Amanda Knox - Guilty or Innocent

[Ian_W]

Loosely - Italy could learn a great deal from 'the land of the free', as far as Amanda is concerned, as an American citizen, she has been found not guilty of a crime and it is her constitutional right to never have to stand trial for that crime again. I rest my case!

 

However if you visit another country you are subject to their laws and not those of your home nation.

[Brounmoney]

 

 

I've explained it to you that the original appeal was overturned by the Supremem Court which also upheld her conviction of Slander against Patrick Lumumba. She is still a convicted criminal in Italy. Which I told you.

 

Here is ABC's report for one, there are others in more detail but I think readers will accept ABC as an accredited News Organisation and not just another Blog site "on Amanda's side despite the facts" which you held up as your evidence. Her convictions stand and the retrial does not need either defendant present, it purely hears the original evidence which let's face it the Supreme Court already has and which overturned the appeal.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/amanda-knox-shocked-court-ruling-murder/story?id=18809434#.UXws3pVtJUQ

 

Case closed Mr Shill.

 

The article you just posted said she would be retried. That still does not mean there is a verdict. It means they have to go through trail again to see if she is guilty. The original verdict does not stand because that was appealed. Unless you have a different article that says she should be in prison right now because she is guilty, then you have nothing. They are appealing the fact that the case was thrown out. What part of appealing do you not understand? The prosecution is appeal, so that means they did not get the conviction they wanted.

[Loose]

The article you just posted said she would be retried. That still does not mean there is a verdict. It means they have to go through trail again to see if she is guilty. The original verdict does not stand because that was appealed. Unless you have a different article that says she should be in prison right now because she is guilty, then you have nothing. They are appealing the fact that the case was thrown out. What part of appealing do you not understand? The prosecution is appeal, so that means they did not get the conviction they wanted.

 

You just don't get it do you? People like Rhodesy and yourself never will understand the difference between how our own countries justice systems operate and others.

 

The retrial in Italy since the appeal has been overturned still has Knox and Sollecito's status as being returned to convicted of murder. But I realise that the concept of Roman Laws based on Civil not criminal law is beyond you. The Case is being tried not the defendants. Oh dear.

 

Anyway, if you read the article which you asked for then you will have seen that.

 

Are you really this stupid or is it just the money that makes you unable to understand the evidence of the article?

 

 

And in addition she is guilty of Slander, a criminal offence in Italy. So, either way you look at it Knox, an american citizen residing in Italy at the time of the murder and trials, she is a convicted criminal. Duh!

Edited April 27, 2013 by Loose

[Brounmoney]

 

 

You just don't get it do you? People like Rhodesy and yourself never will understand the difference between how our own countries justice systems operate and others.

 

The retrial in Italy since the appeal has been overturned still has Knox and Sollecito's status as being returned to convicted of murder. But I realise that the concept of Roman Laws based on Civil not criminal law is beyond you. The Case is being tried not the defendants. Oh dear.

 

Anyway, if you read the article which you asked for then you will have seen that.

 

Are you really this stupid or is it just the money that makes you unable to understand the evidence of the article?

 

 

And in addition she is guilty of Slander, a criminal offence in Italy. So, either way you look at it Knox, an american citizen residing in Italy at the time of the murder and trials, she is a convicted criminal. Duh!

 

So you are saying the trial is being retried? So someone is still guilty even if the trial in which they were convicted in is under appeals. How does that add up? There are questions about how the trial was held and conducted. Yet the person that was convicted is still guilty. If someone could please explain to me how this make sense. If they trial is under question how can the conviction not be in question?

Edited April 27, 2013 by Brounmoney

[Rhodes]

However if you visit another country you are subject to their laws and not those of your home nation.

Ian - Yes, good point but what if those laws are blatantly flawed and suspect, then the great and the good from your own Country should be well within their rights to step in and ask questions in order to prevent one of their innocent citizens to be framed for a crime they so obviously didn't commit

[The Mayor Of Simpleton]

Latest take on this, courtesy of the BBC:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22310186

[missunderstood]

So you are saying the trial is being retried? So someone is still guilty even if the trial in which they were convicted in is under appeals. How does that add up? There are questions about how the trial was held and conducted. Yet the person that was convicted is still guilty. If someone could please explain to me how this make sense. If they trial is under question how can the conviction not be in question?

