Amanda Knox :guilty or innocent ?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by gordian_knot

Of course it's possible, but you could say that about every trial there has ever been. If you take the position that a trial is bent just because the defendant says so you may as well rip up the whole judicial system. In any case how could they have suppressed her from making a statement through her lawyer, or her parents in the States, if she really had been abused? Wouldn't she have wanted that known at the earliest possible moment? The fact that it came out only at her trial suggests, to me anyway, that it was a court tactic.

I remember that when the first trial took place I was quite agnostic about whether Ms Knox was guilty or innocent and willing to let the court make the decision, which is what the court is for. But as the process meandered on I became rather disenchanted with what I was seeing.

On the original conviction I felt (perhaps unreasonably) pity for Ms Knox; a pretty girl who was about to lose all the best years of her life and would only be released when it was too late and she would have no past and no future, no children, no husband, no family and no reason for ever having lived. But the whole of Meredith Kercher's life is gone, every last bit of it, and justice had to be served.

But then the appeal acquitted her. In the UK this means what it says. If you are acquitted, that's it. End of. But in Italy the state can keep trying and doesn't have to accept the verdict. I'm sorry, but I think that absolutely stinks.

[gordian_knot]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

But then the appeal acquitted her. In the UK this means what it says. If you are acquitted, that's it. End of. But in Italy the state can keep trying and doesn't have to accept the verdict. I'm sorry, but I think that absolutely stinks.

This is a misunderstanding of the Italian court process. Knox had her first trial and an interim judgement against her. Knox won her appeal after which a second-stage trial was held. Had she lost her first appeal, she would still have then gone on to a second-stage trial. In other words, both prosecution and defence get a second chance to put their case. Had Knox lost her appeal she was in effect guaranteed a re-trial. Compare this to the UK, where only the prosecution have the option of a second trial if they lose the first, which is true double jeopardy.

Additionally, Knox had the option of a fast-track trial, which is essentially the same as our single trial (apart from having a panel of judges rather than a jury), which she rejected.

The Italian process can be labyrinthine and tortuous, but although I personally would prefer a jury, I'd hesitate before saying that our system is any better.

[CARLTON BROWN]

Originally Posted by gordian_knot

This is a misunderstanding of the Italian court process. Knox had her first trial and an interim judgement against her. Knox won her appeal after which a second-stage trial was held. Had she lost her first appeal, she would still have then gone on to a second-stage trial. In other words, both prosecution and defence get a second chance to put their case. Had Knox lost her appeal she was in effect guaranteed a re-trial. Compare this to the UK, where only the prosecution have the option of a second trial if they lose the first, which is true double jeopardy.

Additionally, Knox had the option of a fast-track trial, which is essentially the same as our single trial (apart from having a panel of judges rather than a jury), which she rejected.

The Italian process can be labyrinthine and tortuous, but although I personally would prefer a jury, I'd hesitate before saying that our system is any better.

Italian law is notoriously difficult and I would hate to find myself on the wrong side of their backward system, especially, if I was being accused of witchcraft! The Knox trial was a joke from start to finish, stage managed by idiots.

[adderallrules]

Wouldn't mind banging her!!!!!