Jump to content

Amanda Knox


Dynamo

Recommended Posts


Heartbreaking for the Kercher family having to go through all this. Agree with her sister when she says Meredith has been forgotten. The media coverage and the sexualisation of Amanda Knox has been fucking disgusting imo.

 

you think she was guilty? :sherlock:

Link to comment

Utter f*ckin scandal from start to finish. Even is she didn't murder her like she claims (which appears improbable from what iv'e read), she knows more than she's letting on. She's got that Joe Lee's look about her.

 

Thanfully the italian justice system is so f*cked up, prosecutors are allowed to appeal against the ruling of the appeal. This is exactly the kind of shit that happens when you let a jury's decide the outcome of apellate trials. Criminal appeals should be conducted in front of a panel of judges.

 

She is sexy however - i'll give her that (and that's not all i'd give her).

 

:spunk:

Link to comment

Utter f*ckin scandal from start to finish. Even is she didn't murder her like she claims (which appears improbable from what iv'e read), she knows more than she's letting on. She's got that Joe Lee's look about her.

 

Thanfully the italian justice system is so f*cked up, prosecutors are allowed to appeal against the ruling of the appeal. This is exactly the kind of shit that happens when you let a jury's decide the outcome of apellate trials. Criminal appeals should be conducted in front of a panel of judges.

 

She is sexy however - i'll give her that (and that's not all i'd giver her).

 

:spunk:

 

Can you tell me why this is the case? I can't understand why you would have a jury for an appeal? We don't have that in the UK surely? (Apologies I've very limited knowledge on the criminal justice system)

 

EDIT - as an aside do you agree on having a jury for a complex fraud trial?

Link to comment

Can you tell me why this is the case? I can't understand why you would have a jury for an appeal? We don't have that in the UK surely? (Apologies I've very limited knowledge on the criminal justice system)

 

Well neither can i to be honest. From what iv'e read the jury is composed of two judges (one who sits as the lead judge on the trial and another) and 6 members of the public. The judges are supposed to adivse on points of law, but the jury can outvote them.

 

I can understand why you might want to have lay representation chipping in with opinion (on matters of fact), but for them to be in a position to decide the outcome of an appeal is outrageous. I suppose it might be seen to be fair - judgement by a group peers and all that... but that what the initial trial is for.

 

Criminal appeals are usually concerned with legal arguements and technicalities (which is why you need a panel of judges). Issues of fact will have been decided by the jury at the initial trial (which is how it should be). We don't have anything like this in the U.K. In Scotland Criminal apeals against sentence are heard before bench of 2 judges, appeals against conviction are heard before a bench of 3 judges unless an important point of law is raised (then its a bench of 5 judges). Very rarely it might be a bench of 7 judges (happened a few times in the last 20 years).

 

EDIT: I think you should always have a jury for criminal trials - regardless of the alledged crime.

 

The level of scientific detail, and volume of material which jury's are asked to disseminate now in murder and rape trials is astonishing. Jury's being presented with complex evidence is nothing new. I don't see why the situation should be any different for white collar crime.

Link to comment

Oi, Italy rocks!

Exactamundo. My favorite country. Behind Scotland obviously. Actually, no. If I could speak Italian I'd be offski.

 

Re. Foxy Knoxy, congratulations. Looking forward to her post prison work. Expecting a full feature playboy spread soon (inc lesbo prison simulations).

Link to comment

I don't know a lot about the case, however I can't help feeling some of the comments are a little unfair. She was aquitted, it couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt that she was guilty, therefore she's innocent.

 

I was reading a little bit about the case on the news this morning and the telegraphy have just released an interesting article, trying to sum up the evidence, or lack of it.... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8803077/Amanda-Knox-Guilty-or-innocent-five-reasons-why.html

 

Now, I'm no legal expert, but there doesn't seem to be a solid case supporting either side here. :dontknow:

 

I do agree that the media have a lot to answer for, whipping this whole thing up into a frenzy! Knox has been portrayed by some outlets as an evil she-devil! You only have to read some of the comments above in thread above, folk saying they hope she's assasinated! Way over the top!

 

From my perspective, you are talking about two youngsters who'd had a few drinks and been smoking some week, who certainly aren't criminal masterminds! If they had murdered her, I imagine it would have been a piece of cake to seal a conviction. The department across the corridor from where I work, do loads of forensic work for the australian police force and speaking to a couple of them at coffee this morning, certainly in terms of DNA evidence, even 4 years ago it would have been easy to seal a water-tight conviction on a murder weapon that would have been teeming with DNA.

 

I feel sorry for both parties, Amanda Knox and the victims family, in this whole sorry mess. I hope they can find some answers to this one.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...