Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito retrail

[Antilogic]

I would search under chairs for decisive evidence and scream "HOLD IT!" and "OBJECTION!" while waving a piece of paper in the Italians' collective faces as they reel at my ace attorney skillz.

 

[Mise]

Does anyone think we would be as interested in this case if it didn't involve a half-naked woman?

It's an excuse to have pages and pages of photos of pretty young women in the name of serious journalism.

 

[bathsheba666]

I guess Meredith Kercher will probably also not opt to return to Italy.

 

[Silurian]

Just when you think the whole ordeal is over, they claw you back in.

Don't they have double jeopardy rules in Italy? I thought being found innocent once was enough.

So if the lower court had turned down her appeal would everyone have been against knox appealling to the next court up the line.

 

[bhsup]

So if the lower court had turned down her appeal would everyone have been against knox appealling to the next court up the line.

No, but that's because that is how the system is supposed to work. It's weighted towards the defense. You get ONE step anywhere along the way saying "not guilty" and boom, you're free.

Does Italy not have double jeopardy protection?

 

[Antilogic]

So if the lower court had turned down her appeal would everyone have been against knox appealling to the next court up the line.

The idea is that appeals should work their way up the ladder to the top-ranked court, and then the matter is settled. The Italian Supreme Court sent this back down to the lower courts for a retrial.

 

[Silurian]

I do not know if Italy has double jeopardy protection or not.

It was removed in the UK in some circumstances a few years ago. Also the prosecution can appeal the sentence length in the UK.

But this is one prosecution process so it is not really double jeopardy. If both sides had exhausted the legal process and the the prosecution had started from scratch that would have definately been double jepordy in my opinion.

Italy has a differnent legal system than the US (and UK). The Italian Supreme Court sent this back down to the lower courts to resolve which complies with the Italian legal system. How the US system works is not really relevent.

If Amanda Knox's lawyers feel that her human rights have been broken they will appeal to the European Court.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Just when you think the whole ordeal is over, they claw you back in.

Don't they have double jeopardy rules in Italy? I thought being found innocent once was enough.

Depends on what the exact charge was, if all procedures were followed exactly right, if new evidence pops up, if any witnesses recant or are in turn found to be suspicious or guilty of perjury, or if a juror woke up on the wrong side of the bed, the judge's favorite sports team lost, etc...

We've had a similar back-and-forth for years over one of the accused in the murder of Reena Virk (although in this case the accused is definitely guilty of participating in the murder, it's just the extent and subsequent sentence nobody can agree on; she's been through four trials so far, I think).

The world comes to America. If that's what you want on a vacation, you can find it.

Note, though, that whenever I manage to escape on a vacation, I want the hell away from people. Give me natural beauty and whatnot every time over humanity.

Natural beauty + away from people = hiking in Banff National Park in the springtime. I went in April one year, while the mountain lakes were still frozen over - it was an amazing experience!

 

[Antilogic]

I do not know if Italy has double jeopardy protection or not.

It was removed in the UK in some circumstances a few years ago. Also the prosecution can appeal the sentence length in the UK.

But this is one prosecution process so it is not really double jeopardy. If both sides had exhausted the legal process and the the prosecution had started from scratch that would have definately been double jepordy in my opinion.

Italy has a differnent legal system than the US (and UK). The Italian Supreme Court sent this back down to the lower courts to resolve which complies with the Italian legal system. How the US system works is not really relevent.

If Amanda Knox's lawyers feel that her human rights have been broken they will appeal to the European Court.

I think I mistook your comment for saying that any opposition to appeals is just because your side lost, so to speak, and not because it had worked its way through the entire legal system.

 

[Silurian]

I do not know if Knox is guilty or innocent.

I cannot see that there is anything wrong with the prosecution being able to appeal a decision by an appeal court in the same way the defence can. The judge that grants the appeal should have a very good reason for granting such an appeal in my opinion.

It is up to the voters of a country to decide on their justice system. It is all so quite correct for others to criticises another countries justice system but the criticism should not just be that it is different.

 

[Antilogic]

I do not know if Knox is guilty or innocent.

I cannot see that there is anything wrong with the prosecution being able to appeal a decision by an appeal court in the same way the defence can. The judge that grants the appeal should have a very good reason for granting such an appeal in my opinion.

It is up to the voters of a country to decide on their justice system. It is all so quite correct for others to criticises another countries justice system but the criticism should not just be that it is different.

The criticism myself and VRWC posted was not that it was different, but was more specific.

Both sides had already appealed up to the so-called Italian Supreme Court, which turns out isn't all that supreme because it didn't make a final decision in the matter. And this isn't an issue where the supreme court decided the lower courts answered the wrong question.

 

[Silurian]

Well the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation is different to the US Supreme Court. It appears to have less power than the US Supreme Court but some people may regard that as a good thing. I am sure that some people in the US would like to be able to go directly to the supreme court without going through the appeals process.

Link to wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Cassation_(Italy)

Has their reasoning be published yet.

 

[dutchfire]

I love how all the Americans here assume she's innocent and how the British article assume she's guilty.

 

[Mise]

I love how all the Americans here assume she's innocent and how the British article assume she's guilty.

Yup, this was clear from the last thread as well...

 

[dutchfire]

If I were them I would never go out of the US again unless dragged in chains.

I thought she mostly did the chaining up part, not the being chained part?


What a lovely 11000th post.

 

[bhsup]

I love how all the Americans here assume she's innocent and how the British article assume she's guilty.

I am not making any sort of assumption. The Italians determined her to be innocent, yes? Isn't this why she was released from custody and allowed to return to the States? And now, after saying she was innocent, they are saying "Wait, we might have changed our mind."

What a crock of shite.

 

[Antilogic]

Nah, they pulled a full Kerry. You see, she was guilty before she was innocent...

 

[History_Buff]

From someone who is barely aware of all this, can someone confirm that this is indeed one of the cases where there's no clear consensus on whether Knox and Sollecito are really guilty?

As opposed to say, the Casey Anthony case, where it seemed just about everyone was confident that she did it, but nobody was sure if the prosecution was going to be able to prove it?

 

[Cutlass]

I love how all the Americans here assume she's innocent and how the British article assume she's guilty.

I don't assume she's innocent or guilty. But the Italians had a shot to prove it and they fracked up by the numbers. So far as I'm concerned, it is the government's responsibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty as charged before they have the right to lock that person away. Having failed to do that, they lack the right to lock that person up. They are presumed to be innocent in the absence of the government proving their guilt. If the government screws up their case, then that's their problem.

 

[woody60707]

I love how all the Americans here assume she's innocent and how the British article assume she's guilty.

Yup, this was clear from the last thread as well...

It is kinda odd how that happens. As a American, I have read articles from the BBC and CNN. And I still fell under the typical American idea that she seems more likely "not guilty".

The BBC seem to just report the general facts and left some items up in the air that made her seems guilty, while CNN put more context and details that made her seem not guilty. Case in point, it was reported by the BBC she was doing acrobatics in the police station. CNN reported that she was doing yoga because she was stressed. While both facts in the articles are true. There is a gulf in the way it was reported.

From someone who is barely aware of all this, can someone confirm that this is indeed one of the cases where there's no clear consensus on whether Knox and Sollecito are really guilty?

As opposed to say, the Casey Anthony case, where it seemed just about everyone was confident that she did it, but nobody was sure if the prosecution was going to be able to prove it?

Speaking generally, people in the UK seems feels she guilty. In the US, she innocent. In Italy, she a whore. ... And we know how Italy feels about whores and scientist.