Amanda Knox

Oralloy wrote:

Francis wrote:

Not only your assertions are quite premature as at least two other judiciary instances are possible before the sentencing become definitive, but they stand on moral high grounds you hardly are entitled to appropriate.

Italy has already kept her in prison for two years for something she clearly didn't do, and is keeping her there for a third year at least. It is hardly premature to criticize.

And any human has the right to criticize Italy for their atrocity.

Clearly?

You are claiming an insider knowledge I doubt you will ever have.

Talking with your guts will hardly do justice.

Substituting judicial system for layman's justice was never a good thing.

You can blurt out you hatred of Italy as you seem to have some griefs about them, but it hardly change the fact that they have a judicial system that they abide by.

That you don't like their system I can understand but let me tell you that I don't think yours is better..

2 Replies

Oralloy wrote:

McTag wrote:
Extraordinary rendition? Guantanamo Bay was built outside of the USA precisely so that Americans could miscarry justice.

Balderdash. That was set up so we could capture and detain enemy fighters.

Your propaganda will not change the fact that some of the Guantanamo detainees were poor guys that found themselves in the middle of the mess.

The US kept them jailed for several years in atrocious conditions before releasing them because no charges could be found against them.

Hiding yourself from the truth will not change these facts.

1 Reply

@Francis,

Quote:

You can blurt out you hatred of Italy as you seem to have some griefs about them. . .

It's because the Holocaust.

(For more information, see Foofie.)

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Robert Gentel wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
These are facts, Robert. I suspect you knew very well what was referred to, and are choosing to be difficult.

The point is that you tossed in a subjective conclusion, which is the crux of your argument, and called the group "facts" to be disputed.

Without your subjective conclusion, there's not much to discuss. The notion that this is a miscarriage of justice is a subjective conclusion and not a fact and is pretty much what the whole discussion revolves around.
The crux of my argument are the facts that I repeated when High Seas challenged my foundation... and then again when you looked past her naked ad hominem to nit-pick my factual response. My conclusion is founded in the bedrock of the principle that the accused should be "Presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law." This principle simply cannot coexist in a system where a 1/3 of the fact-finders finding of not guilty can be ignored in route to a finding of guilt. Surely common sense mandates that 1/3 of jurors disagreement should constitute reasonable doubt. Not so in Italy.

Incidentally I heard something that I never did manage to confirm or deny. I was told that in some respects a conviction at this level of Italy's judicial system is more like a grand jury indictment. And the next step is for a list of charges to be produced, which will then be tried in the appeal. And this "appeal trial" is more like what Americans would think of as an actual trial with standards of justice.

Might not be true, but so far everything I've heard seems to fit with it.

0 Replies

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

I don't believe they are.

How do you explain the lack of any evidence that she did it?

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.

aidan wrote:

Why are you so sure that what you're reading in the American press is the truth?

Because the reporting isn't contrary to the facts.

aidan wrote:

I'm sure her mother also thought she always flushed the toilet too - but apparently she didn't.

A perfect example of the way she was demonized by the European press.

aidan wrote:

Its' extremely common for kids/young adults her age to be completely different people in front of their parents than they are in front of their friends.

Not different like this. And it would help if there were some actual evidence of this difference, instead of just baseless rumors.

aidan wrote:

But even if I did think she was totally innocent, in the scheme of things, I'd hardly call this an atrocity.

In my book, intentionally putting an innocent person in prison like this is an unforgivable sin.

aidan wrote:

Did you get this upset that Nelson Mandela was imprisoned in South Africa for twenty-seven years?

At the time, I hardly knew who he was. But he was more of a political prisoner like the lady in Burma (whose name I'll massacre if I attempt it). I certainly think it was wrong, but it isn't entirely comparable to this case.

In general I do indeed get really upset over putting innocent people in prison. However, given the clear lack of evidence and the clearly malicious acts on the part of the prosecutors, I have trouble thinking of a case more egregious than this one. The closest example I can think of to a trial like this is the Salem witch trials.

aidan wrote:

I don't mean to sound callous and if she's innocent, I certainly hope it comes out, and she's freed, but I can't look at the Italian justice system as being any more corrupt than our own until it's proved they did all this fabricating that the American press is saying they did.

