• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Amanda Knox - Railroaded

Re: Amanda Know - Railroaded

Again, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that document is legally binding. Italian criminal law would still take precedence. And even if it was, that's a very bland generic statement which leaves itself up to a lot of interpretation. Just because Italy's judicial system doesn't work like ours doesn't mean it isn't fair and impartial. Like I said earlier, if you go live in a foreign country, you're subject to their laws and judicial system regardless of whether you think that system is fair or not. If you don't like that, don't go live there.

It's trully amazing how you Libbos can't choose a standard and stick to it.
 
Re: Amanda Know - Railroaded

LMAO - Your sillyness continues.

1. The 4th Geneva convention:



2. The Declaration of Human Rights:



Can you please show us what part of fair trials being an universal right don't you understand?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not govern the conduct of warfare or define the terms thereof; that is the jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions.

KSM is not entitled to the legal protections outlined in the Geneva Conventions (like a trial) because he is an unlawful combatant.

Is there something about this that confuses you?

P.S. - A fair trial, in this context, is a human right, not a universal right.

Re: Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
 
Re: Amanda Know - Railroaded

What you are essentially saying is that no one has the right to complain about anything that occurs in another country, as long as they're following their own laws. Whether or not the government dotted all the I's and crossed the T's on the paperwork is irrelevant to the fact that she is innocent.

Those same people have no problem allowing other countries to bitch about what goes on in the United States.
 
Re: Amanda Know - Railroaded

It's trully amazing how you Libbos can't choose a standard and stick to it.

Please refrain from these kinds of attacks. I'd like to stay on topic.
 
Re: Amanda Know - Railroaded

Please refrain from these kinds of attacks. I'd like to stay on topic.

It wasn't an attack, it was an observation. Stop being picayune. Thanks in advance.
 
Re: Amanda Know - Railroaded

Obviously someone thought there was enough evidence to convict her. The fact that your opinion differs is, as I've stated several times, irrelevant. Justice is subjective, not objective. Your definition of justice does not apply to everyone.

The only reason that she was convicted is because people didn't like it when she kissed her boyfriend after the murder.

And no justice is not subjective. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. There is no grey area.
 
The EU has no authority to overturn an Italian criminal court's decision.

The EU court of human rights does have the authority and power to overrule decisions made by countries or courts.
 
Re: Amanda Know - Railroaded

The only reason that she was convicted is because people didn't like it when she kissed her boyfriend after the murder.

And no justice is not subjective. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. There is no grey area.

Right and wrong aren't objective either.
 
Re: Amanda Know - Railroaded

she is innocent.

Like has been said many times in this thread why did you not fly to Italy with that vital piece of evidence that would of exonerated her from Murder? You could of gone travelled with Etheral so as not to get lonely on the trip:)

Paul
 
Re: Amanda Know - Railroaded

IMO, even as I have concerns from what I have read about the process that has taken place and recognize that there are legitimate disputes over the DNA evidence, I believe any diplomatic efforts should wait until the appeals process has been completed.

Courts in any country, including the U.S., have made errors in the past, with those errors being reversed on appeal. Right now, it is too soon to say with any degree of certainty that the Italian verdict was, in fact, an error, though there is reason for concern.

An attempted diplomatic end-run around legal process would be premature and would set a precedent that would encourage greater diplomatic interference with U.S. court decisions prior to appeals. After all, if the U.S. does not allow the appeals process to work abroad in a democratic state, why should other states whose governments have concerns about an initial verdict in the U.S., show any greater willingness to wait for the U.S. appeals process to be completed. The end result of such a situation would be the transformation of legal disputes (fairly frequent in occurrence) into diplomatic ones (less frequent than legal disputes, but with broader interests/higher stakes involved). I don't believe that outcome would be beneficial in the larger context of international relations.
 
Last edited:
Re: Amanda Know - Railroaded

I read the Liberal posts in this thread and it really makes me wonder what the problem really was with Gitmo.
 
The EU court of human rights does have the authority and power to overrule decisions made by countries or courts.

I have never heard of the European Court of Human Rights intervening in questions of fact in criminal cases. Do you have any examples of this?
 
Last edited:
Re: Amanda Know - Railroaded

Like has been said many times in this thread why did you not fly to Italy with that vital piece of evidence that would of exonerated her from Murder? You could of gone travelled with Etheral so as not to get lonely on the trip:)

Paul

And like has already been explained to you time and time again (which you've chosen to ignore), defendants should NEVER be obligated to prove their innocence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and there was NO evidence linking her to the murder.

Please cite the evidence that you believe proves she committed murder. I'll wait.
 
Let's take a look at all of the "evidence" the prosecution cited that supposedly proves Knox and Sollecito committed murder:

Falsely accusing her boss - This theory was concocted by the police and thrust upon Knox during her 14-hour interrogation. Eventually she told them what they wanted to hear, as many people would after being subjected to harsh interrogation techniques. Strength of evidence: Very low
Her behavior after the murder (doing cartwheels, smiling in the courtroom, etc) - People handle stress differently. Since murderers don't typically do cartwheels or smile in court, it in no way indicates guilt. Strength of evidence: Very low
The CCTV camera showing her entering the apartment - Never happened. This is completely false. Strength of evidence: Nil
The broken window - In no way specifically implicates Knox or Sollecito. If the prosecution's fake break-in theory is correct, all it proves is that SOMEONE staged it, not that Knox and Sollecito specifically did. Strength of evidence: Nil
Sollecito's DNA on the bra strap - Was left at the crime scene for SIX WEEKS before it was discovered. Investigators used no gloves or protected it in any way. Strength of evidence: Nil
The knife - Was not the murder weapon, and there was not enough DNA on it for a conclusive match. Strength of evidence: Nil
The prosecution's sex-game-gone-wrong theory - Concocted by an occultist blogger who claims to speak with the dead, of whom the prosecutor is a big fan. He has used the exact same implausible theory in other cases. Strength of evidence: Nil
The DNA at the murder scene - All Guede's and Kircher's. None from Sollecito or Knox was found. Strength of evidence: Actually exonerates them

So the only things even REMOTELY resembling evidence were her behavior after the fact...and even that is merely strange, not particularly incriminating.
 
