The case is finally over, and this young woman will now face 26 years behind bars unless an appeal will reduce her sentence.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
22-year-old Amanda Knox found guilty
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
Raffaele Sollecito got a very similar sentence. Ironically, Rudy Guede went for a short trial that would in theory reduce the sentence (I don't know the legal term in English, in Italian it's called "processo per direttissima") and got 30 years.
It's been a very big case here in Italy, followed by almost all media. Two young pretty foreign students, a young man from a good Italian family and an black immigrant involved, sex, violence, blood: food for tabloid.
Personally, I've not followed it too much (criminal news do not interest me very much), so I don't have an opinion on the case, but one detail striked me: she accused another black guy (can't remember the name, he was her boss at the pub where she worked), knowing he was completely innocent, and in fact he had more than one person confirming his story. The "young woman" is far from innocent.
Other than that, I have no idea. The crime scene was a mess, there was no clear reason for the murder, and the inquiry has been in the spotlight for too much time for the police to do a good job. Fuck me if I know.
It's been a very big case here in Italy, followed by almost all media. Two young pretty foreign students, a young man from a good Italian family and an black immigrant involved, sex, violence, blood: food for tabloid.
Personally, I've not followed it too much (criminal news do not interest me very much), so I don't have an opinion on the case, but one detail striked me: she accused another black guy (can't remember the name, he was her boss at the pub where she worked), knowing he was completely innocent, and in fact he had more than one person confirming his story. The "young woman" is far from innocent.
Other than that, I have no idea. The crime scene was a mess, there was no clear reason for the murder, and the inquiry has been in the spotlight for too much time for the police to do a good job. Fuck me if I know.
Last edited:
Bullshit. The italian judicial system is a fucking joke.
She's kinda hot, and apparently likes to kill sometimes. I say we clone the hell out of her to build a reinforcement army for Iraq and Afghanistan. 
FSM, I know it's just a Google search away, but it's best to include an article for people to understand the case when you start a news topic like this. Thanks.
Anyway, here's an article on the verdict, and a Wiki page giving some background on the case.
Anyway, here's an article on the verdict, and a Wiki page giving some background on the case.
Thank you for your opinion.
And why do you think that is? She killed someone = murderer. What's the beef here?
I seem to remember that all came out through some self-penned fiction she'd put online? I expect it's somewhere via Google.I want to know more salacious details about the extreme sex play they were indulging in...
The beef is, Shameless, is that there was NO DNA of hers or Raffael's at the crime scene. She had no access to an interpreter, the jury wasn't given any real evidence and they were not sequestered. So yes, I agree that Italy's judicial system IS a joke. The jury didn't decide on the facts of the case. They convicted based on tabloid journalism.
Plus there is also reason to suspect that there was bias due to the national origin of the defendant...in other words, that this may be anti-American sentiment made manifest. It seemed a foregone conclusion from the very beginning, regardless of the evidence or lack thereof. Given that, and the other denials of basic rights to the defendant, it should be no wonder that this angers a good many Americans and that we feel about it the same way we would feel about an Iranian mock trial rather than a verdict reached by an American or British court.
In the immortal words of Chief Archon Makbar, "The verdict is guilty. The sentence is death. Let the trial begin!"
In the immortal words of Chief Archon Makbar, "The verdict is guilty. The sentence is death. Let the trial begin!"
Exactly, Noel Ghemor. This wasn't right.
I seem to remember that all came out through some self-penned fiction she'd put online?I want to know more salacious details about the extreme sex play they were indulging in...
Really? I haven't followed the case at all. That's hilarious.
Thank you for your opinion.
Choose your sarcasm. My opinion is an informed one. Their system is a joke.
Did she? The physical evidence was flawed. There was significant reasonable doubt all over it. Her character was put into evidence, which in my professional opinion, is wrong.
Any proof of that?
Alpha Romeo--are you a lawyer by any chance? Sounds like it, but I'm just curious. If you are, I think reminding everyone of the proper rules of admissible evidence would be a good idea to reinforce your point.
Jack Frost--not only do you have the fact that the tabloids were savaging her and that the jury was not sequestered from this influence, but the way the crowd reacted when she was convicted (rather like a thumbs-down at a gladiatorial match) makes it suspect as well. And it is a well-known fact that Americans ARE despised overseas, at least by the majorities, in many countries. While we can't 100% prove anti-American bias was at the root of the verdict, the multiple miscarriages of justice throughout the course of the trial render the entire proceedings suspect, that such influences could easily have gotten in.
Edited to add: You may find it interesting to read back on the "Have you ever been on a trial jury?" thread, where one of the posters talks about being on a federal jury in a trial where Wal-Mart was the defendant, and more than one juror apparently talked seriously about the possibility of delivering a punitive guilty verdict against Wal-Mart, to hurt them, simply because they didn't like Wal-Mart...even though they agreed with the other jurors that the plaintiff had failed to satisfy her burden of proof and Wal-Mart therefore, according to the law, must be held not guilty in that instance. It can happen. It does happen. And I believe there is a strong possibility it did happen in this case as well, and that the system itself failed to prevent it as it did in the Wal-Mart case I described, through several (possibly) deliberate failures.
Jack Frost--not only do you have the fact that the tabloids were savaging her and that the jury was not sequestered from this influence, but the way the crowd reacted when she was convicted (rather like a thumbs-down at a gladiatorial match) makes it suspect as well. And it is a well-known fact that Americans ARE despised overseas, at least by the majorities, in many countries. While we can't 100% prove anti-American bias was at the root of the verdict, the multiple miscarriages of justice throughout the course of the trial render the entire proceedings suspect, that such influences could easily have gotten in.
Edited to add: You may find it interesting to read back on the "Have you ever been on a trial jury?" thread, where one of the posters talks about being on a federal jury in a trial where Wal-Mart was the defendant, and more than one juror apparently talked seriously about the possibility of delivering a punitive guilty verdict against Wal-Mart, to hurt them, simply because they didn't like Wal-Mart...even though they agreed with the other jurors that the plaintiff had failed to satisfy her burden of proof and Wal-Mart therefore, according to the law, must be held not guilty in that instance. It can happen. It does happen. And I believe there is a strong possibility it did happen in this case as well, and that the system itself failed to prevent it as it did in the Wal-Mart case I described, through several (possibly) deliberate failures.
Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian citizen, got the exact same treatment and he too was sentenced to 25 years in prison. So was there an Anti-Italian bias in rendering the decision as well?
Just because she was convicted, doesn't mean she actually committed the crime.
Similar threads