 

Do you think ex President Bush and ex Prime Minister Blair should stand trial for mass murder in the UK and America, or in Iraq where the crimes where committed?

[Loose]

Latest take on this, courtesy of the BBC:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...gazine-22310186

 

I think this may have been unusual even in Italy, being a totally different system to ours (and the US for our american chum) judges are charged with finding the truth themselves as opposed to adjudicating the presentation of evidence. This means where in the UK and based on Common Law there are no "grey areas" - there is always a precedent in place but in Italy judges are allowed to seek the truth in those "grey areas" and determine unique findings. People seem to find it a difficult concept but among the differences are that there is no presumption of innocence, defendants also have to prove they are not guilty, it is at odds with our system. Another is that defendants do not have to take an oath, common sense in Roman Law is that a defendant will lie if necessary and is their right to try. Many differences but compared with our system which is only at most a thousand years old, Italian is over 2,000 years old like most other european countries and others around the world, they had a head start.

 

It's beyond some to comprehend that what they know back home doesn't apply. The judge should have ordered a re-test of DNA confirming the original results of Kercher's DNA being on it or not. I wonder if he allowed himself to be influenced by the squeals that the sample was too small to be reliable, a re-test could have confirmed that supposition or blown it out of the water.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Loose

[Eastside Urchin]

 

 

Do you think ex President Bush and ex Prime Minister Blair should stand trial for mass murder in the UK and America, or in Iraq where the crimes where committed?

 

What for fighting terror,do people forget what saddam did to the Kurds? Bloke was a tyrant of the highest order,had one true friend,gorgeous George fckng Galloway a knob of the highest order.

Yes,we know that oil was an issue, you can't cover it up but the geezer had to go and of course there are going to be civilian fatalities,you can't get round it

[Brounmoney]

 

 

I think this may have been unusual even in Italy, being a totally different system to ours (and the US for our american chum) judges are charged with finding the truth themselves as opposed to adjudicating the presentation of evidence. This means where in the UK and based on Common Law there are no "grey areas" - there is always a precedent in place but in Italy judges are allowed to seek the truth in those "grey areas" and determine unique findings. People seem to find it a difficult concept but among the differences are that there is no presumption of innocence, defendants also have to prove they are not guilty, it is at odds with our system. Another is that defendants do not have to take an oath, common sense in Roman Law is that a defendant will lie if necessary and is their right to try. Many differences but compared with our system which is only at most a thousand years old, Italian is over 2,000 years old like most other european countries and others around the world, they had a head start.

 

It's beyond some to comprehend that what they know back home doesn't apply. The judge should have ordered a re-test of DNA confirming the original results of Kercher's DNA being on it or not. I wonder if he allowed himself to be influenced by the squeals that the sample was too small to be reliable, a re-test could have confirmed that supposition or blown it out of the water.

 

I do I have one question for you. Even in the article you sent to me it talks about double jeopardy and Amanda being acquitted. They all state they are appealing that acquittal. You said the appeal was for the trial not for Amanda's and her boyfriend. So which is it. Are they having a retrial for the trial alone or are Amanda and her boyfriend being retried? I am honestly asking this because it seems that what you are saying in contrary to what the news articles are saying.

 

[Loose]

I do I have one question for you. Even in the article you sent to me it talks about double jeopardy and Amanda being acquitted. They all state they are appealing that acquittal. You said the appeal was for the trial not for Amanda's and her boyfriend. So which is it. Are they having a retrial for the trial alone or are Amanda and her boyfriend being retried? I am honestly asking this because it seems that what you are saying in contrary to what the news articles are saying.

 

I can't see the point in trying to help you any further. However, did you read that the judge overturned the appeal decision? Do you understand what that means?

 

I can't believe I'm bothering.

[Brounmoney]

 

 

I can't see the point in trying to help you any further. However, did you read that the judge overturned the appeal decision? Do you understand what that means?

 

I can't believe I'm bothering.