Last edited:
I have never heard of the European Court of Human Rights intervening in questions of fact in criminal cases. Do you have any examples of this?

I have examples of the EUCoHR over ruling countries decisions
BBC News - Judges overrule Germany in custody case

France Overruled on Gay Adoption - TIME

EUCoHR does have the power to overrule decisions and it not only binds all council members but sets a precedent which affects all courts but why would they? It is one person. It has no widespread consequences to the 27 countries of the European Union or the 47 council members.
Why would it get involved in a insignificant murder case? As far as i'm concerned, their system has found her guilty. She can appeal with that system
 
Last edited:
If you do not appreciate, respect, or if you even fear the judicial system of another country, do not move there, period.
 
Let's take a look at all of the "evidence" the prosecution cited that supposedly proves Knox and Sollecito committed murder:

Falsely accusing her boss - This theory was concocted by the police and thrust upon Knox during her 14-hour interrogation. Eventually she told them what they wanted to hear, as many people would after being subjected to harsh interrogation techniques. Strength of evidence: Very low
Her behavior after the murder (doing cartwheels, smiling in the courtroom, etc) - People handle stress differently. Since murderers don't typically do cartwheels or smile in court, it in no way indicates guilt. Strength of evidence: Very low
The CCTV camera showing her entering the apartment - Never happened. This is completely false. Strength of evidence: Nil
The broken window - In no way specifically implicates Knox or Sollecito. If the prosecution's fake break-in theory is correct, all it proves is that SOMEONE staged it, not that Knox and Sollecito specifically did. Strength of evidence: Nil
Sollecito's DNA on the bra strap - Was left at the crime scene for SIX WEEKS before it was discovered. Investigators used no gloves or protected it in any way. Strength of evidence: Nil
The knife - Was not the murder weapon, and there was not enough DNA on it for a conclusive match. Strength of evidence: Nil
The prosecution's sex-game-gone-wrong theory - Concocted by an occultist blogger who claims to speak with the dead, of whom the prosecutor is a big fan. He has used the exact same implausible theory in other cases. Strength of evidence: Nil
The DNA at the murder scene - All Guede's and Kircher's. None from Sollecito or Knox was found. Strength of evidence: Actually exonerates them

So the only things even REMOTELY resembling evidence were her behavior after the fact...and even that is merely strange, not particularly incriminating.


The more I read about this case, the more I think she is innocent. Apart from the lack of good evidence, the jurors were not sequestered, and allowed to read the news. Because of the high profile of this case, there was lots to be read, including a bunch of junk from tabloid-type websites and papers. It kind of reminds me of the OJ trial, in which it became a zoo from just having the press and cameras in attendance. I can barely imagine how a juror could stay focused and impartial.
 
The more I read about this case, the more I think she is innocent. Apart from the lack of good evidence, the jurors were not sequestered, and allowed to read the news. Because of the high profile of this case, there was lots to be read, including a bunch of junk from tabloid-type websites and papers. It kind of reminds me of the OJ trial, in which it became a zoo from just having the press and cameras in attendance. I can barely imagine how a juror could stay focused and impartial.

Not only that, but Italian prosecutors have a tendency to leak their theories to the press (before the theory is confirmed), knowing full well the jury will have access to the stories.

Also, if a piece of evidence is ruled inadmissible in court (like Amanda's "confession") it will still sway the jury's opinion regardless, since they can read all about it.
 
If you do not appreciate, respect, or if you even fear the judicial system of another country, do not move there, period.

She didn't do anything. It has nothing to do with her not showing appreciation or respect for their judicial system. And how was she supposed to know that Italy, a purportedly modern nation, has a trial system that is practically in the stone age?
 
She didn't do anything. It has nothing to do with her not showing appreciation or respect for their judicial system. And how was she supposed to know that Italy, a purportedly modern nation, has a trial system that is practically in the stone age?

Americans are not very popular in europe, and obama has not effected this reality, one iota.

As for their system, it is tame compared to the strict system we live with everyday, I do not feel sorry for this woman.
 
I do not feel sorry for this woman.

That's because you don't know enough about the case. If you really knew what was happening to her you'd be outraged.
 
That's because you don't know enough about the case. If you really knew what was happening to her you'd be outraged.

I know she was laughing and doing cartwheels one day after her friend was found dead.:shrug:
 
I know she was laughing and doing cartwheels one day after her friend was found dead.:shrug:

And this means what, exactly? Maybe that's her way of dealing with trauma. God forbid someone doesn't act like you expect them to.

Either way, it doesn't matter if she was doing cartwheels or singing the Beatles; all that matters is the evidence against her, of which there is literally none.

But nevermind that...she was doing cartwheels...
 
Re: Amanda Know - Railroaded

And like has already been explained to you time and time again (which you've chosen to ignore), defendants should NEVER be obligated to prove their innocence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and there was NO evidence linking her to the murder.

Please cite the evidence that you believe proves she committed murder. I'll wait.
please cite the evidence that you believe proves she's innocent.
 
Back
Top Bottom