Amanda Knox retrial begins

badabing106

aphex™ wrote: »

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

Vile stuff. Knoxs friend ( Who never lived in Italy with Knox) describing knox's time as " amazing and perfect and everything was getting better" " . Knox describes it as "It was amazing, me and meridith sunbathed on the terrace... " as if they were the best buddies...and the touching of noses, and fake laughter and cringing etc. Horrible stuff

Amazingfun

aphex™ wrote: »

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

Not vile at all. I really enjoyed it.
These poor girls have been through hell and back and on and on it continues, all thanks to rapist and murderer Rudy Guede.

Amazingfun

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

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.

:eek: Terrible!

AndonHandon

With so little information and hearsay it is idiotic to dispute the conviction of Knox. So many tin-foil hats.

Amazingfun

AndonHandon wrote: »

With so little information and hearsay it is idiotic to dispute the conviction of Knox. So many tin-foil hats.

And in the face of so little evidence against her it is *idiotic* not to dispute it.

Rudy Guede is the rapist and murderer and he hardly gets a mention these days. The fact he is eligible for release in a few short months ought to have people sickened.

Muise...

Amazingfun wrote: »

And in the face of so little evidence against her it is *idiotic* not to dispute it.

Rudy Guede is the rapist and murderer and he hardly gets a mention these days. The fact he is eligible for release in a few short months ought to have people sickened.

if you call this a fact, I presume you have a source and evidence?

Amazingfun

I've read it in a few places now, if you have data to the contrary, post it.

Guede’s prison sentence was reduced to 16 years from the original 30 years without a murmur from the prosecution. In contrast, prosecutors squealed in horror when Knox was given only 26 years and Sollecito 25.

Guede’s history of break-ins and burglaries, similar to the break-in that led to Kercher’s death, was also never fully detailed to the courts. Just a week before Kercher was slashed and stabbed to death, Guede had been arrested inside another property carrying a knife. Yet he was released by police, for reasons which were never properly or fully examined in court.

Incredibly, according to the indulgent Italian parole rules, Guede will be eligible for release in May 2014, having served a total of eight years.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/amanda-knox-reveals-prison-sex-harassment-autobiography-article-1.1316509

Guede's attorneys did an excellent job of securing the most lenient punishment possible for his crime by convincing the court that Guede was merely an accomplice. Guede received a reduced sentence of 16 years on appeal, of which he will only serve a fraction, leaving many years of freedom in his future. The sad truth is that Guede will be eligible for work release in 2014.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/rudy.html

Muise...

Amazingfun wrote: »

I've read it in a few places now, if you have data to the contrary, post it.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/amanda-knox-reveals-prison-sex-harassment-autobiography-article-1.1316509



http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/rudy.html

iip lol!

Hitchens

Amazingfun wrote: »

I've read it in a few places now, if you have data to the contrary, post it.





http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/amanda-knox-reveals-prison-sex-harassment-autobiography-article-1.1316509



http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/rudy.html

Usually on here, if someone asks you to post a link you can be sure the link you provide will be lacking something - in their eyes

Amazingfun

Right-- so you have no data to the contrary

Da Shins Kelly

Amazingfun wrote: »

And in the face of so little evidence against her it is *idiotic* not to dispute it.

Rudy Guede is the rapist and murderer and he hardly gets a mention these days. The fact he is eligible for release in a few short months ought to have people sickened.

I don't know whether Amanda Knox was involved or not, but it certainly seems that Rudy Guede is the main culprit who had the most involvement, if not carrying out the crime single-handedly. It is incredible that Knox and her ex-boyfriend may end up serving a much longer sentence than him, and that he may walk free this year. 16 years (a sentence he has barely served) compared to her 28 years is unbelievable.

clairefontaine

Italy has lost all credibility with its Napoleanic laws. I can't imagine an American student will ever step foot there after this.

They are making absolute fools out of themselves.

AndonHandon

clairefontaine wrote: »

Italy has lost all credibility with its Napoleanic laws. I can't imagine an American student will ever step foot there after this.

They are making absolute fools out of themselves.

How are the laws the problem in this?

clairefontaine

AndonHandon wrote: »

How are the laws the problem in this?

Because prosecution can keep retrying until they get the result they want.

Sloppy forensics, re tried three times. No protection for the accused.

AndonHandon

clairefontaine wrote: »

Because prosecution can keep retrying until they get the result they want.

Sloppy forensics, re tried three times. No protection for the accused.