Yes I understand it seems you are telling me that her acquittal was overturned. Now we are back to where we started back in 2007. I am sorry but forgive me if I don't trust very much of what you say. It seems the news sites state it is getting appealed, so that would mean it has to go to a trial again and there is no verdict. That would mean her verdict is still up in the air, but since you know so much about Italian law she is pretty much guilty unless she can prove that she is not. So you say that means she is guilty.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Brounmoney

[missunderstood]

Yes I understand it seems you are telling me that her acquittal was overturned. Now we are back to where we started back in 2007. I am sorry but forgive me if I don't trust very much of what you say. It seems the news sites state it is getting appealed, so that would mean it has to go to a trial again and there is no verdict. That would mean her verdict is still up in the air, but since you know so much about Italian law she is pretty much guilty unless she can prove that she is not. So you say that means she is guilty.

When are they taking you back to the asylum?

[Loose]

When are they taking you back to the asylum?

 

They have one that can hold him?

 

It's honestly not difficult. The trial found her and Sollecito guilty.

 

The first appeal overturned that ruling.

 

The second appeal overturned the first appeal ruling.

 

Leaving Knox and Sollecito's status as Guilty.

 

They are being accorded a retrial to prove their innocence.

 

 

In addition Knox's conviction for Slander was Upheld by the Supreme Court.

 

Any way you look at it, and Italian law also, Knox is a convicted criminal and her status is still guilty of murder.

[Brounmoney]

 

 

They have one that can hold him?

 

It's honestly not difficult. The trial found her and Sollecito guilty.

 

The first appeal overturned that ruling.

 

The second appeal overturned the first appeal ruling.

 

Leaving Knox and Sollecito's status as Guilty.

 

They are being accorded a retrial to prove their innocence.

 

 

In addition Knox's conviction for Slander was Upheld by the Supreme Court.

 

Any way you look at it, and Italian law also, Knox is a convicted criminal and her status is still guilty of murder.

 

This is what I was getting at from the beginning. "They are accorded a retrial to prove their innocence". They can still be found not guilty, but yet you still say they are guilty. Whatever we just keep going around an around. She will not be present at the trial, and will never go back. I say she is right where she should be.

[Loose]

This is what I was getting at from the beginning. "They are accorded a retrial to prove their innocence". They can still be found not guilty, but yet you still say they are guilty. Whatever we just keep going around an around. She will not be present at the trial, and will never go back. I say she is right where she should be.

 

Well along the way you have stated that she is not guilty and is not a convicted criminal so not completely true but we'll take it as an admittance that you were wrong and have now fallen back on "'Manda is going to stay in hiding in the US". Meanwhile at least the Kercher family know that their daughters killers have been convicted.

 

Seriously, they pay you to be to do this?

[Brounmoney]

 

 

Well along the way you have stated that she is not guilty and is not a convicted criminal so not completely true but we'll take it as an admittance that you were wrong and have now fallen back on "'Manda is going to stay in hiding in the US". Meanwhile at least the Kercher family know that their daughters killers have been convicted.

 

Seriously, they pay you to be to do this?

 

I am not saying you ate right. I still think she is not guilty, but hey whatever. Kercher are happy with how this was handled than that is fine, but you and every one else knows there was never enough solid evidence to convicted her. The Kercher family will be left never knowing who killed their daughter.

[Loose]

I am not saying you ate right. I still think she is not guilty, but hey whatever. Kercher are happy with how this was handled than that is fine, but you and every one else knows there was never enough solid evidence to convicted her. The Kercher family will be left never knowing who killed their daughter.

 

I do not think that you can speak for what I or everyone else knows. You do not know myself or indeed "everyone". The Kercher family know very well who killed their daughter, the perpetrators were found guilty and their status is still that of Guilty.

 

Are you retarded?

[Brounmoney]

 

 

I do not think that you can speak for what I or everyone else knows. You do not know myself or indeed "everyone". The Kercher family know very well who killed their daughter, the perpetrators were found guilty and their status is still that of Guilty.

 

Are you retarded?

 

No I am not retarded. I all the right in the world to say I find the evidence solid enough to convict. You choose to say that it is. If you have name call then it is no longer worth even talking to you. Well it is not really worth talking to you because it is either your way or no ones. I don't trust anything you say.

[BUFC]

No I am not retarded.

 

Yes you are......