Amanda Knox Found Guilty (Again)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Howard A Treesong**

I don't have much opinion on it, she seems a suspicious character on occasion but I don't understand the relevance of the forensic evidence. Her DNA was on a kitchen knife, but that's a household tool and could have been used any time. It's pretty obvious that most Americans calling her innocent because she's an American citizen trying to be locked up by foreigners, while the Italians all think she's guilty because evil foreigner in their country killed someone. Meanwhile the British, nationality of the victim, don't have much opinion.

**LordofHats**

My issue with the case is mainly that the police made pretty much every blunder in the book and the prosecution did the same. There were other suspects, who seem to have been taken at the word when they said they didn't do it.

I also find her suspicious and I could believe she did it (though I don't buy the motives given in the case) but the system has fethed up the case so much I have a hard time trusting the outcome as fair no matter which way it swings.

**Ouze**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
IIt's pretty obvious that most Americans calling her innocent because she's an American citizen trying to be locked up by foreigners

I can only speak for myself, obviously, and not all of America. I would be against extraditing her for the same reason I probably wouldn't have been able to find Casey Anthony or hell, even OJ guilty; in that I am far from thinking they are "innocent" but that the prosecution was so bungled that they weren't not able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I didn't really follow the Knox case very closely and honestly haven't formed an opinion on her guilt or innocence* but from even my little reading here and there it seems like a comedy of errors. I'm not much of a jingoist and have no special aversion to extraditing murderers when they have been fairly tried and convicted, but I am dubious on the latter part in this situation.

*as opposed to Ms. Anthony & Mr. Simpson, whom I am quite sure are guilty but still would have acquitted

**Tibbsy**

squidhills wrote:

Italy reminds me of a rapper.

Wait, wait, hear me out...

Ok, so all of Europe is in a rap battle, right? And its the 15th century. Don't ask why, just go with it. And Italy shows up and nobody can figure out why. Italy doesn't have the best rhymes, like France. It doesn't have Germany's street cred. It doesn't have England's tough guy image. Italy hasn't done anything big on the scene since Rome. So nobody takes it seriously. And then, just as things are getting heated with the Balkans and the Turks, Italy busts out "The Motherfething Renaissance, B*tches"... Then it drops the mic and walks off stage.

Afterwards, every other rapper had to give props to Italy, because literally all other rap that came after was influenced by "The Motherfething Renaissance, B*tches". For centuries, the starting point of everything was that song.

But after a while, people started to notice that Italy didn't show up to the anthropomorphised nation-state rap battles anymore. He was kind of coasting on the awesomeness of that song. The rumor was he went into rehab. Then he fell off the wagon. Then back into rehab, which led to the minor hit "Ode to My Homie Garibaldi". But then he got involved in that huge parking-lot brawl after that show in 1914 and he seemed to develop PTSD. Then there was the time that Germany showed up with his new "hard core gangsta" image, and Italy tried to ride on his coat tails. We all know how that ended. It was pretty sad, really. And every once in a while, Italy tries to make some new material work, but it never pans out. Now all he does is bust rhymes about a cartoonishly corrupt politician and an equally cartoonish legal system, and he just comes across as a Weird Al style novelty act that everybody stopped listening to decades ago.

This analogy has kind of gotten away from me. I don't really have a good way to end it, so I'll just click "submit" and hope for the best.

This made my morning

Nicely done

**Steve steveson**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
With double jeopardy will the US recognize this latest guilty verdict?

It's not about double jeopardy. She was found guilty, then the appeals court quashed the verdict on the basis that it was unsound. This is the result of the re-trial.

I get the feeling that news outlets are picking the facts to fit the outcome they want to see. One side not reporting any of the problems with the evidence and the other side reporting only the problems without mention of the effect those problems had. For example the fingerprints on the kitchen knife. One side takes that as proof, the other side saying "well thats not evidence, that could have happened many ways" without taking in to account that this kind of thing is submitted all of the time. There dose seem to be allot of nationalism on both sides, the "Evil Americans coming to Italy and leading our children astray" and "Evil foreign countries! All there courts are corrupt". And pointing to the seismologists? Its not like the US courts don't make stupid rulings.

**CptJake**

Steve steveson wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
With double jeopardy will the US recognize this latest guilty verdict?

