Amanda Knox

@ossobuco,

You want to feed me? You are very welcome! Smile

1 Reply

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

Hammering something you don't know doesn't make it right or wrong...

Maybe so, but since my MO is to hammer things I do know, that isn't much of a problem for me.

Francis wrote:

However, it's obviously wrong to pretend that you know the truth.

Maybe so, but I have no need to pretend. I am capable of observing facts and processing them. This allows me to figure out what the truth is.

3 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I am capable of observing facts and processing them. This allows me to figure out what the truth is.

MEDIA FACTS. you are processing the media's information, US media information I would hazard a guess - how can you figure the truth out from that information. It depends what you choose to read, doesn't it.

Oralloy - you reall don't know the truth - none of us do - you only know what has been presented by the media - unless, that is, you are personally involved in the case. It's what you wish to believe.

C'mon - you've succumbed a little about all Italians being evil and understand that it may not quite be the way you originally thought... right? Try to understand or even appreciate that there may..... MAY, and probably is, more to this than the just medias interpretation.

<btw - quick hello to Raphillon - pleased to meet you! >

2 Replies

@Izzie,

Izzie wrote:

Oralloy - you don't know the truth - none of us do - you only know what has been presented by the media - unless, that is, you are personally involved in the case.

C'mon - you've succumbed a little about all Italians being evil and understand that it may not quite be the way you originally thought... right? Try to understand or even appreciate that there may..... MAY.... be more to this than the just medias interpretation.

This wasn't a Stalinist secret trial. The evidence is publicly known.

So I do indeed know for a fact that there is no evidence to indicate that she had anything to do with it.

And I also know for a fact that someone leaked lies to the media that made it look like there was evidence against her, when there in fact was not any such evidence (again, public trial -- I know what the "actual" evidence is).

I think I am fair in presuming that such a leak could only be malicious in nature.

--

Incidentally, I believe (not quite 100%, but pretty sure) that today is when the Italian appeals court will rule on Guede's appeal. If not today it will likely be tomorrow. If anyone is interested they might want to keep an eye out for it.

I've been up all night and am about to fall asleep on my keyboard, so probably won't be able to link it myself unless it happens pretty soon.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

OK - so there is a difference.

You KNOW the due process was not correct.

Right?

We are all entitled to question "due process" etc etc etc etc etc etc......

But you said you KNOW Amanda is innocent and had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher.

I don't believe you can KNOW that.

goodnight.

1 Reply

@Izzie,

pleased to meet you too Smile

0 Replies

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

Bill, I know you are far better than I in hurling insults.

But it doesn't change the fact that this whole case is based on Americans thinking that their judiciary system is better than anyone else's.

Ethnocentrism at its heights.

This is indeed my complaint. But not because it's America's Vs. Someone else's. <-- That's Francis-bias. My main objection is with the 5-3 threshold for a finding of guilt... which is among the weakest of all jury systems I'm aware of. You just keep ducking this point, probably because the idea of needing to convince 1 out of every 2 jurors to be exonerated is repugnant to any notion of "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is indefensible. Ethnocentrism plays no role whatsoever.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Maybe so, but since my MO is to hammer things I do know, that isn't much of a problem for me.

Maybe so, but I have no need to pretend. I am capable of observing facts and processing them. This allows me to figure out what the truth is.

Perhaps you should make yourself available to a broader use for the benefit of the world. This unique gift of yours that enables you to see the truth - even in the absence of evidence - in cases where others with better access to salient details cannot see it, must truly be a wondrous thing.

Judicial systems vary a great deal all over the world. All have the objective of determining truth and administering justice within established law. There are characteristic defects and imperfections in all of them (ours included), but in democratic societies - such as Italy - the fact that the public accepts their judicial system speaks forcefully to its effectiveness and reliability.

1 Reply

@Raphillon,

Raphillon wrote:

Well, I'm not a professional lawyer, so I don't exactly know the difference between American and Italian system, anyway, speaking just about concepts...

In Italy a prosecution for criminal facts starts with an accusation (in this matter the policy did it directly) then a judge must pronounce a sentence giving his "luogo a procedere" (permission to go ahead), it is not so immediate, because "luogo a procedere" imply the accused can be convicted in jail for a long period... then comes the "primo grado" (first grade) this is a complete process, we are at this point, now. The "primo grado" sentence is fully executive, but any part can appeal the sentence (for instance Kercher family could too, if they thought the sentence was too moderate for Amanda Knox) if an appeal is call then come the "secondo grado", this is a complite review of the process, new evidence can be exposed, as well as new interrogations, the outcome is not granted by any means, the judges and jury are different from "primo grado". Many process have been overthrown completely in "secondo grado", and the punishment can bee different too, (so for example, Amanda could be found again guilty and be assigned 10 years, instead of 26). Again an appeal could be called by any part. In that case there will be a third grade, pronounced by the "cassazione" court. In this third process the cassazione states about the "secondo grado" procedure, if circumstances and evidences have been valued correctly, if everything has been done according to the correct procedure and so on. Cassazione can ratify the sentence (that so became definitive and can not be opposed again) or can send it back to "secondo grado" with some indications (those indications intend to be significant for future interpretation of the law and so are very important)

That's about all, a long post for a very long procedure. It is so to grant that if someone is condamned, it is absolutely certainly guilty, accordind to the principle that "E' meglio assolvere 10 colpevoli che condannare un solo innocente" (it is better to absolve 10 criminals than to condemn a single innocent). Sadly it is not easy practically and so process very often last for many years before a definitive sentence is pronounced...

