean a way out for both he and Knox. In fact, some are suggesting that Judge might have done this on purpose, knowing this option would come about as a result of his actions

According to the verdict she did kill Meredith. If he was so clean and innocent, why on earth would had not take the stand to defend himself? Most people would want to shout their innocence from the stand, and not leave it to chance for the defence to it for you, right or no right. Maybe he should put that right now in his appeal? The Kercher family I do believe, believe in their guilt. They may even have some insight into knox s behaviour to Meredith through the latter talking to her family prior to her death.

Defiler Of The Coffin · 03-02-2014 07:36PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

According to the verdict she did kill Meredith. If he was so clean and innocent, why on earth would had not take the stand to defend himself? Most people would want to shout their innocence from the stand, and not leave it to chance for the defence to it for you, right or no right. Maybe he should put that fight now in his appeal? The Kercher family I do believe believe in their guilt. They may even have some insight into knox s behaviour to Meredith through the latter talking to her family prior to her death.

It's common for people on trial for murder not to take the stand. It does not imply any guilt whatsoever.

Amazingfun · 03-02-2014 07:38PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

According to the verdict she did kill Meredith. If he was so clean and innocent, why on earth would had not take the stand to defend himself? Most people would want to shout their innocence from the stand, and not leave it to chance for the defence to it for you, right or no right. Maybe he should put that fight now in his appeal? The Kercher family I do believe believe in their guilt. They may even have some insight into knox s behaviour to Meredith through the latter talking to her family prior to her death.

You're very ignorant as to how trials actually work I am guessing.

Again: many defendants do not take that stand on the advice of their lawyers, for various reasons. Again: it is not a rare occurrence and happens more frequently than you apparently realize.

The Kercher family ought to get a grip and realize the man who raped and murdered their daughter is right where he ought to be: in prison.
Only too bad that he isn't awaiting execution, and instead may be eligible for work release in May of this very year. Why they aren't outraged about that, I cannot understand.

Mr.Micro · 03-02-2014 07:39PM

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

It's common for people on trial for murder not to take the stand. It does not imply any guilt whatsoever.

No, but it's always a high risk tactic, and it did not help Sollectio IMO.

Mr.Micro · 03-02-2014 07:43PM

Amazingfun wrote: »

You're very ignorant as to how trials actually work I am guessing.

Again: many defendants do not take that stand on the advice of their lawyers, for various reasons. Again: it is not a rare occurrence and happens more frequently than you apparently realize.

The Kercher family ought to get a grip and realize the man who raped and murdered their daughter is right where he ought to be: in prison.
Only too bad that he isn't awaiting execution, and instead may be eligible for work release in May of this very year. Why they aren't outraged about that, I cannot understand.

I think you will find that it is accepted, that Guede did not act alone. Sollectio needs now to speak IMO, and defend himself. She is a proven liar and no help to him or his case.

Amazingfun · 03-02-2014 07:50PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I think you will find that it is accepted, that Guede did not act alone. Sollectio needs now to speak IMO, and defend himself. She is a proven liar and no help to him or his case.

No, it's not accepted at all. Guede did act alone, breaking and entering as he had done many times before, then he raped her, murdered her and even left a dump in the toilet as a goodbye gift before he ran away to Germany.

And no, unless you have been appointed his lawyer (lol), he does not need to do a thing.

Hitchens · 03-02-2014 07:50PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I think you will find that it is accepted, that Guede did not act alone. Sollectio needs now to speak IMO, and defend himself. She is a proven liar and no help to him or his case.

"every one is a suspect, and no one is a suspect"

Defiler Of The Coffin · 03-02-2014 07:53PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I think you will find that it is accepted, that Guede did not act alone. Sollectio needs now to speak IMO, and defend himself. She is a proven liar and no help to him or his case.

Accepted by whom though? If Knox and Sollecito had been in the room with Guede then their DNA would have been all over the place. This wasn't the case. The police mishandled the evidence at the scene. Articles of clothing and other pieces were handled by officers before being bagged. Cross-contamination occurred. The alleged murder weapon doesn't match some of the wounds found on Kercher's body. Even the techniques used to extract DNA has been questioned as unreliable.

