Foxy knoxy guilty.....again

Don't forget that the most famous miscarriage of justice / show trial / kangaroo court, and subsequent execution of an innocent man, in all history, took place under the rule and jurisprudence of Italians.

Though I'm sure some here (RickDeckard for example) would argue there is no evidence the incident ever actually happened.

Innocent? Did he not countenance his followers proclaiming him the Messiah, a political title?

A pretty clear case of insurrection if ever there was one.

Doesn't the US have an extradition treaty with Italy?

Yes, but the aforementioned double jeopardy issue makes extradition far from certain (or so I've read).

If I told you some of the things that go in Italy just from the time I spent in Europe (where a lot of GI's + families spent time) you wouldn't believe it.

And now that you've demonstrated that your Obama hate completely overwhelms your capacity for rational thought...

Obama will toss her on the first flight, while bowing profusely to the Italian president, the Italian prime minister, the head of the Italian mafia, the Pope, and anyone else he can find to bow to.

If Knox was Russian Putin would tell them to fuck off.

That is false. I think it very likely that a man called Jesus was executed for proclaiming himself "King of the Jews".

Dershowitz nailed it. If she was a fat ugly brute, the media wouldn't give a crap about her.

And for what reason would anyone go to Italy anyway? To visit the Vatican? Great place to visit I guess, but I'll pass. Might get accused of not being Catholic.

Im guessing by Paladins posts and the general atmosphere in this thread, the US media has her innocent?

As you can imagine the UK press has her hung out to dry.

A classic example of look after your own here and interpret what you want i reckon. (By that i dont mean any WF's perspectives, i mean the national press machines)

For me the double jeopardy thing on its own is enough reason to not extradite. You don't try someone, find them innocent, then turn around and say "do-over cuz we didn't like the verdict."

The second trial was a show for the Italian public.
Italy does not expect Amanda Knox to be extradited.

As far as I'm concerned, Edward Snowden can stay in Russia.

That's not what happened though, was it? She was convicted, then overturned on appeal. In the US that can and often does result in a new trial. My understanding of double jeopardy is that a person most be found innocent in the initial trial.

Not to complicate things, but if (big if here) she was black would the Justice Department/race baiting crowd be tripping over themselves to make sure she doesn't get extradited to Italy?
Dershowitz said nobody would care is she were unattractive - would they care more if she were a minority? Food for thought.
Guarantee the gub/mint wouldn't even think about extraditing her.

So the actual killer gets a 16 year sentence and Knox gets a 28 year sentence. This makes perfect sense...in Italy.

I think it has something to do with the metric system.

I declare my flat to be a sovereign nation she can claim asylum in for her portion of the rent. I do not have extradition treaties with Italy.

We should extradite her to Italy after every red-blooded heterosexual American male is finished having his way with her. That pretty much oughta cover her for about 14 more lifetimes....

The U.S. media isn't screaming "Miscarriage of justice!" but they are raising a lot of doubts about the validity of her conviction. I have to say that, based on what I've read and seen, I think that's totally appropriate. I don't see enough evidence to charge her with a murder, much less to convict her of one.

Knox is tied to the killing solely through having the victim's DNA on a knife Knox handled...a knife that is pretty well established NOT to be the murder weapon and that was, in any event, mishandled by the police. Sollecito is tied to the killing through trace amounts of DNA on the victim's bra clasp, and this evidence was not collected from the scene for SIX WEEKS following the killing and was also mishandled. The DNA evidence is thin at face value; when you consider the likelihood that the police contaminated the evidence, it's worthless.

EVEN IF you accept that she's lying about being involved and EVEN IF you accept the highly dubious DNA evidence, there still isn't any evidence that Knox or Sollecito killed Kercher. There's no evidence they were even in the house when the murder occurred.

And the physical evidence points very strongly to Rudy Guede, a man ALREADY in prison for the murder. He admits to being present during the murder, left copious amounts of evidence at the scene, fled the country the following day, and gave a preposterous account of what happened in the house the night of the murder. I would say the case against him is VERY, VERY strong.

