Amanda Knox is free.

[monel]

I guess so? Did for Louise Woodward.
I can't help thinking Knox is guilty tho. Dunno why...

These cases are different in every way. Woodward was guilty. The evidence proved it unlike the lack of evidence I of the persecution of Knox. Woodward was released by a judge enamored by the fact that she was English. However, though he reduced the conviction he did not say she was innocent and sentenced her to time served. That baby died at her hand. The evidence was ample and conclusive. The Massachusetts judicial system is not one of kangaroo court's though the judgment of at least one of its former Superior Court justices is suspect. To compare that case to the Knox case is an injustice in and of itself.

 

[monel]

Listen, don't use your recently-ex-mod jedi mind tricks on me. :tongue:

It seems to have been a case that's been bungled from the start, progressing into out-and-out prosecutorial fucked-up-ed-ness. The whole thing is tainted. The prosecutions, the verdicts, the circus-like atmosphere. I feel quite sorry for the victim's family, as well as just about everyone else associated with the case.

The fact that so many have taken to using the whole affair as a launching pad for yank bashing is annoying and frustrating. Certainly there are more appropriate sources for that industry.

QFT. Thank you.

 

[TomCat84]

A court should presume innocence, but I don't have to, and I don't.

Thank god you weren't on the jury...

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Thank god you weren't on the jury...

I don't think there was a jury. Unless she was up before a Corte d'Assise, but even that only has 6 lay judges, who are technically not jurors.


I didn't say that I wouldn't have presumed her innocence had I no knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the murder of Meredith Kercher, but the circumstances under which that woman died, and the conviction of Raffaele Sollecito make it very difficult for me to believe Amanda Knox had nothing to do with it. As a juror would I find that enough to find her guilty? Of course not. But as a private individual I'm free to think what I wish.

 

[Calboner]

These cases are different in every way. Woodward was guilty. The evidence proved it unlike the lack of evidence I of the persecution of Knox. Woodward was released by a judge enamored by the fact that she was English. However, though he reduced the conviction he did not say she was innocent and sentenced her to time served. That baby died at her hand. The evidence was ample and conclusive. The Massachusetts judicial system is not one of kangaroo court's though the judgment of at least one of its former Superior Court justices is suspect. To compare that case to the Knox case is an injustice in and of itself.

I agree with you in the first sentence, but after that you overstate the contrast. All that is beyond dispute is that the baby died in Ms. Woodward's care. That she caused its death is far from indisputable. E.g., the prosecution claimed that the baby was killed by violent shaking, but the body of the baby showed no injury to its neck, as would have occurred if it had died of such a cause.

The significant points of contrast, I think, are that there was nothing suspicious about the manner in which forensic evidence was gathered in the American case (it was collected immediately following the crime, not 46 days later), and there was nothing hysterical or fantastical about the prosecution's case.

 

[monel]

I agree with you in the first sentence, but after that you overstate the contrast. All that is beyond dispute is that the baby died in Ms. Woodward's care. That she caused its death is far from indisputable. E.g., the prosecution claimed that the baby was killed by violent shaking, but the body of the baby showed no injury to its neck, as would have occurred if it had died of such a cause.

The significant points of contrast, I think, are that there was nothing suspicious about the manner in which forensic evidence was gathered in the American case (it was collected immediately following the crime, not 46 days later), and there was nothing hysterical or fantastical about the prosecution's case.

What was virtually indisputable was that Woodward 's actions caused the death. Even the judge who reduced the convinction only argued that the prosecution failed to prove murder. The defense opted to deny the prosecution to argue to the jury lesser included offenses such as involuntary manslaughter - which I believe is of what she was ultimately convicted, though I might be wrong on that. The defense gambled that Woodward would likely be convicted of a lesser crime if the prosecution were permitted to argue that as an alternative but that the jury would not find her guilty of murder. Since the jury was convinced based on the evidence that she caused the baby's death, even though they didn't believe it was murder, given only that option or finding her not guilty, they convicted her. The defense cried foul because their strategy failed and the judge, a self described Anglophile, reduced the sentence. The long and the short of it was that the evidence proved that the baby was killed by Woodward. Only the motive was really in dispute.

Very different from the Knox case in their investigation and prosecution as well as the integrity of the legal systems involved.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I don't think there was a jury. Unless she was up before a Corte d'Assise, but even that only has 6 lay judges, who are technically not jurors.


I didn't say that I wouldn't have presumed her innocence had I no knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the murder of Meredith Kercher, but the circumstances under which that woman died, and the conviction of Raffaele Sollecito make it very difficult for me to believe Amanda Knox had nothing to do with it. As a juror would I find that enough to find her guilty? Of course not. But as a private individual I'm free to think what I wish.

Sorry I should have said the evidence relating to Raffaele Sollecito's conviction, which was of course also overturned.

 

[b.c.]

Surprise surprise.

 

[Drifterwood]

I only said that they were well funded, which they were. Is the US bashing coming from Italy? I can't see it from the UK, the home of the Victim. I am not really interested in the huge amount of stuff being written. None of us were on the juries, so you can spin it any way you like.

She was apparently in the apartment when her friend was raped and slashed up 42 times. There has been no explanation as far as I know other than that she tried to blame an innocent man. I can't see that she doesn't know what happened and she owes it to her friend's family to tell them. Unless of course.............

 

[monstro]

I'm so grateful that I can be so humbly exposed to all of you who have all the answers, who can gather all the evidence from second and third hand sources and provide me with all the gems of your wisdom. Thank you. Thank you all so much.

 

[Calboner]

I'm so grateful that I can be so humbly exposed to all of you who have all the answers, who can gather all the evidence from second and third hand sources and provide me with all the gems of your wisdom. Thank you. Thank you all so much.

Cite an example of someone here who has pretended to "have all the answers" or to have gathered "all the evidence."

 

[monstro]

I can't.

You win.

Thanks for playing.

 

[monstro]

But I will ask you this, and it's entirely rhetorical and as much directed at myself: at what point, and to whom, do you stop trying to prove that you're right?

 

[Drifterwood]

But I will ask you this, and it's entirely rhetorical and as much directed at myself: at what point, and to whom, do you stop trying to prove that you're right?

You shouldn't start, we weren't there, we didn't hear all the evidence.

The prosecution was sufficiently flawed, there remains a largely unresolved murder. Is there much more?

 

[monstro]

I'm not talking about Amanda Knox, Drifterwood. My aim is far more sinister, far more slipshod, and far more antagonistic.

What I'm saying, as meta as it may be, is what is this argument about? And why? Who are we trying to impress with our earnest arguments and oh so important opinions? Are we after truth? How so? Or are we just killing time and trying to score points and be 'right'?

I have no dog in this hunt in terms of the specific topic at large and it's probably best, at this point, to ignore me. Because otherwise I wish to wage war on opinion itself.

So bring it on.

 

[Drifterwood]

A sobering thought on justice.

DNA Evidence Leads to Morton's Release After 25 Years — Texas Department of Criminal Justice | The Texas Tribune

"In court today, Harle told Morton that if it turns out — as the evidence indicates now — that Morton is innocent, then he apologizes. "You do have my sympathies," Harle said. "We don’t have a perfect system of justice, but we do have the best system in the world.""

Bet that makes him and his family feel a whole lot better. Hell, they coulda sparked him.

 

[Calboner]

But I will ask you this, and it's entirely rhetorical and as much directed at myself: at what point, and to whom, do you stop trying to prove that you're right?

Prove that I'm right about what? What am I trying to prove? Show me an example.

I don't think you have any idea of what you are talking about. You come here to denounce people for discussing a matter in which they are not privy to the pertinent information, while you yourself show no acquaintance with plain facts that are in front of you.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I'm not talking about Amanda Knox, Drifterwood. My aim is far more sinister, far more slipshod, and far more antagonistic.

What I'm saying, as meta as it may be, is what is this argument about? And why? Who are we trying to impress with our earnest arguments and oh so important opinions? Are we after truth? How so? Or are we just killing time and trying to score points and be 'right'?

I have no dog in this hunt in terms of the specific topic at large and it's probably best, at this point, to ignore me. Because otherwise I wish to wage war on opinion itself.

So bring it on.

There's such a thing as discussion for discussion's sake you know, and given that this is a discussion board I don't see what your objection is to people discussing a current affairs issue.

People have opinions, they want to discuss them with one another. Need there be any more to it than that?

 

[Drifterwood]

I just saw the triumphant return of Knox on CNN following her "motorcade" - wtf? Isn't this rather bad taste? Is this going down well in the US? Someone has bought the rights and is putting on the circus, right?

I have to say, if this is the case, it depresses me. Last week a guy who has as much claim to injustice was put to death and this week a guy who almost certainly didn't kill his wife is released after 25 years. The Italians have let her go after 4 and she is the hero, a victim worthy of celebration? You have to think about it even if she is completely innocent.

 

[VernalTiger]

My understanding was that the DNA evidence was inconclusive. They found Knox's DNA on the victim's bra strap, and on the knife.

Now, I have no great interest in the case but it's been fairly inescapable lately. But my immediate thought was, "They lived together, of course they found her DNA!" I don't know about you lot, but if CSI:Miami ever took their black lights and swab kits through my house, the whole place would light up like a disco party.