Guede also has a history of breaking and entering which for some reason was not mentioned to the court. Also, Guede had no known connections to Sollecito or Knox and yet we're supposed to believe they all just decided to partake in a sex-game, and two people with no history of violence stabbed her and cut her throat when Kercher refused? Does that sound credible to you?

The whole damn case stinks to high heaven and is a rule-book on how *not* to conduct a murder investigation. I'm amazed that such a miscarriage of justice could occur in a first-world country.

Muise... · 03-02-2014 07:54PM

Amazingfun wrote: »

No, it's not accepted at all.

It's accepted by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione, the highest court in Italy, in its final verdict in the conviction of Guede. Not good enough for you and your internet commentary/tabloid reading, no?

Amazingfun · 03-02-2014 08:01PM

Nope, not good enough at all , and hopefully this wrong will be righted somehow before that animal is back on the streets of Italy to do it again to another young woman.

Defiler Of The Coffin · 03-02-2014 08:03PM

Muise... wrote: »

It's accepted by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione, the highest court in Italy, in its final verdict in the conviction of Guede. Not good enough for you and your internet commentary/tabloid reading, no?

Yes, accepted by a judge who is now facing allegations of impropriety - http://www.independent.ie/world-news/knox-judge-faces-allegations-of-impropriety-29975193.html

Mr.Micro · 03-02-2014 08:04PM

Amazingfun wrote: »

No, it's not accepted at all. Guede did act alone, breaking and entering as he had done many times before, then he raped her, murdered her and even left a dump in the toilet as a goodbye gift before he ran away to Germany.

And no, unless you have been appointed his lawyer (lol), he does not need to do a thing.

He does actually. He has to appeal and do something different. The prosecution has proved its case, like it or not. He can no longer be passive, but has to distance himself from her. She is free, he is not.

Arthur Beesley · 03-02-2014 08:05PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

According to the verdict she did kill Meredith.

According to the current / latest verdict. No doubt it will change at least once more, it's not like it hasn't already...

Amazingfun · 03-02-2014 08:06PM

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

Yes, accepted by a judge who is now facing allegations of impropriety - http://www.independent.ie/world-news/knox-judge-faces-allegations-of-impropriety-29975193.html

He's talking about a previous trial, Guede's.

But wouldn't it be brilliant if this Judge made this move in order to make it possible for Knox and Raffael to escape this hellish ordeal?
He's actually a hero if this was his motive

Mr.Micro · 03-02-2014 08:07PM

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

Yes, accepted by a judge who is now facing allegations of impropriety - http://www.independent.ie/world-news/knox-judge-faces-allegations-of-impropriety-29975193.html

Is this to help Sollectio to get real and help his case?

Amazingfun · 03-02-2014 08:08PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

He does actually. He has to appeal and do something different. The prosecution has proved its case, like it or not. He can no longer be passive, but has to distance himself from her. She is free, he is not.

He does not have to take the stand. Will you get over it?

And no, their case was not "proved" beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence the many shocked and disgusted people the world over after hearing the latest verdict.

Arthur Beesley · 03-02-2014 08:10PM

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

Yes, accepted by a judge who is now facing allegations of impropriety - http://www.independent.ie/world-news/knox-judge-faces-allegations-of-impropriety-29975193.html

Was this a jury trial or did this judge (who is subsequently being accused of partiality) decide the verdict himself?

Defiler Of The Coffin · 03-02-2014 08:11PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Is this to help Sollectio to get real and help his case?

I doubt it somehow, they haven't done much to help him so far!

Amazingfun · 03-02-2014 08:13PM

The courtroom fell still as the presiding judge, Alessandro Nencini, read the sentences 11½ hours after the jury, consisting of two judges and six lay jurors, began its deliberations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/31/world/europe/amanda-knox-trial-in-italy.html?_r=0

Mr.Micro · 03-02-2014 08:16PM

Amazingfun wrote: »

He does not have to take the stand. Will you get over it?