Thank you. This is pretty much the way I understood it. The essential differences between the two would appear be that a verdict is almost automatically appealable because all facts can be revisited. The time frame seems essentially similar to an American defendant appealing first to Superior Court, and then higher still. Her time served to date wouldn't be terribly unusual, and nor would the time she'll wait on appeal. The difference is a starkly different threshold for a finding of guilt, and it would appear a great deal less precaution taken to prevent Jury Tampering.

Our system is greatly flawed in my opinion, too, but I'll make no apology for finding it far superior to any system that allows a slim majority of lay-person Jurors to convict. The Italian system seems straddled between the Adversarial and Inquisitorial Systems and I don't think this is good for justice. While Professional Judges can (arguably, though not really IMO) be relied upon to separate fact from assertion; I do not believe Lay-Judges should be given such enormous power without a distinct majority consensus being required at the very least.

0 Replies

@Izzie,

Izzie wrote:

OK - so there is a difference.

You KNOW the due process was not correct.

Right?

We are all entitled to question "due process" etc etc etc etc etc etc......

But you said you KNOW Amanda is innocent and had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher.

I don't believe you can KNOW that.

No, I can know that.

There is zero evidence of guilt, and there is evidence of malicious acts on the part of police and prosecution.

She is flat out innocent.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

This unique gift of yours that enables you to see the truth - even in the absence of evidence - in cases where others with better access to salient details cannot see it, must truly be a wondrous thing.

You are misinformed. I am not in absence of evidence.

My superior ability to process data is nice, but is not much of a factor in a case where the facts are all so obvious.

georgeob1 wrote:

Judicial systems vary a great deal all over the world. All have the objective of determining truth and administering justice within established law. There are characteristic defects and imperfections in all of them (ours included), but in democratic societies - such as Italy - the fact that the public accepts their judicial system speaks forcefully to its effectiveness and reliability.

No amount of grandiose proclamations as to the reliability of Italian justice will shield them from criticism over the fact that they have maliciously prosecuted an innocent person.

1 Reply

Guede sentence reduced to 16 years:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hUwNJptZbnCIsu90VqOzxS7S2fzQD9COG7VG0

1 Reply

Why do you bother answering oralloy when he is plainly a TROLL? Do any of you know what that is?

2 Replies

@contrex,

I was thinking he have to be paid by someone interested in denigrating Italy, to say the least..

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
This unique gift of yours that enables you to see the truth - even in the absence of evidence - in cases where others with better access to salient details cannot see it, must truly be a wondrous thing.

You are misinformed. I am not in absence of evidence......My superior ability to process data is nice, but is not much of a factor in a case where the facts are all so obvious.[....]

At the very least you have vastly diverse interests - from decoys hidden in ICBMs, on which you're a world expert >
http://able2know.org/topic/135791-3#post-3798622
> to esoteric procedural minutiae of Italian jurisprudence. One question: why not contact the lawyers involved, or the press, or at least a senator from the state of Washington, and submit all this overwhelming evidence in your possession? Why only tell us here online??

0 Replies

@contrex,

contrex wrote:

Why do you bother answering oralloy when he is plainly a TROLL? Do any of you know what that is?

Stop whining Adolf. If you didn't want to be denounced for being evil, you should have behaved accordingly.

Francis wrote:

I was thinking he have to be paid by someone interested in denigrating Italy, to say the least..

That's because you don't understand the moral objections to maliciously prosecuting innocent people.

High Seas wrote:

At the very least you have vastly diverse interests - from decoys hidden in ICBMs, on which you're a world expert >
http://able2know.org/topic/135791-3#post-3798622
> to esoteric procedural minutiae of Italian jurisprudence. One question: why not contact the lawyers involved, or the press, or at least a senator from the state of Washington, and submit all this overwhelming evidence in your possession? Why only tell us here online??

What makes you think that those people don't already know this stuff?

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Guede sentence reduced to 16 years:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hUwNJptZbnCIsu90VqOzxS7S2fzQD9COG7VG0

It looks like they applied the same mitigating circumstances (young, no criminal record, etc) that they applied to the other two.

So his one third sentence reduction for taking a fast track trial, instead of reducing a life sentence to 30 years, reduces a 24 year sentence to 16 years.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

...........................

High Seas wrote:
At the very least you have vastly diverse interests - from decoys hidden in ICBMs, on which you're a world expert >
http://able2know.org/topic/135791-3#post-3798622
> to esoteric procedural minutiae of Italian jurisprudence. One question: why not contact the lawyers involved, or the press, or at least a senator from the state of Washington, and submit all this overwhelming evidence in your possession? Why only tell us here online??

What makes you think that those people don't already know this stuff?

So the conspirators stretch across 2 continents and aim to keep the innocent young woman in jail - but why?

2 Replies

@High Seas,

http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Humor/Cats/CatAndMouse.jpg

1 Reply

@panzade,

Not nice, Panzade, not nice! Merry Christmas to you and your family anyway Smile

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know