If I've missed something about this case, I'd like to hear it because I really do have a hard time accepting the guilty verdict that came down. I don't see how a fair-minded person could be CONVINCED that Knox and/or Sollecito are guilty.

To be honest I have no idea. I haven't really followed the trial at all. All I note is that the UK redtops have her down as guilty, Im guessing there must be a different slant in reporting over the pond for you to have innocent.

Its not hard to see why there might be differences on interpretation, American girl accused of murdering British girl.

Certainly our so called 'qualities' are looking at it with a more balanced view. The tabloids however have her hung out to dry.

Agreed.

I think there's more to the whole story than the media reports. For example, why would the Italian justice system want her to be convicted? Doesn't make sense. There is no motive. Italy is no enemy to the US, they don't need a show trial and convicting foreign nationals is always a diplomatic hassle. Political instinct says let her go if the case isn't airtight.

Also, for all the American chest thumping here: they conviced their own Don Silvio. Who, in case anyone forgot, spent his looong time in office constructing laws seeking to prevent exactly that. If anything, they are persistent. Better count all those innocents who still populate various death rows across the country, then go after the Italian judical system. I'd take them over some trigger happy American court any time.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as the last sentence, but I also doubt that it's the equivalent of a Klingon court. There is more to this than meets the eye, and I suspect many of the journalists covering this don't have enough familiarity with legal matters to know what to report as case material. Nothing wrong with Paladin's analysis -- it uses the information available -- but I suspect there is much lacking in the data.

The public is interested in the sexy, and the potential for political gain (see a few posts in this thread). Her guilt or innocence almost doesn't matter, it's all about the circus.

The murder victim was British. In my considered opinion that's the sole driving factor behind the UK press strident trumpeting that Knox is guilty. If the victim was Brazilian or Australian or Thai or Dutch or something the UK press would be a lot more unbiased about it.

Paladin, can you access the BBC iplayer from the states or is it limited to British regions? If so, theres a documentary on it which aired on Monday, 'Is Amanda Knox Guilty'. I haven't caught it yet but the preview said it examined arguaments from both sides of the case.

@Stallion: don't know if I can access it, but I'd like to check it out.

Maybe Dennis Rodman can go there and free her if she's imprisoned.

Reading here it's sadly obvious that a lot of opinion is polarised by issues of nationality, and the character of Ms Knox herself rather than the actual murder itself.
Reading all the evidence with an open mind her behaviour was somewhat unusual, and the circumstantial evidence strong.
Every country has parts of its Legal System that seem odd to outsiders, being based in the culture of the society it grows from, and to be fair the Roman system has influenced many systems of Law.
Although I believe her to be guilty, it's a sad fact that this will continue to be more an examination of a character, rather than a crime.

I believe I've looked at the evidence as fairly and objectively as anyone could ask. I've even asked if I've missed something because I just don't see it.

"Odd behavior" doesn't prove murder. And the physical evidence against her is either weak or non-existent. The DNA evidence against her--even if you accept it as valid given its pretty slipshod handling by the police--proves only that she and the victim both came into contact with a knife that was NOT the murder weapon. EVEN IF you believe it's the murder weapon, it's completely possible--given the knife was in Sollecito's household--that Knox could've come into contact with it innocently.

The especially perplexing thing to me is that it's pretty clear they already have the murderer, Rudy Guede, against whom there is copious physical evidence. He left bloody fingerprints and a shoe print at the scene, his story was unbelievable, he fled the country, and his DNA was everywhere--including, ahem, "inside" the victim. Are we REALLY to believe Amanda Knox (and perhaps Sollecito) was there encouraging him to kill the victim, but somehow managed to leave no trace?

Perhaps Amanda Knox *is* guilty, but, in my mind, no one's come anywhere near proving it. I see very little objective evidence to even SUGGEST it.