And no, their case was not "proved" beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence the many shocked and disgusted people the world over after hearing the latest verdict.

You are just being ridiculous. You were not on the jury, nor was I. The case was proved, whether you like it or not. You need to deal with that. There is no fear of knox she is free and doing tv, book etc.

Amazingfun · 03-02-2014 08:21PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

You are just being ridiculous. You were not on the jury, nor was I. The case was proved, whether you like it or not. You need to deal with that. There is no fear of knox she is free and doing tv, book etc.

Wake up and put your thinking cap on

It was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. There are many innocent people who been exonerated of crimes they were convicted of, check out Ryan Ferguson's case for a recent example, although, sadly, there are hundreds more to choose from.

Defiler Of The Coffin · 03-02-2014 08:23PM

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Was this a jury trial or did this judge (who is subsequently being accused of partiality) decide the verdict himself?

It wasn't a jury that re-instated the conviction, it was a panel of judges of which he was a member

Mr.Micro · 03-02-2014 08:24PM

Amazingfun wrote: »

Wake up and put your thinking cap on

It was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. There are many innocent people who been exonerated of crimes they were convicted of, check out Ryan Ferguson's case for a recent example, although, sadly, there are hundreds more to choose from.

That is your opinion, not that of the judges and jury that listened to the current case. Fact. They have an appeal still. That is the way the law works.

Amazingfun · 03-02-2014 08:27PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

That is your opinion, not that of the judges and jury that listened to the current case. Fact. They have an appeal still. That is the way the law works.

:pac: who said otherwise?

Defiler Of The Coffin · 03-02-2014 08:31PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

That is your opinion, not that of the judges and jury that listened to the current case. Fact. They have an appeal still. That is the way the law works.

In fairness, it's not just Amazingfun's opinion, it's widely held that the whole case is a shambles. Now it's alleged that even the judges showed ‘clear evidence of prejudice’

He said: ‘The jurors returned home every day and were bombarded with information. When we met they would say, “Justice, but on TV they say that it happened in another way. What happened really?”.’
The judge seemed convinced of Knox’s guilt, saying he believed that the murder would never have happened without her. But he seemed less convinced of Sollecito’s culpability and said the Italian could have helped his case if he had submitted to cross-examination.
Defence lawyers have interpreted the comments as evidence that the panel was prejudiced, claiming the judges would have acquitted Sollecito if he had betrayed Knox.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550544/Amanda-Knox-defence-given-final-lifeline-judge-condemned-breached-legal-rules-series-revealing-interviews-verdict.html

How can you not question the verdict given all the red flags and clear evidence of incompetence?

Montroseee · 03-02-2014 08:42PM

Her treatment of Patrick Lumumba would lead me to believe she is in fact a psychopath. He gave her a job and seemingly helped her settle into the area. She testified that he was involved in the murder and he lost his bar and spent time in prison as a result. I'd imagine she has earned large enough sums and has not paid him one bit of compensation.

DexyDrain · 03-02-2014 08:46PM

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

In fairness, it's not just Amazingfun's opinion, it's widely held that the whole case is a shambles. Now it's alleged that even the judges showed ‘clear evidence of prejudice’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550544/Amanda-Knox-defence-given-final-lifeline-judge-condemned-breached-legal-rules-series-revealing-interviews-verdict.html

How can you not question the verdict given all the red flags and clear evidence of incompetence?

The power of advertising. It's like listening to people say 'yes the French really do adore Le Piat d'Or, I heard it on TV.'.

There was no shambles, there was a lot of misdirection by Knox and Sollecito but what exactly do you see as being a shambles, specifically? I keep hearing the talking points of the Knox PR team and partisan bloggers but it's all so vague (and some of it a bit racist). The only element I can think of that wasn't impeccable was the bra clasp was not collected on the first search. Since the scene was sealed from that point it seems a moot point whether the DNA was on it a few days or a few weeks.

Amanda Knox retrial begins

Comments