Amanda Knoxx retrial

I would, despite the fact she'd probably slit my throat on the vinegar strokes.
 
Last edited:
Whether Amanda Knox is getting away with murder or not it doesn't really matter as she's unlikely to murder again. Pretty much all serial killers are male.

Compared to Abu Qatada and the Pakistani rape gangs here she's a saint.
 
Moses said:
Lots of places have a double jeopardy law, or it's part of the legal system, but it's not an absolute thing, in many cases.

Eg. the ECHR says,

"The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not prevent the reopening of the case in accordance with the law and penal procedure of the State concerned, if there is evidence of new or newly discovered facts, or if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings, which could affect the outcome of the case."

http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=59

In the case in the OP, hasn't there been a mistake (allegedly)? They're not just having another crack at a conviction... they're trying to right a possible wrong.

It'd be stupid to have an absolute double jeopardy law, imo... it's good to have one to stop frivolous retrials, etc... but it's stupid to have an absolute one as it means mistakes can't be rectified. The balance of having one with caveats seems wholly sensible.
Click to expand...

Castiel said:
The US do not have to resort to the Double Jeopardy rule anyway...according to their extradition treaty any extradition must be validated with a "case summary that gives reasonable basis for the guilt of the person being sought for extradition". I can't see any US State Official making such a decision given the inadequacies of both the evidence and the issues with the investigation.

Also the US have no reason to comply with or obligation to the ECHR.
Click to expand...

How you derived your response from his reply, I personally have no idea. This is Castiel all over; get on Wikipedia, churn out intelligent yet entirely superfluous waffle, and hope that the bright lights of your waffle create enough ooos and ahhhs to win over those that don't see past you. I know you dislike the phrase 'straw man' due to its over-use, but it was practically invented for you.
 
Duff-Man said:
I reckon that not one of us here has close to enough facts to make that decision.

It always rankles my chain a little that people will pre-judge the guilt or innocence of someone who is standing trial, based entirely on second or third-hand reports from the media (which are, more often than not, sensationalist and designed to sell papers).

Leave it to the jury.
Click to expand...

110% this. The rest is just opinions and they're worthless for the most part.
 
Duff-Man said:
I reckon that not one of us here has close to enough facts to make that decision.

It always rankles my chain a little that people will pre-judge the guilt or innocence of someone who is standing trial, based entirely on second or third-hand reports from the media (which are, more often than not, sensationalist and designed to sell papers).

Leave it to the jury.
Click to expand...

It's a great point you've made, and I do agree with you. However, I can't help but read your posts in Duff-man's voice, which somewhat detracts from their gravitas.

"Duff-man abhors miscarriages of justice!......Oh yeah!"
 
Robbie G said:
How you derived your response from his reply, I personally have no idea. This is Castiel all over; get on Wikipedia, churn out intelligent yet entirely superfluous waffle, and hope that the bright lights of your waffle create enough ooos and ahhhs to win over those that don't see past you. I know you dislike the phrase 'straw man' due to its over-use, but it was practically invented for you.
Click to expand...

Lol. Ironic isn't that you talk about waffle, when every post I ever see from you is either waffle minus the intellect or simply an excuse to denigrate someone. If you don't like what you read or dislike me that much then use the ignore facility to save yourself from such superfluous Wikipedia derived strawman waffle. Then perhaps you could find the time to actually contribute to the actual discussion topics themselves instead of just being critical of those who participate. :)
 
Last edited:
PanMaster said:
Whether Amanda Knox is getting away with murder or not it doesn't really matter as she's unlikely to murder again. Pretty much all serial killers are male.

Compared to Abu Qatada and the Pakistani rape gangs here she's a saint.
Click to expand...

Hmm.
I assume your first point relates to rehabilitation rather than punishment.
I can only assume your second point relates to this case being the media's wet dream. Personally I have completely forgotten about the poor girl who has had her throat slit and I am embarrassed by that. If this case didn't involve Amanda Knox, just the two guys, it would have been forgotten about by now. Also if this had taken place in the US rather than Italy and everyone involved was American including Meredith then I suspect general opinions would be really quite different. Really interesting dynamics at work here.

Robbie G said:
How you derived your response from his reply, I personally have no idea. This is Castiel all over; get on Wikipedia, churn out intelligent yet entirely superfluous waffle, and hope that the bright lights of your waffle create enough ooos and ahhhs to win over those that don't see past you. I know you dislike the phrase 'straw man' due to its over-use, but it was practically invented for you.
Click to expand...

:confused:
Moses gives information about double jeopardy
Castiel gives information on extradition
Don't see the problem

The Funktopus said:
It's a great point you've made, and I do agree with you. However, I can't help but read your posts in Duff-man's voice, which somewhat detracts from their gravitas.

"Duff-man abhors miscarriages of justice!......Oh yeah!"
Click to expand...

Genius. :D
 
There's something strangely attractive about the black and white world in which our beloved OP lives in. He knows that knoxx (sic) is a murderer. He knows this. He is capable of copying and pasting comments from those far brighter than he himself and then endorsing them.

Because he knows.
 