Thorough.

Amazingfun

AndonHandon wrote: »

Thorough.

Incompetent more like it.

mitosis

clairefontaine wrote: »

Because prosecution can keep retrying until they get the result they want.

Sloppy forensics, re tried three times. No protection for the accused.

As can the defence, apparently.

mitosis

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.

With all due respect, qualified people in a court of law vs randomer on the internet on the interpretation of evidence is no contest. Have you seen the book of evidence, or is all your information based on the English language media?

clairefontaine

mitosis wrote: »

As can the defence, apparently.

It's in favor of prosecution. Knox has run out of appeals.

AndonHandon

Amazingfun wrote: »

Incompetent more like it.

Laws aren't incompetent.

Amazingfun

AndonHandon wrote: »

Laws aren't incompetent.

Duh, no, really? :rolleyes:

The lawmakers and those involved in this fiasco certainly are.

Amazingfun

Not sure if this is anything to get too hopeful about:

Amanda Knox's conviction could be QUASHED after judge talked to the media about verdict

Following the sentence, Judge Nencini gave an interview admitting that the panel of professional and lay judges had become confused because they had watched TV reports and read news articles on the case. In Italy most media implied that the defendants were guilty.

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 that said he believed that the murder would never have happened without her.

But he seemed less convinced of Sollecito’s culpability saying that the Italian could have helped his case if he had submitted to cross-examination.

He said: ‘If Amanda had gone to work [the night of the murder] the murder in all likelihood would never have happened’.

Defence lawyers have interpreted the comments as evidence that the panel was prejudiced, claiming that the judges would have acquitted Sollecito if he had betrayed Knox.

Following the judge’s comments Sollecito’s lawyer, Luca Maori, threatened legal action.

‘These comments are the result of clear evidence of prejudice on the part of the judges towards the accused and in particular Rafaelle Sollecito.

‘The comments by the judge on what happened in the secrecy of the jurors room, as well as his criticism of the defence strategy are unacceptable and subject to serious consequences.

‘By saying that Raffaele should have taken the witness stand is he saying that if he had accused Amanda Knox he would have been acquitted? ‘

‘We will decide what action to take in the coming days. ‘

Sollecito’s father, Surgeon Francesco Sollecito, called the judge’s statements ‘an aberration of the legal system. For me it’s inadmissible for the chief judge of an Italian court to make remarks like these.

He added: ‘We will fight to the end. We will not give into this obvious injustice.’

Under the Italian justice system the reasons for the judges’ conviction will be legitimately published in written form within three months.

But judges are forbidden from commenting publicly until after the final appeal to the Supreme Court, which will not happen until next year.

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

mitosis

clairefontaine wrote: »

It's in favor of prosecution. Knox has run out of appeals.

Really? There is another appeal scheduled for next year, is there not?

Hitchens

I have to say, Amanda appeals to me

clairefontaine

mitosis wrote: »

Really? There is another appeal scheduled for next year, is there not?

Yes, I think there is. My mistake. I think now she is fighting extradition.

DexyDrain

One thing seems to be clear, the role of public relations and the pitching of the situation as being about a bad Italian justice system as compared with the American system seems to have been hugely successful in diverting people away from the evidence in this case.

The level of reporting, in the US in particular, has been in the main pretty atrocious. It appears that few in the media took the time to translate the court proceedings or the excellent reports produced by the various judges, taking press releases by supporters of the guilty parties as actual reporting. Likewise we have a news reporter wishing a convicted killer well on the morning after her conviction was renewed. Appalling to watch.

The translation of the Massei report, available on the web, should be the first stop in trying to really understand the issues in this case, although I understand that the changes in the sentencing reflects an interpretation by the appeals court that places Knox firmly as the instigator of the crime.

I personally think what may have happened is that Knox and Sollectio brought Guede along to the cottage to divert Meredith while they attempted to steal her rent money but Meredith caught them in the act, and the violence escalated from there.

Ush1

What's interesting about this case is why was the toilet bowl full of turds?

Amazingfun

Ush1 wrote: »

What's interesting about this case is why was the toilet bowl full of turds?

Because the rapist and murderer, Rudy Guede, left them there.

mitosis

Amazingfun wrote: »

Incompetent more like it.

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?

Mr.Micro

Amazingfun wrote: »

Not sure if this is anything to get too hopeful about:

Amanda Knox's conviction could be QUASHED after judge talked to the media about verdict



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

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?

Amazingfun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?