Well, how do you explain the fact that all this "damning evidence" was reported, but then never showed up in the trial?

If the claims were actually true, you'd think they would have actually presented it instead of putting on such a weak case.

The only explanation I can see is that the evidence never existed and they were lying when they leaked it to the media.

1 Reply

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

Clearly?

Yes.

Francis wrote:

You are claiming an insider knowledge I doubt you will ever have.

No. I'm claiming that all this knowledge is open to the public.

Francis wrote:

That you don't like their system I can understand but let me tell you that I don't think yours is better..

I am not terribly fond of the American system either. I'm quite unhappy with it in fact.

But that doesn't mean I can't condemn this atrocity going on in Italy.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
McTag wrote:
Extraordinary rendition? Guantanamo Bay was built outside of the USA precisely so that Americans could miscarry justice.

Balderdash. That was set up so we could capture and detain enemy fighters.
Your propaganda will not change the fact that some of the Guantanamo detainees were poor guys that found themselves in the middle of the mess.

The US kept them jailed for several years in atrocious conditions before releasing them because no charges could be found against them.

Hiding yourself from the truth will not change these facts.

It isn't propaganda. We really are capturing enemy fighters and detaining them. POWs are a part of war.

I'll agree that we've released some who we've deemed shouldn't have been captured in the first place. However, that was less a matter of "not finding charges" as it is a matter of "deciding they weren't an enemy soldier".

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

I don't agree that the conditions at Guantanamo are atrocious.

2 Replies

Oralloy wrote:

I don't agree that the conditions at Guantanamo are atrocious.

It's up to you to disagree but lots of other people think they were.

Amanda doesn't agree that her own carceral conditions were atrocious..

0 Replies

@oralloy,

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?

Those who are there, in the situation, and who have the evidence in front of them.

I don't know enough about any of these things - I am just saying that unless you have all the facts, which we don't in any of these situations, then it's very difficult to judge these cases.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

High Seas wrote:
oralloy wrote:
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.

Actually, he just wrote a highly factual commentary at the top of this page.

And Italy has no jurisprudence. They'd have to have a sense of ethics before they could have something like that.

Oralloy - you can't possibly know any Italian or its predecessor, Latin: jurisprudence is one their own words, so they've got to have had such a thing at some point in their history. Like in the Roman Empire.

They certainly don't have any jurisprudence now. They spent the entire trial leaking lies to the media and making sure the jury was exposed to the resulting untrue media reports.

There are no jurors in an initial trial - I explained that to you already. And that's not what jurisprudence means!

0 Replies

@oralloy,

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.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I'll agree that we've released some who we've deemed shouldn't have been captured in the first place. However, that was less a matter of "not finding charges" as it is a matter of "deciding they weren't an enemy soldier".

oh, did your post change or did I just not read that paragraph.

Quote:

I don't agree that the conditions at Guantanamo are atrocious.

but....

what about all the reports that have been filed?

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

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

The crux of my argument are the facts that I repeated when High Seas challenged my foundation... and then again when you looked past her naked ad hominem to nit-pick my factual response.

No, the crux of your argument is that a miscarriage of justice occurred, and this is not a "factual" argument it is a conclusion you draw. As for whatever High Seas is saying I haven't read it here and it's immaterial to the point that I'm making, which is essentially that all this bluster about being "factual" and having "facts" that can't be disputed obscures that the core of your argument is still just your subjective conclusion.

Quote:

My conclusion is founded in the bedrock of the principle that the accused should be "Presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law." This principle simply cannot coexist in a system where a 1/3 of the fact-finders finding of not guilty can be ignored in route to a finding of guilt.

Is this too a fact? Not the way the Italian system works, but the claim that jury majority "simply cannot coexist" with the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Or is it just another opinion with some overstatement?