It's not about double jeopardy. She was found guilty, then the appeals court quashed the verdict on the basis that it was unsound. This is the result of the re-trial.

I get the feeling that news outlets are picking the facts to fit the outcome they want to see. One side not reporting any of the problems with the evidence and the other side reporting only the problems without mention of the effect those problems had. For example the fingerprints on the kitchen knife. One side takes that as proof, the other side saying "well thats not evidence, that could have happened many ways" without taking in to account that this kind of thing is submitted all of the time. There dose seem to be allot of nationalism on both sides, the "Evil Americans coming to Italy and leading our children astray" and "Evil foreign countries! All there courts are corrupt". And pointing to the seismologists? Its not like the US courts don't make stupid rulings.

She was also acquitted. Once acquitted you can make a case it is indeed double jeopardy.

**Hordini**

Steve steveson wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
With double jeopardy will the US recognize this latest guilty verdict?

It's not about double jeopardy. She was found guilty, then the appeals court quashed the verdict on the basis that it was unsound. This is the result of the re-trial.

In the US, I'm pretty sure that would be considered double jeopardy.

**Medium of Death**

I'm sure there was a guy from the FBI or CIA or some other acronym that was interviewed and he said that when the initial details came out he thought she was guilty. However as he examined the evidence it was clear that the Italians facts didn't stack up and the findings were flawed. IIRC he said the alleged murder weapon couldn't have caused those injuries to Meredith.

Ceretainly from the way she was portrayed in the UK and the footage of her that we saw she looked to be quite an arrogant/smug individual that wasn't taking the situation as seriously as she should have been. Then again, the UK media.

**Kilkrazy**

Obviously the Italian system either doesn't have double jeopardy or else this does not count as it.

**CptJake**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Obviously the Italian system either doesn't have double jeopardy or else this does not count as it.

Their system does not consider retrying an acquitted person as double jeopardy. The US system does. That is what should keep the US from even thinking of extradition.

**Palindrome**

whembly wrote:
Yup... and I doubt she'd ever set foot in Italy again.

She can't set foot within the EU again, or at least anywhere that a European arrest warrant will work.

There was a segment on the Today programme about this earlier and it seems that this time the Italian judges, 27 of them apparently, made great pains to do everything correctly. According to the interviewee there is a great deal of evidence against Knox that was considered more than enough to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

**dogma**

Palindrome wrote:

She can't set foot within the EU again, or at least anywhere that a European arrest warrant will work.

Given her experience, I doubt she would want to do so.

**Palindrome**

dogma wrote:

Given her experience, I doubt she would want to do so.

You mean her experience as a convicted murderer?

**CptJake**

Palindrome wrote:
dogma wrote:

Given her experience, I doubt she would want to do so.

You mean her experience as a convicted murderer?

Or her experience as someone who was acquitted.

**dogma**

Palindrome wrote:

You mean her experience as a convicted murderer?

No, her experience as someone that was possibly victimized by European citizens, and officials, then acquitted by members of the second group.

She shouldn't have put herself at such risk given her seeming naivete, but there is nowhere near enough evidence for a conviction.

**Palindrome**

dogma wrote:
but there is nowhere near enough evidence for a conviction.

The Italian judical system evidently disagrees.

I also notice that no one seems to mind about Raffaele Sollecito being found guily.

**Ouze**

Palindrome wrote:
I also notice that no one seems to mind about Raffaele Sollecito being found guily.

Until I saw this post I didn't even know he also had (again) been.

I haven't seen much evidence that points to anyone other than Rudy Guede being involved.

**LordofHats**

She was never acquitted, she was found guilty and the verdict set aside on appeal and appeals court ordered a retrail (several news reports use the word acquital in reference to this but that's not what happened). The appeals court has no power to acquit a defendant only overturn the verdict from trial. This same thing can happen here in the US except here the judge would declare a mistrial but leave the door open for the prosecution to refile charges and have a new trial (an example Gideon v Wainright where the plaintiff's original conviction was set aside and a new trial happened).

Though I don't think Italians have double jeapordy like we do, but that's not what's happening in the Knox case.

**Flashman**

My personal view is that she knows more than she's telling, but in any country with a reasonable justice system, there is nowhere near enough evidence to convict her or Sollecito of murder. Ergo she is innocent.

