That’s right. Forget the countries. In WM3, we had no motive other than suspicion, uncredited witnesses allowed to testify for the prosecution and speculations of the community that lead to a guilty verdict. Same thing with Amanda Knox and her compagno.
Did anyone see the animation film the prosecution used in their closing in Italy? I’ve only heard that it was an animated chain of events which ended with a freeze frame on the dead body of Meredith Kercher’s bloody corpse. There’s something we WOULD NOT see in the US, but even in the case of the WM3, the prosecution kept nailing satanism in the whole picture without proof.
Ah, I see. Your point is that actual moral truth is defined exactly and only by the workings of the court system wherever you happen to be. If we all were to accept that notion, then we could end this thread right now. After all, she was convicted, and courts and juries are never wrong. I suppose OJ was really innocent, and the Goldmans should have to pay him back whatever money they got from as a result of the civil case.
The relative merits of two legal systems are a side issue, though not totally irrelevant. The merit of this particular court, I thought, is the subject of this thread.
The news is reporting that the jury was unanimous on her guilt, and disagreed only as to her sentence. Not sure what the double jeopardy aspect of her case might have been.
In case anyone’s interested here’s a link to the US Department of Justice’s World Factbook of Criminal Justice Systems page on Italy. It’s very long and has no table of contents.
I’m not seeing this in your previous post. It sounded like you were dismissing all objections to this case American provincialism. On the other hand I’m not sure what these comments have to do with the subject. Yes, she voluntarily visited the country. And? That has no bearing on the merits of this case.
Or because the North Korean government wouldn’t allow you in. Whichever.
To me this reads as a sign of a false confession. She’s trying to make the investigators happy by giving them the information they want (that she was there) but still refuses to inculpate herself in a crime she didn’t commit. The Marty Tankleff case is a similar example. He told police he blacked out and committed the murders.
And the police first became interested in Michael Crowe based on how he behaved the morning his sister’s body was discovered. There were two people convicted here, though. What about Raffaele Sollecito? Why aren’t you concerned with his behavior?
Marty Tankloff didnt go shopping for dildos and crotchless panties in the hours after his parents murder, nor did he do handstands or cartwheels in the police station during a break in his questioning.
Look, I dont know what really happened, and neither do you—I sure as hell know that Amanda Knox’s bizzare behavior following her friends death makes her look nucking futs, as well as callous and indifferent, which doubtless went a hell of long way in helping convict her. Acting in a manner that everyone else would view as wildly inappropriate dosent automatically make you guilty, but it can certainly make observers start to think that way.
If you really feel so strongly that poor Amanda was an innocent little lamb, railroaded by Italian Justice, you can always send her parents some money, as I am sure they could use it…
PS—I sincerely feel that Amanda Knox’s family are also victims of her actions, just as the Kercher family is
Who gives a good damn about the appropriateness of her behavior? The question is whether or not she was involved in this murder. If the jury was swayed by reports about her shopping habits and MySpace pictures rather than the lack of physical evidence or a plausible motive, that’s their fault, not hers.
The North Korean government was allowing a lot of people in for a trip to a famous mountain. The resort is a jointly run enterprise between North and South Korea. One South Korean lady and one South Korean man found out the hard way that the North’s serious about their laws being obeyed in that area. The lady was shot and killed by a military guard and the man was arrested for insulting the North and its system of government.
Sam I Was: Which US system? The US military does have a majority verdict rule.
True, but that still leaves the composition of the jury itself, which as far as I know, wasn’t interviewed to ferret out any preexisting bias. The only reason I bring up double jeopardy is because had she been acquitted, the prosecution still had the option to appeal. I’m not sure that she would have been permitted to leave the country.
In actuality, I see most of the faults in this case less in the procedure of the court, with rules already extremely unfavorable to her, than with the nature of the evidence itself. There are reports of police moving things around at the crime scene and handling objects without gloves. Initial examinations had Kercher’s throat slit with a shard of glass or a pen knife. The only forensic evidence that places Knox at the scene is a butcher knife, which the prosecution presented as the murder weapon. I have trouble coming up with a blade more dissimilar than that.
(And with that, I am done with this thread—Marley23 and the others can musturbate all over the minutia of this case as is their wont, but I have other important things to discuss, like exactly how awful of a person/musician/terrorist IS Cat Stevens)
The US military system is quite a separate entity from the criminal justice system as it applies to civilians. I have more than a few problems with military courts as well.
Actually, I compared accounts of her behavior with Michael Crowe and her confession with Marty Tankloff. That aside, Knox didn’t go shopping for dildos or crotchless panties after Kerchner’s death. It is, however, interesting to see where your imagination runs and what you’d prefer to believe over the truth.