Quote:

Surely common sense mandates that 1/3 of jurors disagreement should constitute reasonable doubt. Not so in Italy.

If you say so, but I don't see you casting doubt on her innocence based on the "fact" that the majority of the jury found her guilty so it seems like the jury's a one-way tool for this argument.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
The crux of my argument are the facts that I repeated when High Seas challenged my foundation... and then again when you looked past her naked ad hominem to nit-pick my factual response.

No, the crux of your argument is that a miscarriage of justice occurred, and this is not a "factual" argument it is a conclusion you draw. As for whatever High Seas is saying I haven't read it here and it's immaterial to the point that I'm making, which is essentially that all this bluster about being "factual" and having "facts" that can't be disputed obscures that the core of your argument is still just your subjective conclusion.

Repeating this "Sez me" will not make it true. High Seas responded to my factual complaint against the Italian system before you butted in to repeatedly proclaim the facts I offered before during and after your complaint are secondary to my conclusion baseed on same... because Robert says so.

Robert Gentel wrote:

Quote:
My conclusion is founded in the bedrock of the principle that the accused should be "Presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law." This principle simply cannot coexist in a system where a 1/3 of the fact-finders finding of not guilty can be ignored in route to a finding of guilt.

Is this too a fact? Not the way the Italian system works, but the claim that jury majority "simply cannot coexist" with the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Or is it just another opinion with some overstatement?

I notice you lost the word "presumption", presumably because it didn't suit your complaint. Yes, it is a fact that the Italian system utilizes a jury consisting of two judges and 6 lay persons and that a majority is all that's required.

Robert Gentel wrote:

Quote:
Surely common sense mandates that 1/3 of jurors disagreement should constitute reasonable doubt. Not so in Italy.

If you say so, but I don't see you casting doubt on her innocence based on the "fact" that the majority of the jury found her guilty so it seems like the jury's a one-way tool for this argument.

At no point have I argued that she’s innocent, Robert. But do tell; would 1/3 of a jury believing an accused to be innocent constitute a reasonable doubt in your mind? (In Italy, it could be as high as .375 in disbelief, let alone doubt, if you want to get technical.) (Meanwhile, 1/12 of a jury not convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, is all that would be required to preclude a finding of Guilty here.)

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Not the way the Italian system works...

If you, or anyone else is still confused about how the Italian system works, or whether or not I've factually described it; Click Here

0 Replies

I am not sure that comparing the Italian and American systems helps. Amanda Knox is subject to Italian jurisdiction in the same way that Roman Polanski is subject to American jurisdiction.

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

Yep jw, this is the problem. The judiciary / laws are different in each country. We can abhor the systems that other countries have - thing is, when you are in another country you are subject to the laws of that land.

I have simplistic views. The point I am trying to make to oralloy is that reading blogs and the media information does not mean that information is correct or and denouncing the whole population of a country as "evil", because of this verdict, simply does not make sense to me. Wishing harm upon Italian citizens... that to me is bizarre.

I don't know what is right or wrong in this case - I don't know enough about it. I find it terribly hard to believe that with the media and international uproar that, if there was absolutely no evidence whatsover, which is the claim, that a person would be found guilty - especially going up against the "US".

hmmmmm...

I do believe in innocent until proven guilty.

It's whose proof tho...

If a foreign citizen enters a country, say, Thailand (maybe) with drugs - they can be imprisoned for life or a death sentence. The same crime in another country would not result in the same punishment.

We hear of so many international rows regarding laws of different countries and how they are applied - this is another one of public outrage against a US citizen, possibly at the expense of this young woman. Very scary. I don't believe it is because she is American, I don't think in disgust because the victim was a UK citizen... I think there must surely be some evidence that a jury convicted on.

Of course, I don't know re: the evidence or court case other than what I have read on the www - but I do think the crime was abhorrent.

When I visit the US, I admit the application of laws/system/police etc scare the heck out of me. For instance - if you get pulled over by the police in a car, you do NOT under any circumstance get out of the car. You wait for the officer to approach you. If you do get out of the car you could have a gun pulled on you - legally. In the UK I do not fear the police in the same way - if I got out the car I would not be fearing for my life. Each country has it's own ways, it's own laws and systems (I'm using the wrong words here, I know). See, simplistic - just saying.