**Orlanth**

I read this one of two ways, and I cant work out which, and frankly am not bothered to try.

1. Knox is released then retried, the message being, "We think you did it, but its a grey area, so get out of Italy and never come back, you will never clear your name, with good reason but so long as you remain home no one will touch you."

2. She is a lot prettier than the victim, get media attention as a result and a lot of sympathy. Much of the balance of guilt or innocence in the public eye goes no deeper than that. Its a media nightmare and one that Italy could well do without. Let her go, retry her outside of the country and she remains someone elses problem.

Either way Knox has to stay out of Europe for life, but that depends on what happens to her co-defendant.

Reasons for thinking this way.

- She was allowed to leave Italy while a retrial was being prepared.
- The retrial occurred before attempting to secure extradition.
- She wasn't released on prearranged licence that the US government agreed to deport her in time for the trial date.
- Italy had her passport, enough people thing that there is a case to answer for and the Italian legal system let her go. She left Italy openly and not through subterfuge.

**Kilkrazy**

The evidence against the two of them is pretty good. The BBC reviewed it today.

**Orlanth**

Another reinforcing point. Look at the thread title and 90% of the media

Raffaele Sollecito being found guilty is not news, he isn't hawt. Knox's pretty face generates a lot of what I can best describe as subliminal sympathy and her 'plight' makes her incarceration a political issue.

**LordofHats**

He's not news because he's Italian. Italians killing Italians? They do that over who gets the last spicy meatball

American kills Iltalian? Now there's a news story

**Flashman**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The evidence against the two of them is pretty good. The BBC reviewed it today.

Let's have it then, because everything I've seen appears circumstantial to me.

Under circumstantial evidence, you could have convicted Arthur Lee Allen of being the Zodiac killer, but where a reasonable justice system applies, it is not enough.

**Ouze**

Flashman wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
The evidence against the two of them is pretty good. The BBC reviewed it today.

Let's have it then, because everything I've seen appears circumstantial to me.

Indeed. I'd read it with an open mind and am intrigued. I read about the case a little more this morning and haven't seen what you seem to have.

**Dreadclaw69**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
I don't have much opinion on it, she seems a suspicious character on occasion but I don't understand the relevance of the forensic evidence. Her DNA was on a kitchen knife, but that's a household tool and could have been used any time. It's pretty obvious that most Americans calling her innocent because she's an American citizen trying to be locked up by foreigners, while the Italians all think she's guilty because evil foreigner in their country killed someone. Meanwhile the British, nationality of the victim, don't have much opinion.

Would you say that similar attitudes were also present in the Louise Woodward trial?

**Daba**

Flashman wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
The evidence against the two of them is pretty good. The BBC reviewed it today.

Let's have it then, because everything I've seen appears circumstantial to me.

Under circumstantial evidence, you could have convicted Arthur Lee Allen of being the Zodiac killer, but where a reasonable justice system applies, it is not enough.

Isn't Circumstantial evidence something like 'a knife with the victim's blood on it, with the accused's fingerprints on the handle' - while direct evidence would be witness testimonies where the witness saw it happen?

I mean, isn't circumstantial evidence pretty handy for basically any crime committed in a place where there aren't multiple onlookers, as there are unlikely to be direct witnesses there?

**Orlanth**

LordofHats wrote:
He's not news because he's Italian. Italians killing Italians? They do that over who gets the last spicy meatball

American kills Iltalian? Now there's a news story

I don't buy that at all. Americans killing Italians isn't really news either, its just yet another homicide. It's the pretty ones that make the news.
Also don't denegrate Italians as degenerates who will murder each other for food, it's beneath the topic.

**Kilkrazy**

Ouze wrote:
Flashman wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
The evidence against the two of them is pretty good. The BBC reviewed it today.

Let's have it then, because everything I've seen appears circumstantial to me.

Indeed. I'd read it with an open mind and am intrigued. I read about the case a little more this morning and haven't seen what you seem to have.

I was listening to the radio. There is probably a piece on the BBC website.

**Frazzled**

If she's not actually in custody (she might be I don't know nor care) she should be running south as we speak to live out her days in the Mexican Riviera.