Amanda Knox

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

High Seas wrote:

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?

Merry Christmas to you and your family anyway

Btw, The blog you linked was incredibly detailed and informative, thank you. But it was also very obviously biased.

High Seas wrote:

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

Nah. The conspirators seem limited to parts of the Italian government.

As to why, I just chalk it up to them being evil.

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

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.

But to answer the questions, no I don't find the doubt in this case nearly as reasonable as you do and if your question is whether or not I would prefer higher thresholds for guilt in Italian law that is one thing, but no the jurors who did not find her guilty do not cause me any doubt in this particular case.

I am beginning to wish that Oralloy the troll would kindly take a long holiday in Italy... and maybe, (just maybe, if we're lucky!) he'll wind up in jail and give us all a nice rest from his OCD inspired ranting.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

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

If any such question was asked of me, I certainly did not see it much less ignore it. Oralloy and yourself have so much strength of conviction about this that I don't think it would be edifying to argue it and haven't been following this thread.

But to answer the questions, no I don't find the doubt in this case nearly as reasonable as you do and if your question is whether or not I would prefer higher thresholds for guilt in Italian law that is one thing, but no the jurors who did not find her guilty do not cause me any doubt in this particular case. And that shouldn't be surprising, it's not like you let the jury's acquittal of OJ Simpson cause you doubt as to his guilt.

If 3 of 8 jurors were to insist that the State failed to make its case; do you think the other 5 jurors opinion to the contrary would equate to a finding of guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt?

Shouldn't "reasonable doubt" and "unanimous verdict" be treated as separate concepts? I believe that Italian juries are not required to disclose how many of the jurors agreed. The majority who reached the verdict may have indeed been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sensible people get fed up when idiots won't stop babbling crap.

Oralloy and I haven't even presented parallel arguments. I find his conviction nearly as unsupportable as you do.

No. If 3 of 8 people were convinced a person was innocent; that in itself provides a reasonable doubt, by any reasonable definition.

For all I know, the jury in this case was indeed unanimously convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. And they may very well have convicted a guilty person. That was neither the nature of my complaint, nor the purpose of my question.