I know for sure there is no evidence that she is guilty.Originally Posted by Common
Senior Member
I know for sure there is no evidence that she is guilty.
Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. And that it is doing God service when it is violating all His laws.
--John Adams
Peter1469 (02-02-2014)
Senior Member
you're right of course, @Common
but we do know she can't be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. and that's unconscionable.
Senior Member
It certainly looks that way
Banned
You are correct but she was found to be innocent by the Italian courts. The higher court didn't like the verdict so they are trying her again. Under Italian law apparently you can keep trying someone until you get the verdict you want or they just run out of money and can't defend themselves.
Senior Member
Truth be told, I'd rail the $#@! out of her if I ever had the chance.
my junk is ugly
Banned
Unfortunately she didn't break a law in the United States, she is accused of doing so in Italy and Italian law would prevail. Its not illegal to spit tobacco juice on the streets of Memphis (hell its almost a requirement) but doing that in Singapore will get you publicly caned
Senior Member
Amanda Knox is given a lifeline after judge who convicted her for a second time breaches legal rules with a series of revealing interviews about the verdict
Amanda Knox has been given a lifeline after the judge who condemned her breached legal rules to give interviews about the verdict.
Defence lawyers said chief judge Alessandro Nencini’s comments show prejudice in his conviction of the American for the murder in Italy of British student Meredith Kercher.
It came as Knox, 26, was pictured looking pale and drawn as she walked with boyfriend James Terrano in New York.
Last week the student nicknamed Foxy Knoxy was convicted of the 2007 murder for a second time when a court in Florence quashed a previous acquittal and sentenced her and ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito to 28 and 25 years in prison.
Judges in Italy are banned from commenting publicly until after the final appeal to the Supreme Court, which in Knox’s case will not happen until next year.
But following the sentence Nencini gave an interview admitting 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 he believed that the murder would never have happened without her. But he seemed less convinced of Sollecito’s culpability and said the Italian could have helped his case if he had submitted to cross-examination.
Defence lawyers have interpreted the comments as evidence that the panel was prejudiced, claiming the judges would have acquitted Sollecito if he had betrayed Knox.
Sollecito’s lawyer Luca Maori threatened legal action and added: ‘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?’
Rodolfo Sabelli, head of the Italian National Association of Judges, said Nencini’s remarks were ‘inappropriate’.
Another reason why we should not extradite in the case of a final guilty verdict is that juries in Italy are not sequestered during trials and can watch as much biased media coverage as they like. This violates American principles of jurisprudence and justice. How can a jury be expected to render a fair and impartial verdict while they are being bombarded with biased media reports about the trial?
Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. And that it is doing God service when it is violating all His laws.
--John Adams
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote