http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...meet-senator-campaigning-for-Amanda-Knox.html
It's not my opinion, it's fact. And I say it again, the italian justice system is a fucking joke.
22-year-old Amanda Knox found guilty
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...meet-senator-campaigning-for-Amanda-Knox.html
It's not my opinion, it's fact. And I say it again, the italian justice system is a fucking joke.
And once again your opinion is duly noted and duly ignored.
Love your link, it's so cute. A senator that knows nothing about the case makes a show to ride the anti-Italian sentiment. Very nice. But that's how you behave, innit? If some of yours make shit abroad, just flex some diplomatic muscles, and everything is ok. This is like you dealt with Blackwater in Iraq, why not this girl in Italy. Both countries start with a "I" and have foreign-looking people in it.
I love especially this part:
Wait, what? "Adapted correctly"? What the fuck?
In the end it all boils down to this: you don't accept that an American citizen is tried by a foreign court. Guilty, not guilty, that's irrelevant: the US is the best country that ever blessed the Earth with its presence, and no dirty furriner can pass a judgment on one of your citizen, in any case. I used to think that Americans should travel more, and learn about the world. Now I'm starting to think it's better that you stay home, and never step outside your borders. You are more trouble than it's worth.
You wanted anti-American sentiment? This is why you get anti-American sentiments.
What about the fact that the murder weapon they have doesn't match any of the injuries on the woman, nor the bloody imprint of a knife they found next to the body?
Or that the "dna" recovered on the knife they do have was so small an amount and had degraded to a point that it couldn't identify anyone specifically?
Or that the "dna" recovered on the knife they do have was so small an amount and had degraded to a point that it couldn't identify anyone specifically?
Are you an Italian lawyer? Have you been to law school? Do you not understand that character evidence is INADMISSIBLE in the United States, England and many other courts?
I'm an American lawyer and therefore, I know something about the matter. The use of character evidence in a trial is dangerous and wrong. It does not lead to a conviction based on any evidence that matters but simply leads to a lynching based on a persons friends, hangouts and orientation.
The rest of your comments are so outlandish I will ignore them.
No, and I've made it clear from the start. However, I suppose I know something about my own legal system, opposed to someone that just read about it in the news yesterday.
And do you understand that you know zilch about what happened in the private chamber between the members of the judging board, and so your claim they based their ruling on character evidences is just your own opinion?
Let the judges make the reasoning behind the ruling public (it will happens in some weeks), then we can have this conversation again, this time with real elements and not wild claims.
Gosh, an American lawyer! I guess that makes you perfectly entitled to pass judgment on other legal systems, since yours is clearly superior.
So maybe you should refrain from making swift generalization yourself, don't you agree?
^^ Obviously this conversation is going nowhere. You're free to make all the incorrect assumptions you like.
Experts have already opined on the issue. Anyone who thinks that character evidence wasn't part of this is fooling themselves.
American experts. Who, surprise surprise, sided with an US citizen.
I canna do that, capt'n, something keep naggin' at ma knickers! (I'm also a leading expert in Lowlands Scots lexicon, as you can see).
Last edited:
Lets be clear on this Iggy. I am not arguing that she was treated differently because she is American. If the evidence was so compelling that she should have been found guilty, I'd be supporting you and your system.
That being said, from where I sit I don't find the evidence to be compelling enough. That, coupled with experts that are pretty learned on the subject leads me to believe that there may have been some stuff considered that should not have been.
Yes, how dare anybody accuse an American of being a murderer when no American has ever killed anybody. Stupid Italians.
Im sure there are plenty of idiots in here that have done that, I certainly was not one of them. I question the methods of the jurists thats all.
Now we can talk. If you disagree with the verdict, I can see your reasons. If you think evidences are flimsy, I will gladly listen to your opinion. If you think the judges made the wrong call, you are free to insult them and their family 'till the seventh generation.
But if you insult all the system because of one ruling you disagree with, you go from fair criticism to wild invective, something I have a problem with. Fair enough?
To a point. I'm of the opinion that if you have a system that consistently allows such things into evidence it is inherently flawed. Think of it this way:
A person is charged with a crime. He's a bad guy, beats his wife and steals from little old ladies. The crime is that he drove drunk and killed someone.
Should that persons previous acts and bad character be admissible? Absolutely not, what does it have to do with his being careless and drinking and driving? NOTHING. It leads to verdicts based on the type of person he is, not on whether he actually committed the crime.
In the case of Knoxx: Was she a slut? Maybe. Did she sleep around? Possibly. Was she a bit of a loon who did drugs? Could be. Does her being a slut or sleeping around or having been a loon have anything to do with whether she committed murder? No it doesn't.
I think in the future all trials should take place in the USA because obviously the American justice system is so perfect and better than that in inferior nations populated by people more stupid than the American master race that it would be unfair to the defendents to be exposed to such injustices.
I agree with you. I just don't think those considerations entered the minds of the judges when they issued the verdict for murder. Yes, the media made a circus about that, but the judges are accustomed to it. That's also the reason I'm not comfortable but purely popular juries: the inclusion of professional judges makes the risk of a decision based of emotions less likely. We actually live in a culture that is much more relaxed about sex than others. I mean, our PM is on record going with call girls, and nobody gives a fuck.
If you want to raise questions about character evidences, why did they convicted her boyfriend too? He's a respectable young man, from an upstanding Italian family. No claims of promiscuity or wild behavior were attributed to him by the allegedly uber-Catholic Italian prosecutors: yet he got the same sentence of the (admittedly odd-behaving) Amanda Knox. I think that alone speaks volumes.
Maybe the judges made the wrong call, but not for the reasons you seem to think.
Funny story -- when the Soviet Union broke up and the various countries were forming their legal systems, guess where they looked for a template? Yes, the United States. I worked for a law firm once and we did have some lawyers come for a week long visit to analyze our court system with recommendations to take home.
The same has been done in Iraq, although I do concede that a lot of that had to do with the Bush #43 interference (ie toppling of Saddam) as well as many countries.
Is our system perfect? HELL FUCKING NO; however, a lot of countries sure seem to like using ours as a template.
True, it's not like innocent people ever get executed in the US or anything.
startrekrcks
Fleet Captain
She is a silly cow I hope she goes to jail for life like she sickens me Amanda Knox
Similar threads
