Amanda Knox

Bill wrote:

A comparison of the two is certainly relevant for others to form opinions based on the differences, don't you think?

It certainly is, Bill, as is your ability to put forth the points of comparison that better fit your intent.

My own rethorical abilities are very poor in English as to allow me to efficiently counter those points.

But I certainly, were I to be tried, would prefer by far to have a trial in France, England or Germany than in the United States.

and wrote:

...Italy's sovereign right to pathetically inadequate civil liberties.

You obviously know nothing about civil liberties in other countries, Bill.

An encounter with police in Europe is far less dangerous for your civil liberties (and for your physical integrity) than in the United States.

1 Reply

Does anyone think that Gary McKinnon (a Brit who hacked into the Pentagon's computers) will get a fair trial if he is extradited to the USA?

(sorry I'm too lazy to start another thread)

2 Replies

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

Bill wrote:
A comparison of the two is certainly relevant for others to form opinions based on the differences, don't you think?

It certainly is, Bill, as is your ability to put forth the points of comparison that better fit your intent.

My own rethorical abilities are very poor in English as to allow me to efficiently counter those points.

Nonsense Francis; your English is impeccable and if it isn't as sharp as your wit; your French must be spectacular. I suspect what your argument lacks is merit.

Francis wrote:

But I certainly, were I to be tried, would prefer by far to have a trial in France, England or Germany than in the United States.

Interesting that your short list doesn't include Italy, since that's what we're discussing.

Francis wrote:

and wrote:
...Italy's sovereign right to pathetically inadequate civil liberties.
You obviously know nothing about civil liberties in other countries, Bill.

What is obvious, is that merely stating your opponent is ignorant is a sorry substitute for an actual point.

Francis wrote:

An encounter with police in Europe is far less dangerous for your civil liberties (and for your physical integrity) than in the United States.

So stipulated, but I wouldn't trade my constitutional right to a presumption of innocence or Due Process for better treatment by the police.

I remain curious: Do you (or does anyone here) disagree with the notion that the accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law?

1 Reply

Bill wrote:

Francis wrote:
But I certainly, were I to be tried, would prefer by far to have a trial in France, England or Germany than in the United States.

Interesting that your short list doesn't include Italy, since that's what we're discussing.

And to make it more interesting, I would prefer to have a trial in any of the 27 countries of the EU rather than in the United States.

Bill wrote:

Francis wrote:

Bill wrote:
..Italy's sovereign right to pathetically inadequate civil liberties.

You obviously know nothing about civil liberties in other countries, Bill.

What is obvious, is that merely stating your opponent is ignorant is a sorry substitute for an actual point.

Because saying that civil liberties in Italy are pathetically inadequate is a sound argument and an actual point? Oh, pleeeze!!!

Bill wrote:

Francis wrote:
An encounter with police in Europe is far less dangerous for your civil liberties (and for your physical integrity) than in the United States.

So stipulated, but I wouldn't trade my constitutional right to a presumption of innocence or Due Process for better treatment by the police.

You know, Bill, we have that in addition. No need to trade anything.

Bill wrote:

I remain curious: Do you (or does anyone here) disagree with the notion that the accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law?

What we are discussing is "reasonable doubt"..

1 Reply

What Bill is confusing are "reasonable doubt in a court of law" and "reasonable doubt in some biased Joe Sixpack's TV room".

0 Replies

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

Because saying that civil liberties in Italy are pathetically inadequate is a sound argument and an actual point? Oh, pleeeze!!!

I've provided a considerable amount of reasoning for my point. What have you provided for yours?

Francis wrote:

Bill wrote:
Francis wrote:
An encounter with police in Europe is far less dangerous for your civil liberties (and for your physical integrity) than in the United States.

So stipulated, but I wouldn't trade my constitutional right to a presumption of innocence or Due Process for better treatment by the police.

You know, Bill, we have that in addition. No need to trade anything.

Deliberately exposing juries to mountains of irrelevant, prejudicial material is a mockery of Due Process by any definition. It also precludes any Presumption of Innocence. As does a paltry 5/8 majority requirement for verdict.

Francis wrote:

Bill wrote:
I remain curious: Do you (or does anyone here) disagree with the notion that the accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law?
What we are discussing is "reasonable doubt"..

And in your honest opinion; even if 3 of 8 jurors were to insist that the State failed to make it's case; the other 5 jurors opinion to the contrary would equate to a finding of guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt? Really?

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

oralloy wrote:
It is quite clear that there is no evidence to show she had anything to do with this, and that she has been maliciously prosecuted.

I disagree, but you seem to have an inordinate strength of conviction about this that precludes much discussion about it.

Can you show any evidence that she had anything to do with this?

Can you see any reason for leaking lies about Knox to the press to make it look like she was guilty, other than malicious prosecution?

I'm quite confident that you'll not be able to show any evidence she had anything to do with this, for the simple fact that there is no such evidence.

It is possible however that you could have an explanation for all the lies leaked to the media other than malicious prosecution. I doubt such an explanation exists, but I'll admit the odds aren't exactly zero.

0 Replies

@Izzie,

Izzie wrote:

oralloy wrote:
The term "charges" doesn't really apply to POWs. Being a POW doesn't mean you have committed a crime.

Hmmmmmmm...

Would you care to elaborate a little further on that. I think you are mixing the pot to suit the circumstances.

Innocent is innocent. Surely, a person who is detained by the authorities - whether it is in Italy or elsewhere - if they are innocent of the charge beyond reasonable doubt, then they should not be detained.

Who is judging the reasonable doubt in any of these cases?

When an enemy fighter is captured in war, they get detained as a POW until the end of the war. That does not mean he or she has committed a crime. (They could always face criminal prosecution if they did commit a crime, but that is separate from the POW issue.)

I'm not sure if reasonable doubt is the correct term, but the Bush administration set up military tribunals to try to sort out civilians from soldiers (these are entirely different from the sorts of military tribunals that might prosecute war crimes).

More recently the US Supreme Court ruled those tribunals inadequate, and now federal courts have taken on the role of sorting soldiers from civilians.

Izzie wrote:

but....

what about all the reports that have been filed?

How would you accurately know what the conditions at Guantanamo are like?

The media reports on Guantanamo always show that it is a pretty reasonable place.

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

Does anyone think that Gary McKinnon (a Brit who hacked into the Pentagon's computers) will get a fair trial if he is extradited to the USA?

(sorry I'm too lazy to start another thread)

I think he will. But I'd let him be tried under British law if it were up to me. I trust the UK's legal system.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

The media reports on Guantanamo always show that it is a pretty reasonable place.

Really...

ok... well, I am absolutely no authority in any of these matters. So I googled and these came up first

Jan09
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/01/obama_orders_gu.html

and this came up

Jan09
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7845585.stm

and this came up

yesterday
President Barack Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum dated December 15, 2009 formally closing the detention center and ordering the transfer of prisoners to the Thomson Correctional Center, Thomson, Illinois.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay_detention_camp

as much as the media press you say you have read about Guantanamo paints a prettier picture, there is certainly media information that contradicts your claim.

The point I am trying to make is that you're making an unequivicol claim of innocence for Amanda due to information you have taken from the press, but it is only media information that you are choosing to read - because you are not there or present at the hearings etc - you get press information that sits more comfortably. Stating that all Italians are evil because of it just doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not saying that Amanda is guilty. I wouldn't have a clue. I wouldn't say she were innocent tho because "due process" didn't take place (dunno legal terms so out of my depth there). In essence, I don't believe someone is innocent because the media had a field day.

If this young woman is innocent - then I hope someone finds something to disprove whatever evidence there is. With the might of the US behind her - I am sure someone will be able to do something if she is innocent.

Reasonable doubt ...

I doubt much... I have not seen or witnessed any of the finer details so really cannot form a strong opinion - that may be a cop out, but that's the way it is.

I really still cannot see someone being found guilty without one shred of evidence - whether the evidence is true or not. However.... that is why I personally oppose the death penalty, innocent people do go to jail and do get executed in some countries - not the UK now. Too late then for that one innocent person. Innocent people go to jail. Murderers get away with murder.

also... as much as I oppose the death penalty.... I also understand that the world is not always a "pretty" place and there are people who have to act for the better of the world, or for individuals. People have to make decisions each day that we can't even imagine. We can sit back in our blessed worlds whilst someone else is doing the dirty work to keep our "freedom". Digressing - 'nother topic.

So, all I'm really trying to say oralloy is that we all interpret the media in the way we wish to - listening to opposing opinions may alter your views.... or not. You do not seem open to listening to other views on the question of guilt, tho I am glad you would not see fit to throw some Italians down a mountain any more.

I'm no data bank either so off I go for now...

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I remain curious: Do you (or does anyone here) disagree with the notion that the accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law?

Hey Bill.... yep, I do agree that the accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law.

Yep. I do.

You know Bill, I often think that with these heinous crimes (any crime really, I suppose), all the experts put all the evidence in front of the jury/judge/whomever.... (don't know legal) and a jury of your peers decides the innocence or guilt. How difficult it must be to sit on a jury and know, without a shadow of a doubt, that someone is guilty when they are claiming they are innocent. Unless you were there.........

Which of course is why we have forensic teams etc....

I mean, I can't imagine what makes someone do the things they do (we are hearing of a particularly horrific serial killing on the news here) and it is beyond belief. The prosecuting lawyers make the case with the DNA specialists and the experts and the this that and the other - and the defence lawyers make a case to dispute all the evidence, or the "prove it" defence and sit quiet.

Then, 30 years later someone can come along and say.... the DNA evidence was wrong, the techniques change, the evidence doesn't hold.

Sometimes it's too late then because despite all the good will in the world and the due process and all that it can still be flawed.

Makes me pretty cynical all round a? Or simple. Sorry. I don't argue too well but wished to answer your question there.

1 Reply

Quote:

Stating that all Italians are evil because of it just doesn't make sense to me.

I don't think he really gives a damn about the Italians, he has just found a way of getting attention in a web forum, more attention than an annoying jerkwad would normally get.

0 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

Does anyone think that Gary McKinnon (a Brit who hacked into the Pentagon's computers) will get a fair trial if he is extradited to the USA?

We're even more afflicted with political correctness here, so now that he's been diagnosed with some psychological disorder he'll probably get the minimum sentence - perhaps you've been reading the wrong numbers, though?

Quote:

He faces anywhere from six months to six-and-a-half years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines, depending on how much damage he caused, if any, and whether or not he accepts responsibility. Through a quirk of the metric system, this becomes 60 years, 70 years, 80 years and a life sentence in the British press.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/08/uk-hacker-gary/

0 Replies

@Izzie,

Izzie wrote:

The point I am trying to make is that you're making an unequivicol claim of innocence for Amanda due to information you have taken from the press, but it is only media information that you are choosing to read - because you are not there or present at the hearings etc - you get press information that sits more comfortably.

I base my statement that she is unequivocally innocent and was maliciously prosecuted on two facts:

First, there is zero evidence that she had anything to do with it.

Second, the Italians clearly leaked many falsehoods about her supposed guilt to the media (and ensured the jury was exposed to the resulting lies).

Izzie wrote:

If this young woman is innocent - then I hope someone finds something to disprove whatever evidence there is. With the might of the US behind her - I am sure someone will be able to do something if she is innocent.

There is not even any evidence to disprove in the first place.

0 Replies

@Izzie,

Izzie wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I remain curious: Do you (or does anyone here) disagree with the notion that the accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law?

Hey Bill.... yep, I do agree that the accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law.

Yep. I do.

Hi Izzie! Thanks for answering. If I may, could I also ask you one follow up question… the same follow up question I asked Francis? If 3 of 8 jurors were to insist that the State failed to make it's case; do you think the other 5 jurors opinion to the contrary would equate to a finding of guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt?

The answer seems obvious to me, but Robert and Francis seem to disagree. In my opinion, that is such a narrow margin that random sets of reasonable people would likely flip back and forth.

For a little background, the Centuries old Common Law system was built on the premise that a unanimously agreed to verdict, a traditional standard in Western law, provided the benchmark for "beyond a reasonable doubt" (Still required in Australia, Canada, and most of the U.S., among other places) This has been watered down in many jurisdictions, but even most who've lowered the threshold still require a "Super Majority"; 9 to 1 ratio or better (New Zealand), 5 to 1 (Ireland), but very few have dropped below 2 to 1 (<-the threshold in France) and Italy seems pretty unique in having a system that requires the accused to convince at least 1 to 1 in order for the accused to be exonerated. I can't fathom how anyone could consider a system where 1 shy of half the jurors could disagree in route to a finding of Guilty to be "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Further muddying the "beyond a reasonable doubt" question, is the lack of sequestration combined with the media circus. Here in the States; irrelevant issues like, Amanda dressed up as a Vampire two days before the murder! (that was Haloween, btw), “Amanda once posted a fictional story about a rape!”, “Amanda called herself Foxy-knoxy on Facebook!” would (and should) not be exposed to the jury (as opposed to being the daily dose of "news" as was the case in Italy. Even most incidences of past "bad actions" are kept from juries here in the States, because the courts have ruled such details to be more prejudicial than probative in value. Ideally, the fact-finders (jurors) should be exposed only to the evidence related to the crime in question. In the States there would be numerous evidentiary hearings, which the jury would not be privy to which in turn would exclude the vast majority of the "news" the jurors in Amanda's case were deliberately exposed to. The defense would be given the opportunity to conduct independent tests on everything the State was planning on using; or the State's evidence wouldn't be admitted. This is Due Process.

A final comment for anyone who isn't terribly familiar with DNA: It's NOT magic. Think of it as a very clear fingerprint, that can be left by any part of the body, lifted from a discarded soda can or cigarette butt. It is incredibly useful for identifying whose fluids were left in a victim, or proving that someone was indeed someplace they weren't supposed to be. In this case, however, the crime took place in the accused person’s home. Of course her DNA was found there. Though, as coincidence will have it, Amanda's DNA was not found on the victim or in the immediate crime scene vicinity where you would expect it to be if she had indeed taken part in this vicious crime.

So we have no useful DNA evidence, no eyewitness testimony, and obviously no confession. What precisely do we have? A wildlly unlikely theory of the crime, based entirely on conjecture and some weird behavior after the fact. This does not meet the burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" by any reasonable definition. The available evidence neither includes nor excludes Amanda Knox, and if there were any Presumption of Innocence the accused should have been entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

She may very well be guilty of this terrible crime, but this was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

3 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

She may very well be guilty of this terrible crime, but this was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

She and her boyfriend cleaned up the flat, and did not cooperate with the police, and showed little remorse or surprise, and did not report the death, and tried to blame an innocent man, and she had a grudge against the deceased.

I think that would have got her convicted in most states of the USA. Especially if she was a foreigner.

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

She may very well be guilty of this terrible crime, but this was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt

And if this were another trial in which that was true, say the trial in which OJ Simpson was acquitted of the murder of Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson, because it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, would you be defending him and speaking as his advocate? Were you happy with that verdict? Do you believe that justice was served?

I'm just curious. And just because I'm asking the question doesn't mean that I even know my own answer to that myself.
I guess it comes back to what really constitutes justice.

1 Reply

@McTag,

Quote:

I think that would have got her convicted in most states of the USA. Especially if she was a foreigner.

If she was a Muslim, they'd be wiring up Old Smoky!

1 Reply

@contrex,

Quote:

If she was a Muslim, they'd be wiring up Old Smoky!

You don't have to be a muslim or a foreigner for that- hell you don't even have to be guilty.
You can be a true blue american and innocent of any crime and that still occurs more regularly for certain populations than for others.

That's why I'm wondering if this Amanda Knox were a less attractive and less stellar example of what Americans perceive 'an all-American girl' to represent if there'd be such an outcry in America against her unfair conviction and the Italian justice system, etc. And I'm not even talking about race. I'm talking about perception of who she represents. What if she were a less attractive, struggling scholarship student? Do you think her plight in Italy would even have made it to the front pages in the US?

1 Reply

@aidan,

Quote:

If she was a Muslim, they'd be wiring up Old Smoky!

And I think it was Old Sparky - Old Smokey is a mountain.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know