Amanda Knox retrial begins

Merkin

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

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

Pepe LeFrits

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

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

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

"knock, knock"

"who's there?"

"Amanda"

"Amanda who?"

"Amanda Knox" :pac:

Pepe LeFrits

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

I am the one!
Who?
Knox!

DexyDrain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28 years? Screw that.

Busted Flat.

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

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

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

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.

shamrock55

Saw her on american tv this morning and i think she is one shady lady, i mean if i was innocent the last place i would be is on tv, its like she feels the need to be on camera to spout her i am innocent bull**** to the world, now she may well be innocent and if she is whats happening to her is shocking, im just not fully convinced by her

tigger123

shamrock55 wrote: »

Saw her on american tv this morning and i think she is one shady lady, i mean if i was innocent the last place i would be is on tv, its like she feels the need to be on camera to spout her i am innocent bull**** to the world, now she may well be innocent and if she is whats happening to her is shocking, im just not fully convinced by her

Why should she avoid the media? If I was wrongly convicted of murder I'd be screaming from the rooftops about it.

Busted Flat.

Infini2 wrote: »

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.

What about her statements to the police.

robbieVan

she's obviously guilty , read into the whole case, experts say she has a lot of characteristics of a psycho too


Plus she also has an awful dose of crazy eyes

the_monkey

Interesting to see how Raffaele Sollecito will deal with prison, if they are guilty he could crack inside.

Wouldn't blame him either - him stuck inside for 25 years while Amanda is swanning about the USA making $$$ on her books.

Then again if he keeps appealing it could point to their innocence.

Hitchens

apart from all that, what d'ye think of her new hairstyle?

shamrock55

tigger123 wrote: »

Why should she avoid the media? If I was wrongly convicted of murder I'd be screaming from the rooftops about it.

Nah, she just hears she has been sentenced to 28 yrs and there she is on tv, i just find that very strange indeed, she is a way too cool altogether, and when she gets emotional its so fake, its like really bad acting, i think she gets a great kick out of the media

Gatling

One of the worse trials I've ever come across ,

A couple of things if anybody was arrested in a foreign country and questioned for 12+ hours no breaks ,no anything. I'm sure most would do what was asked of them by the authorities ,

Ritualistic sexual killing is what they were calling,sounds like the police watched an 80's movie and decided that's what exactly happened why investigate at all ,

Now book deal I'm sure if this had happened to anyone on here and publishing companies came knocking and offered big money for your story you would turn it down or would you be spending the cash already I certainly would ,

Will she be extradited not a hope in hell ,

The Italians already convicted 10/12 US CIA operative's in absentia a couple of years back for a case involving extreme rendition of a suspected terrorist ,

Doubt any Americans will demand she be sent back

BQQ

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

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.

Fair enough. I took you up the wrong way there.

Seems pretty logical to me that the people in possession of the full facts are best placed to make judgments.

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

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.

That's a bit disingenuous. I could just as easily say you believe the truth is the opposite of what the court of the day says it is.
I don't know what the truth is for a fact. You, however, seem to be convinced that you do.

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

I think the legal system is human and often fails to find the truth, as is the case here.

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

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

But why would they pursue them when they have a confessed killer behind bars already?
The only reason I can think of is that they are convinced of their guilt.

MonaPizza

Infini2 wrote: »

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.

Could be something else at work.
What do you think that might be?

It's not a dig....I just was wondering what else might be at play, in your opinion?

MonaPizza

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.

This is probably where you are mistaken. You see there are extradition treaties between countries, e.g. The UK and the US.....however there are stipulations. The UK, lapdog as she is to Washington will not extradite someone to the US who may face capital punishment.

Leaving all that aside, I have my own theory, and it's just a theory. The US has painted itself into a corner here. Harbour Knox, a convicted MURDERER, and you can't really bitch to others about Assange or Snowden who have technically done nothing illegal, let alone be tried, let alone be convicted;... not being extradited [no extradition treaty between US and Russia, btw]. Send her back to Italy to face 28 years and the US looks like it respects the rule of law and doesn't cum in the face of it's allies.

The Italians don't like to be insulted. Several CIA men were convicted in abstentia in an Italian court for abducting and torturing victims on Italian streets. These CIA men were demanded to be returned to Italy to face trial. No dice from Washington. There's also the American assassination attempt on Giulina Sgrena in which her bodyguard, Calipari, was riddled by American soldiers as she was trying to leave Iraq. Nobody brought to book. NONE.

So.....in my HUMBLE opinion, the Knox thing is just another attempt at levelling the diplomatic "fcuk-you-ery". The Italians barely bat an eyelid when their "Duce" rapes teenagers. They don't like it when Americans take the piss though.

Mickey H

spank_inferno wrote: »

Who knew Italian -> English translating is next to impossible!

Just ask Manuela Spinelli.

ebbsy

DexyDrain wrote: »

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

That's a good read.

Arthur Beesley

What a joke of a judicial system the Italians have.

Speaking of extraditions, wasn't it the Italians who refused to send a couple of marines back when they mistakenly shot some fishermen they mistook for pirates off the coast of India.

Arthur Beesley

robbieVan wrote: »

she's obviously guilty , read into the whole case, experts say she has a lot of characteristics of a psycho too


Plus she also has an awful dose of crazy eyes

Obviously...doesn't matter that there is no evidence or motive etc.

Arthur Beesley

Hitchens wrote: »

apart from all that, what d'ye think of her new hairstyle?

Still would. Hot.

ebbsy

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

What a joke of a judicial system the Italians have.

Speaking of extraditions, wasn't it the Italians who refused to send a couple of marines back when they mistakenly shot some fishermen they mistook for pirates off the coast of India.

It might be a joke, but that's the system they have and everybody has to respect it. And that includes USA.

Whether they will or not remains to be seen.

tigger123

MonaPizza wrote: »

This is probably where you are mistaken. You see there are extradition treaties between countries, e.g. The UK and the US.....however there are stipulations. The UK, lapdog as she is to Washington will not extradite someone to the US who may face capital punishment.

Leaving all that aside, I have my own theory, and it's just a theory. The US has painted itself into a corner here. Harbour Knox, a convicted MURDERER, and you can't really bitch to others about Assange or Snowden who have technically done nothing illegal, let alone be tried, let alone be convicted;... not being extradited [no extradition treaty between US and Russia, btw]. Send her back to Italy to face 28 years and the US looks like it respects the rule of law and doesn't cum in the face of it's allies.

The Italians don't like to be insulted. Several CIA men were convicted in abstentia in an Italian court for abducting and torturing victims on Italian streets. These CIA men were demanded to be returned to Italy to face trial. No dice from Washington. There's also the American assassination attempt on Giulina Sgrena in which her bodyguard, Calipari, was riddled by American soldiers as she was trying to leave Iraq. Nobody brought to book. NONE.

So.....in my HUMBLE opinion, the Knox thing is just another attempt at levelling the diplomatic "fcuk-you-ery". The Italians barely bat an eyelid when their "Duce" rapes teenagers. They don't like it when Americans take the piss though.

So, you're using examples of the US not cooperating with the Italian legal system to support the point that the US will cooperate with the Italian legal system.

The US is going to do what it wants, always has, always will. They'd have no problem denying Knox's extradition whilst pursuing Snowden et al.

Arthur Beesley

ebbsy wrote: »

It might be a joke, but that's the system they have and everybody has to respect it. And that includes USA.

Whether they will or not remains to be seen.

Countries refuse to extradite to the US if the death penalty is applicable. Don't see any issue with the US refusing extradition if the justice department decide this is a miscarriage of justice.

The whole case has been a joke from the start.

Hitchens

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Still would. Hot.

she way too pretty to send back yo!

Arthur Beesley

Hitchens wrote: »

she way too pretty to send back yo!

Word.

The Italians would probably force her to partake in those bunga bunga parties they have over there.

Pedro K

If the Americans had any decency at all they would immediately extradite her to Ireland to serve her sentence with me.

Temaz

tigger123 wrote: »

Why should she avoid the media? If I was wrongly convicted of murder I'd be screaming from the rooftops about it.

So would I. Although Casey Antohny has gone to ground in the states and we all know she did it. That's another discussion though!!

whirlpool

She comes across sooooo suspicious in any of the interviews I've watched. Including this week's GMA interview. SOO suspicious.

I haven't even begun to form an opinion about whether she's guilty or innocent.

Jimmy444

whirlpool wrote: »

She comes across sooooo suspicious in any of the interviews I've watched. Including this week's GMA interview. SOO suspicious.

After watching a program on UTV this week (The Lying Game: Crimes that Fooled Britain) I'd be very slow to judge by appearances. It showed that it often turns out that liars are very convincing and people telling the truth seem suspicious.

Has anyone asked Keith Barry? Surely he could solve this all in two minutes talking with her?

whirlpool

Jimmy444 wrote: »

After watching a program on UTV this week (The Lying Game: Crimes that Fooled Britain) I'd be very slow to judge by appearances. It showed that it often turns out that liars are very convincing and people telling the truth seem suspicious.

Has anyone asked Keith Barry? Surely he could solve this all in two minutes talking with her?

I don't need to watch some show to tell me that. But yeah, that is the truth of it.

Merkin

Says here she could face detention in the U.S.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/10611826/Amanda-Knox-could-face-detention-in-tough-US-jail.html

Da Shins Kelly

Don't know enough about the case to say whether she did it or not, but I just feel so sorry for Meredith Kercher's parents. It's a never-ending ordeal for them, all this to-ing and fro-ing and political nonsense going on. I doubt they'll ever really know the truth about what happened to Meredith, or why, and the blame for that lies firmly with the Italian judicial system.

I also find it disturbing that Rudy Guede, who certainly played a part in her murder if not carrying it out single-handedly, will be eligible for release this year.

mitosis

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Still would. Hot.

Yeah, but you'd choose a position where you could always see her hands

aphex™

Guardian Interview
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/jan/30/amanda-knox-exclusive-video-interview-guilty-video