Whatever happened in Italy, I cannot see the US letting it lie if they believe one of their citizens is innocent. However, the laws and rights that the US uphold cannot be applied to a crime in a foreign country. It is their jurisdiction. Right or wrong.

Wishing harm on Italian joe public.... I don't get that.

1 Reply

@Izzie,

Izzie wrote:

I have simplistic views. The point I am trying to make to oralloy is that reading blogs and the media information does not mean that information is correct or and denouncing the whole population of a country as "evil", because of this verdict, simply does not make sense to me. Wishing harm upon Italian citizens... that to me is bizarre.

I don't know what is right or wrong in this case - I don't know enough about it. I find it terribly hard to believe that with the media and international uproar that, if there was absolutely no evidence whatsover, which is the claim, that a person would be found guilty - especially going up against the "US".

That is a good point, Izzie. There are numerous internet discussions on this case. Some have even posted detailed examinations of evidence that has been reported by the media. However, I believe that much of the evidence in criminal cases is not made available to the public.

0 Replies

I'm thinking that since american citizens are compelled to eat at purportedly italian resturants (Olive Garden), italians should be compelled to follow the USA's purported system of justice. Amanda is every bit as innocent as O J Simpson.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

I am not sure that comparing the Italian and American systems helps. Amanda Knox is subject to Italian jurisdiction in the same way that Roman Polanski is subject to American jurisdiction.

I don't think anyone's disputed jurisdiction, Wandeljw. I did see Francis opine that he doesn't think the American system is better. A comparison of the two is certainly relevant for others to form opinions based on the differences, don't you think? One can certainly question the idea of whether or not this trial was just, without questioning Italy's sovereign right to pathetically inadequate civil liberties.

So lets compare: Here, only one jury member has to believe the case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt for the presumption of innocence to be respected. There, if you don't convince at least half the jurors; you're screwed.

And what steps were taken in an attempt to do justice? Let's see:
Jury Sequestration? Nope.

Closed to the media circus? Rarely.

Change of venue? Nope.

Gag orders? If there were such, they clearly were neither respected nor were violations remedied.

Strict chain of custody requirements to assure untainted evidence? Nope.
Proper handling of DNA material? Nope.

Opportunity for the Defense to verify the State's tests (as would be required in any civilized proceeding) for that evidence to be admissible? Nope.

Requirement to have a foundation first, before spouting off about bizarre theories of the crime? Nope. (Both publicly and in court.)

Motions in limine hearings (to determine outside of the juries presence what evidence might be more prejudicial than probative, and the admissibility of same)? That’s a hoot.

Miranda/Goodchild-like hearings to determine whether the accused should have been so thoroughly interrogated without an attorney present? Nope.

Video tapes of the interrogations made available to the defense to insure all interrogation rules (assuming they have some) were followed? Nope.

Vs. There does seem to be some statutory compensatory punishments for false accusations and/or wrongful imprisonment... reminiscent of the accusatory laws of the dark ages. The Italians are due some credit, there, IMO.

The argument of Italian sovereignty is irrelevant as to the question of whether or not this system offered Amanda Knox a fair trial. (By American standards, it most certainly did not). But by humans standards, I am curious: Does anyone here disagree with the noti0n that the accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law?

No system is perfect, so where do we want the errors to be made? Would we prefer to condemn more innocents, or free more of the guilty? In as much as I despise doing the latter, I find it far more palatable than the former.

Individual civil liberties depend on a presumption of innocence and I cannot fathom how anyone can believe that Amanda Knox was presumed anything but guilty in that circus-sideshow of a trial. I find that objectionable whether she’s guilty or not… and that’s a question I don’t expect we’ll ever really know the answer to. I believe JFK had made a valid argument when he said, “The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.” Due process and a presumption of innocence are the bedrock of individual civil liberties.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know