Francis wrote:
You have very righteous positions when it comes to justice cases, haven't you Bill?
You always know where justice is, let's say, on the American side...
Why do you say that, Francis? Because I think child rapists who flee should be punished and believe in a presumption of innocence? <--these ideals have nothing to do with national pride, I assure you. Your positions probably reveal more about your own bias since this marks the second subject in a row you’re inexplicably on the wrong side of right.
I repeat, I can’t know whether the woman is innocent or guilty, but I do see enough reasonable doubt to drive a truck through. Here in the States you look on with such disdain, her constitutional guarantees would never permit such a thrashing of due process rights to go uncorrected… if indeed we allowed such a low threshold of certainty from the fact finders to begin with (which we don’t). Clearly, the civil liberties most take for granted here are non-existent in Italy.
High Seas wrote:
Bill's problem is much more severe than that - he can't distinguish fact from fiction. Doubt he can find Italy on the map, let alone a legal opinion on their jurisprudence.
Is it your intention to dispute the facts I provided with mindless ad hominem? Good luck with that. The Italian Jury was neither sequestered from the media frenzy nor required to bring back a unanimous verdict... as a simple majority is all that's required. This jurisprudence you speak of is repugnant to any presumption of innocence, liberty or justice. These are facts, fool. Dispute them if you think you can.
aidan wrote:
Quote:The victim had been badly beaten and none of her DNA was transferred to her roommate who assisted in the killing? None in her room, car, or her boyfriend’s things? None of theirs under the victim’s fingernails, or anywhere on the crime scene? Really? The lack of actual evidence stinks and the evident lack of a need of it for conviction stinks even worse.
What I read said that DNA from both the victim and Amanda Knox was found in the drain of the sink in the bathroom where it was obvious the people involved had tried to clean up. There were also footprints in the victim's blood of both Knox and her boyfriend. There was also a knife found that had the victims blood on the blade and Amanda Knox's dna on the handle. This was found at the boyfriend's house.
Amanda's DNA was found in the drain of the sink, in her own bathroom? Of course it was. As for the minute traces on the knife handle, which is disputed by a second test according to the program I watched, could only be incriminating to him, not her. Have you never used a knife at your boyfriend's house? And after watching those keystone cops passing evidence back and forth before bagging it; I have no reason to believe that sloppy work didn't put her DNA there (how many of her things did they handle before the knife?) They also said the traces were so small, that they couldn't even send it out for independent testing (this I find hard to believe, and impossible to pass a “reasonable doubt” test.)(Not that Italian Law gives a rat’s ass about whether a case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.)
aidan wrote:But apart and aside from all of that, why would a girl sit in the kitchen of her house all night with her boyfriend, after having heard her roommate scream in their bedroom behind a locked door? Because after she changed her story for about the third time and finally admitted that she was at the house and she did hear her roommate scream- it just doesn't logically follow that she'd sit in the kitchen ALL NIGHT LONG after hearing the girl scream, and not break the door down or do something to try to find out what had happened or even to just get into the room so she could sleep in her bed.
Having heard several versions now of clearly coerced statements, I have no way of judging the veracity of any of the he said/she said nonsense. That's why civilized authorities now record criminal interrogations, so that juries can decide for themselves who is truthful. Back in the dark ages; the cops simply used a my word against the accused strategy that was great for convictions, but also proved (and in many cases is still proving) repugnant to justice. Did you know 15% of all cases overturned by the Innocence Project involve coerced confessions? Have you ever read Miranda v. Arizona and pondered what it might be like to be a minority accused, with no civil protections?
aidan wrote:That girl lay dead in that room until the next afternoon when another roommate finally asked the cops to break the door down. And Amanda Knox admits she was there that night and heard the girl scream. Yet when the police came, she was ready to let them leave without telling them about that or having them open the locked bedroom door. There's something very, very strange about that.
Strange indeed, but sitting here in middle America, again, I have no way to assign veracity to any of the he said/she said **** that was eventually culled from any of the right-less, representation-less suspects. Nor do I feel any need to guess at her relative innocence. The lack of compelling proof of guilt is enough for me to hold this conviction in disdain.
