Amanda Knox convicted... - Page 3

*winter* · #31 10-02-2011, 09:44 AM

I'm not buying it at all- if I was on the jury (theoretical) I would NEVER be able to convict this girl on the weak "evidence" they have presented. Let it go- you got your guy, you have DNA, a motive, etc...let the girl come home and get back to her life.

ASUADPi · #32 10-02-2011, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *winter*

I'm not buying it at all- if I was on the jury (theoretical) I would NEVER be able to convict this girl on the weak "evidence" they have presented. Let it go- you got your guy, you have DNA, a motive, etc...let the girl come home and get back to her life.

Same here.

But then again, had the trail been here in the United States, I don't think there would have been a conviction. The evidence was purely circumstancial. From what I have heard, her defense team presented evidence that there was mishandling of the evidence by the cops.

I think, no matter what country we are talking about, that when there is a murder the prosecution and cops are so determined to find a killer and pin it on someone that they are "focused" on who they want to "look good" for the murder instead of focusing on what the evidence is actually telling them.

AGDee · #33 10-02-2011, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

Same here.

But then again, had the trail been here in the United States, I don't think there would have been a conviction. The evidence was purely circumstancial. From what I have heard, her defense team presented evidence that there was mishandling of the evidence by the cops.

I think, no matter what country we are talking about, that when there is a murder the prosecution and cops are so determined to find a killer and pin it on someone that they are "focused" on who they want to "look good" for the murder instead of focusing on what the evidence is actually telling them.

I don't know. I don't think I'd have convicted Scott Peterson for Laci's murder based on the evidence we've seen. It was circumstantial. They had more evidence on OJ who was found not guilty. The public freaked when Casey Anthony wasn't convicted for Caylee's murder because the evidence was circumstantial. Some think that Troy Davis, who was executed recently was innocent.

Point is, our system is far from perfect. Italy or the U.S., mistakes are made.

DrPhil · #34 10-03-2011, 11:18 AM

Oh yay! People (the media, etc.) are still ranting about how beautiful Amanda Knox supposedly is (I consider her extremely average) and that she's an All American Girl. I guess this should be a cause for alarm and I should feel sorry for her. I'm still waiting on why I should feel she is nonguilty and why I should feel sorry for her.

KSig RC · #35 10-03-2011, 12:22 PM

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, dudes - and should be weighed just as direct evidence (at least according to common jury instructions).

Munchkin03 · #36 10-03-2011, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Oh yay! People (the media, etc.) are still ranting about how beautiful Amanda Knox supposedly is (I consider her extremely average) and that she's an All American Girl. I guess this should be a cause for alarm and I should feel sorry for her. I'm still waiting on why I should feel she is nonguilty and why I should feel sorry for her.

People were saying that about Casey Anthony too. I guess ugly girls deserve to be convicted?

ellebud · #37 10-03-2011, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Oh yay! People (the media, etc.) are still ranting about how beautiful Amanda Knox supposedly is (I consider her extremely average) and that she's an All American Girl. I guess this should be a cause for alarm and I should feel sorry for her. I'm still waiting on why I should feel she is nonguilty and why I should feel sorry for her.

The reason that you should feel "sorry" for Amanda Knox: The prosecutor is under indictment for malfeasance. The evidence was tainted, unreliable testing, and proved nothing because the dna that was on the household knife was the amount that would have been there in everyday usage. There is a guy in jail who said (initially) that he did it, alone.

Conviction of innocent people affects all of us. Simply put: Once that conviction of an innocent person with tainted evidence, an impaired prosecutor, a crooked judge etc. whatever the background of the defendant (sweet/white All American, immigrant from Tangiers, African American, WASP businessman etc.) is made acceptable we are all vulnerable. We can't undo the past of people who are dead, but we can secure the future where people are (more) assured of a fair trial with evidence that is true.

excelblue · #38 10-03-2011, 02:55 PM

One thing to always consider on convictions: when an innocent person is convicted, someone is punished for a crime they did not do, and the guilty person is still free; when a guilty person is acquitted, nobody is punished for a crime they did not do, and the guilty person is still free.

That is why (at least in the US), criminal courts don't work like civil courts. If the stakes were equal for both sides, it'd make more sense to convict based on where there's more evidence.

PiKA2001 · #39 10-03-2011, 03:52 PM

She's free!

shadokat · #40 10-03-2011, 03:56 PM

Finally, this poor girl is free!

Munchkin03 · #41 10-03-2011, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ellebud

The reason that you should feel "sorry" for Amanda Knox: The prosecutor is under indictment for malfeasance.

The reason that I don't feel "sorry" for Amanda Knox: She defamed a man repeatedly to prove her innocence. Why was that necessary? Fortunately, the conviction for defamation still stands.

While she may not have killed Meredith Kercher, she still lied multiple times and slandered a man who had been nothing but good to her. I don't care if she was Strawberry Shortcake and Rainbow Brite personified, that's still pretty dastardly.

sweetmagnolia · #42 10-03-2011, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

The reason that I don't feel "sorry" for Amanda Knox? She defamed a man repeatedly to prove her innocence. Why was that necessary? Fortunately, the conviction for defamation still stands.

She got time served for defamation, I thought?

Munchkin03 · #43 10-03-2011, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetmagnolia

She got time served for defamation, I thought?

Obviously, if that conviction still stood and she was released immediately.

How soon will she get a book deal?

ellebud · #44 10-03-2011, 05:06 PM

She served four years for a three year sentence.

Defamation is not ok. Lying to the police is not ok, although there are allegations that with hours of interrogation(s) she was willing to say almost anything.

oh wait......not to condone lying or defamation...done everyday on every level. Even here....

As for the book deal...silly you...First there is the exclusive interview(s) for a fee..then the book deal...then the movie. Or perhaps her agents will package all three for the most bang.

MaryPoppins · #45 10-03-2011, 07:00 PM

Quote:

The reason that I don't feel "sorry" for Amanda Knox: She defamed a man repeatedly to prove her innocence. Why was that necessary? Fortunately, the conviction for defamation still stands.

While she may not have killed Meredith Kercher, she still lied multiple times and slandered a man who had been nothing but good to her. I don't care if she was Strawberry Shortcake and Rainbow Brite personified, that's still pretty dastardly.

When she accused the man wrongfully, defaming him, she had been questioned by the local police ALL NIGHT long, no sleep, no food. This is notorious method for producing whatever the police want to hear or will accept to leave the person being questioned [harassed] alone.