Meridian said:
Are you serious? Sadly, I suspect that you are. Several people have connected this to the McCann case, and I agree - but for another reason. The "great" British Public seem to think that they know how people should react after such events - usually they think that it should feature much tears, for example. If the person/people concerned fail to react in the official approved matter, some of the slower members of the public assume this is a sign of guilt. Except that there's no rule book. People who deal a lot with people under high stress will tell you that any and all reactions can occur, from hysterics to complete calm. You can read NOTHING into people's reaction after such events. So stop trying. People who know far more about such things than you get it wrong all the time, and you are wrong too. Only the actual (not the stuff made up by the papers - and we are back to the McCanns) evidence matters.
Click to expand...

Very true. Perfectly true. I very much agree, particularly in major stressful situations like this. But body language is interesting. Most people can spot a disingenuous smile from a real smile, for instance.


Jason2 said:
The video mentions her doing cartwheels as I previously posted. That doesn't strike me as someone who is devastated that their 'friend' has been murdered. I understand people can react to tragedy in different ways, but doing cartwheels is just weird.
Click to expand...

Could it be a regression to childhood as a coping mechanism? I would want to pretend that it wasn't really happening too.
Actually I lie, I'd be depressed to the point of not being able to feel any emotion at all. Would that make me a psychopath?
Like Meridian said, there's no way to realistically extrapolate.
 
[FnG]magnolia;24020141 said:
There's something strangely attractive about the black and white world in which our beloved OP lives in. He knows that knoxx (sic) is a murderer. He knows this. He is capable of copying and pasting comments from those far brighter than he himself and then endorsing them.

Because he knows.
Click to expand...

Copying and pasting what? Facts? What am I supposed to do - make up facts that didn't happen? Idiot. Live your life as an apologetic. Your kind never show themselves in the public light because you know the public would be gunning for ya.
 
Last edited:
Meridian said:
Because they shared a house. Seriously - DNA gets everywhere. It's also hardly uncommon for women to wear each other's clothing. And this also assumes that it actually was, and the press isn't making that bit up. And the Italian lab didn't mess up. And the OIC didn't plant the evidence.
Click to expand...

I thought she had only known her for a few weeks. Seems a bit quick to be sharing underwear :o
 
Jason2 said:
Copying and pasting what? Facts? What am I supposed to do - make up facts that didn't happen? Idiot. Live your life as an apologetic. Your kind never show themselves in the public light because you know the public would be gunning for ya.
Click to expand...

Most of what you posted ISN'T fact, the promiscous thing was made up by the same man WHO ACCUSED THEM OF BEING IN A SATANIC CULT, the same many who has done so repeatedly in other trials, and has been found guilty of lying under oath.

The majority of what you posted aren't facts that she killed Kercher, its proof that she lived in the same apartment and potentially didn't know who was guilty.

AS for implicating the first guy, they ASKED HER to guess who it might have been, the other guy, who they found in Germany and was deported back, ADMITTED to killing Kercher, the only person to do so, his initial statement was he did it ALONE, then after realising he'd get a lesser sentence, said other people helped. His cellmate(or someone in jail?) IIRC has testified that in jail he said he did it alone. Blood smeared all over the bathroom, is hyperbolic and false, there were a few drops by all "decent" sources.

The BBC's proper story into the retrail basically calls the trial, evidence, and prosecution a joke, as does 20/20 in the states, watch either.

AFAIk there is zero proof she did anything other than smoke hash and its the only drug they found evidence of in her drug tests, and smoking some hash doesn't make you a drug addict, nor IF she was a drug addict would that be proof of her guilt. Most of the stuff you've listed is the kind of "lets make her seem like a **** and druggy because the jury will decide to think badly of her", and nothing to do with proof she murdered anyone.

oldbag said:
Unless they have new non contaminated evidence, how can they possibly have a retrial?
Click to expand...

They can't, and the USA whoever the hell it is who gets involved, should deny any kind of extradition back to Italy.

In these cases, rather than admit they screwed up, they can just say "hey we have new evidence, we'll call her guilty, and that will be it", rather than be the guy who failed at his job miserably, he can be the guy who "got his man" but was prevented from putting them on trial, its not his fault, etc.

Politicians/cops/prosecutors do this crap all the time, when they lose they find an excuse to be able to claim they didn't. This is why I can't stand politics/police/governments in general.

This guy involved(prosecutor, lead investigator, forget which) lies under oath, believes every murder has a satanic cult behind it, is plainly nuts and utterly incompetant, this is the kind of guy who should have been fired(or committed) long ago but due to friends/some power keeps his job and makes other peoples lives miserable. People get away with this crap all the time.

Like I said, she could have been involved, there is literally no clear cut evidence at all, lots of lies, dodgy interogation, crap trial, contaminated crime scene and a huge character assassination before/during/after the trial to push the public/media/judge/everyone against her.
 
I don't know if shes guilty or not but I watched the interview Amamda Knox gave on American television and she showed all hallmarks of a soicopath. She was so cool and calm when being questioned, showed zero emotion, no guilt no empathy. As they say those eyes had nothing behind them bit emptiness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom