Amanda Knox

@Izzie,

Thanks Izz. It would appear we're on the same page.

I notice neither Robert nor Francis will can answer that question honestly, and have instead chosen to ignore it.

1 Reply

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

Quote:
Since no system is perfect, the $64,000 question is; would you rather have more OJ's go free, or have more Innocent people found guilty? Which in your opinion is the lesser evil?

That's a good question.

Then answer it please. No one here wants to see murderers go free or innocent's condemned. But which is the lesser evil?

Further, please stop perpetuating the false dilemma between, "The Italians gave her a fair trial" and "The Italians deliberately framed an innocent." I'd wager 99.9% of all wrongful convictions resulted from well meaning prosecutors who mistakenly convicted the wrong person. This is the reason that it is of paramount importance to presume the accused innocent. If civil protections aren't applied rigidly to everyone, regardless of whether we think they're innocent or guilty, then no one is safe from over-zealous prosecution.

1 Reply

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

Raphillon wrote:
A lot were unfair, some to the point of beeing insulting
Indeed, to say the least..

and wrote:
In my experience, when a guilty verdict is pronounced you can bet your life the accused is guilty.
I tried to say the same, in other words...

The two of you have more faith in a 5-3 majority opinion than can be supported by reason. Probably why you've made no attempt to provide any.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I believe Oralloy's expressed attitudes concerning this case are not at all typical of Americans. In the first place the trial has not gotten that much attention in our press and the reports themselves had as much to do with the lurid details of the case reported as with any supposition of bias in the Italian Justice system. The issues of bias mostly originated not in this case, but in the recent issue of Italian warrants for the arrest of US CIA agents over the rendition program.

Nearly everyone here understands that none of us really knows what happened in this case and that those who express certainty that injustice has been done certainly don't know what they are talking about.

Depends on what you're applying the word injustice to. Most of us understand that we can't know if she's innocent or guilty, but in my opinion everyone tried by that process risks suffering an injustice. There is no presumption of innocence, which in my opinion is in itself unjust.

I would agree with you that only a fool could be certain of innocence… or guilt.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

If I believed that cops and the justice system were out only to get someone, and that the possibility of them framing innocent people and manipulating the system simply to achieve that, was a probability in reality, I'd say that would be more troubling.

I did answer it: see above.

Quote:

Further, please stop perpetuating the false dilemma between, "The Italians gave her a fair trial" and "The Italians deliberately framed an innocent." I'd wager 99.9% of all wrongful convictions resulted from well meaning prosecutors who mistakenly convicted the wrong person.

Right whatever - I believe you were the one who referred to the Italian cops as belonging to the keystone variety...incompetently handling the evidence -and the jurists as obviously prejudiced, leaking incriminating evidence.

As I said, I had no idea there was any dilemma until you guys came on this thread and pointed it out - so you can quit the self righteous bullshit making believe that I brought this stuff up - YOU, in fact DID. And then you have the nerve to wonder how I came to the conclusion that there is a possibility that the Italians deliberately framed an innocent - okay - yeah.

2 Replies

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

Quote:
If I believed that cops and the justice system were out only to get someone, and that the possibility of them framing innocent people and manipulating the system simply to achieve that, was a probability in reality, I'd say that would be more troubling.

I did answer it: see above.

For the sake of clarity; does this mean you find the conviction of innocents to be the greater evil?
(No "framing" is necessary... this is a silly exageration.)

aidan wrote:

Quote:

Further, please stop perpetuating the false dilemma between, "The Italians gave her a fair trial" and "The Italians deliberately framed an innocent." I'd wager 99.9% of all wrongful convictions resulted from well meaning prosecutors who mistakenly convicted the wrong person.

Right whatever - I believe you were the one who referred to the Italian cops as belonging to the keystone variety...incompetently handling the evidence -and the jurists as obviously prejudiced, leaking incriminating evidence.

What I said does not equate to "framing". Keystones and incompetence in handling evidence? Yep. I watched it on video with my own two eyes. Leaking incriminating evidence? Nope. I complained because no attempt was made to shield the jury from exposure to facts, pseudo-facts, mountains of conjecture, and mountains of material that had no business being considered in a court of law.

aidan wrote:

As I said, I had no idea there was any dilemma until you guys came on this thread and pointed it out - so you can quit the self righteous bullshit making believe that I brought this stuff up - YOU, in fact - Did.

I'm not part of "you guys". None of my complaints can reasonably be construed as accusing the Italians of "framing" her. I have no reason to believe they aren't quite confident in their instincts.

1 Reply

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

Right whatever - I believe you were the one who referred to the Italian cops as belonging to the keystone variety...incompetently handling the evidence -and the jurists as obviously prejudiced, leaking incriminating evidence.

I don't think the term "leaking incriminating evidence" is quite correct.

If there were actually such evidence, that would be the correct terminology. But what the Italians did was leak lies that falsely claimed that there was such incriminating evidence.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I'm not part of "you guys". None of my complaints can reasonably be construed as accusing the Italians of "framing" her. I have no reason to believe they aren't quite confident in their instincts.

What do you think was their motive for leaking outright lies to the media about fictitious evidence against her?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I'm not part of "you guys". None of my complaints can reasonably be construed as accusing the Italians of "framing" her. I have no reason to believe they aren't quite confident in their instincts.

What do you think was their motive for leaking outright lies to the media about fictitious evidence against her?

I have no reason to believe they leaked "outright lies about fictitious evidence." If this did take place, I would assume their motivation was to convict a person they believe is guilty.

Cops, Prosecutors, Judges, Experts, etc. are all human beings and as such are as likely as anyone else to walk the edge of what's permissible in hopes of seeing what their own gut instincts tell them is just. Here in the States; Prosecutors have a duty to seek justice over mere victory (Right) and Judges have a duty to be impartial (right). Since these ideals are only as good as the people charged with the responsibility to practice them; our higher courts have frequently assigned multi-prong tests and prescribed remedies for when certain rules are broken. This is what the layman will frequently protest as an injustice when a presumed guilty person "gets off on a technicality." The truth is; these instances of "injustice" are the process of justice.

If you beat a confession out of a murderer, that confession will be inadmissible. If fail to follow procedure in your handling of evidence, that evidence will be inadmissible. If the State can't or won't make evidence available for independent tests, their own test results will be inadmissible. These things all make it easier for the guilty to escape justice, but this is the only way to defend a presumption of innocence. If 8 out of 12 jurors believe a man is guilty; odds are pretty good that he's guilty... but this in no way proves him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The bottom line is; no malicious intent is necessary for a travesty of justice to take place. Some systems are considerably more concerned with the rights of the individual to be presumed innocent than others. That doesn't mean the players in the less accused-friendly systems are deliberately trying to miscarry justice. I'd like to think people that would deliberately condemn an innocent are as rare as those who would commit murder in the first place. Your frequent condemnation of the people of Italy is over the top and absurd. That their system of "Justice" doesn't go as far in transcending the individual facts of a particular case in the interest of justice is no indictment on the Italians themselves. Not even those involved in the process. They are simply playing by their own rules. If you want to condemn their rules; I'll agree with you.
Btw, The blog you linked was incredibly detailed and informative, thank you. But it was also very obviously biased. Dial down the strength in your conviction of innocence a little and you’re arguments will be more credible. The simple fact is, you can’t KNOW if she’s innocent or guilty either.

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I have no reason to believe they leaked "outright lies about fictitious evidence."

How is it that all the evidence that they supposedly had according to the media was never presented in trial?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Your frequent condemnation of the people of Italy is over the top and absurd.

If they approve putting an obviously innocent person in prison, they deserve condemnation, and I'll give it to them.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Dial down the strength in your conviction of innocence a little and you’re arguments will be more credible. The simple fact is, you can’t KNOW if she’s innocent or guilty either.

Nah. A person convicted based on outrageous lies, with zero evidence to indicate she had anything to do with it. I know she's innocent.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I have no reason to believe they leaked "outright lies about fictitious evidence."

How is it that all the evidence that they supposedly had according to the media was never presented in trial?

Do you really think the press limited itself to that which was leaked by the court? Really?

oralloy wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Your frequent condemnation of the people of Italy is over the top and absurd.

If they approve putting an obviously innocent person in prison, they deserve condemnation, and I'll give it to them.

They? Some Italians approve, so all should be condemned? That kind of reasoning mostly serves to demonstrate your prejudice.

oralloy wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Dial down the strength in your conviction of innocence a little and you’re arguments will be more credible. The simple fact is, you can’t KNOW if she’s innocent or guilty either.

Nah. A person convicted based on outrageous lies, with zero evidence to indicate she had anything to do with it. I know she's innocent.

Your confidence far exceeds the available evidence. You do realize some murderers have committed murder without leaving any evidence behind, don’t you? In all likelihood, only the actual murderers, the deceased and Amanda will ever know if she's innocent or guilty, for certain. Your certainty demonstrates the same ignorance you're accusing the Italians of.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

oralloy wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I have no reason to believe they leaked "outright lies about fictitious evidence."

How is it that all the evidence that they supposedly had according to the media was never presented in trial?

Do you really think the press limited itself to that which was leaked by the court? Really?

I seriously doubt the media would have proclaimed that the supposed evidence existed unless someone in authority told them that it existed.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

oralloy wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Your frequent condemnation of the people of Italy is over the top and absurd.

If they approve putting an obviously innocent person in prison, they deserve condemnation, and I'll give it to them.

They? Some Italians approve, so all should be condemned? That kind of reasoning mostly serves to demonstrate your prejudice.

All the Italians I've heard comment seem pretty approving.

I'm still waiting to hear even one Italian say she even might be innocent.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

oralloy wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Dial down the strength in your conviction of innocence a little and you’re arguments will be more credible. The simple fact is, you can’t KNOW if she’s innocent or guilty either.

Nah. A person convicted based on outrageous lies, with zero evidence to indicate she had anything to do with it. I know she's innocent.

Your confidence far exceeds the available evidence. You do realize some murderers have committed murder without leaving any evidence behind, don’t you? In all likelihood, only the actual murderers, the deceased and Amanda will ever know if she's innocent or guilty, for certain. Your certainty demonstrates the same ignorance you're accusing the Italians of.

No, the available evidence shows that there is no reason to think she did this, and that her conviction was based on outrageous lies. My confidence is fully in line with the evidence.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

aidan wrote:
And the fact that she's American doesn't make any difference to me at all. Which is as it should be, I'm sure you'll admit, as someone who is SO upset that you think her prosecution is in fact, malicious based on her nationality.

I don't say malicious based on her nationality. I just say malicious. I'm willing to accept that she was not targeted specifically because she is American. But that does not make it at all acceptable for Italy to maliciously prosecute her when she is clearly innocent.

I might have to revisit this position. It might have been anti-Americanism after all.

I caught this paragraph from an editorial from a right-wing commentator:

"Several members of the jury returned to give their guilty verdict adorned with sashes the colors of the Italian national flag. As best I can discern from my research, this was purely a gratuitous act by the jurors, to the effect of: "We stand by our press and our prosecutor. And no matter how scant the evidence, we're putting that American girl away!""

http://townhall.com/columnists/MattTowery/2009/12/17/knox_case_gives_reason_to_avoid_italy_anytime_soon?page=2

I'm not sure if his right-wing politics matters in an issue like this. However, I went looking for a politically neutral source, and found the flag sashes mentioned here:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/04/italy.knox.trial

1 Reply

@oralloy,

That is a little disturbing. I wonder if it was the 6 of 8 jurors who don't already work for the State…?

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

That is a little disturbing.

It is? What about all the Americans who carried a flag with them as they went back to their places of work (I saw it on the TV) in NYC after 9/11? What xenophobic message were they trying to send?
You live in the most colours-conscious country in the developed world, OB. Don't over-analyse the Italian jurors.

1 Reply

mactag, they wave their flag, they are "patriotic". We wave ours, we're "anti-American". That's the "American exception". Roughly translated, it means "They f*** the rest of the world up the @ss and we have to say 'Thank you, massa'"

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

Quote:
That is a little disturbing.

It is? What about all the Americans who carried a flag with them as they went back to their places of work (I saw it on the TV) in NYC after 9/11? What xenophobic message were they trying to send?
You live in the most colours-conscious country in the developed world, OB. Don't over-analyse the Italian jurors.

You don't see a difference between flag waiving after a major terrorist attack against our country and flag waiving on your way to deliver a verdict where Nationality should be irrelevant? Really?

0 Replies

@contrex,

complex wrote:

mactag, they wave their flag, they are "patriotic". We wave ours, we're "anti-American". That's the "American exception". Roughly translated, it means "They f*** the rest of the world up the @ss and we have to say 'Thank you, massa'"

And here I thought McTag’s post was stupid. How do you equate sending a message to terrorists who just executed the most horrific terrorist act in modern history to saying **** anyone, but the terrorist assholes who prompted the display? Try harder to not let your inferiority complex confuse you. Most of the civilized world wept with the United States that day, Buckingham Palace even played the United States’ National Anthem during the changing of the guard (the single coolest symbolic show of solidarity I’ve ever seen), while you whimpered about, pointing fingers at those here who also felt the same need to show defiance in the wake of the attacks. Roughly similar situation to showing up for jury duty in your book, eh? You are truly pathetic.

0 Replies

About the flag saches, it is normal to wear them. The saches just tell the men that wear them are acting in an official matter in the name of Italy.

@Oralloy: Italians are divided between who believes Amanda is innocent and who believes she is guilty.

Since I have no access to the process nor I have listen to the interrogations, I declare myself ignorant in the matter, but in my experience if there was a doubt they would have let her free.

There are many defects in Italian law system, mainly, it is really too slow and tends to let a little too many criminals go free, in my opinion.

I feel strange saying something like that, but Italians are not evil, I don't believe any people, as a whole, can be considered evil.

And, believe me, we are not anti-Americans, ther is no "diffuse antiamericanism" in Italy, I think you will find very few country less antiamerican than Italy...

Personally I believe America should not be allowed to rule the world (no country should be), but that doesn't mean I hate Americans...

3 Replies

@Raphillon,

Personally, it is the posting americans here who seem livid, in terms of flying emotions, and I say this as a person from the US.

Before any go and accuse me of italophilia, - it's true, I like the country as a generality, so go ahead - my interest in italy has encompassed vast morasses of despicableness (is that a word) in history -
but I'm not sanguine on the complicated troubles surrounding this investigation.

In this particular case, I don't just out and out believe various claims of the defendent.

as I said early on, I don't know.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know