Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Amanda Knox, acquitted of murder - Italian court orders new trial after appeal

1246716

Posts

  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Surely, anyone convicted without an eyewitness or photographic evidence is convicted based on imagination? The actual evidence might tend more towards one imaginary scenario than another, but essentially it's whether or not this scenario is beyond all reasonable doubt.

    A scenario based on comic books, vampires and machismo.

    Sounds like an iron-clad case to me. If it was being held in the 1800s.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    Surely, anyone convicted without an eyewitness or photographic evidence is convicted based on imagination? The actual evidence might tend more towards one imaginary scenario than another, but essentially it's whether or not this scenario is beyond all reasonable doubt.

    A scenario based on comic books, vampires and machismo.

    Sounds like an iron-clad case to me. If it was being held in the 1800s.

    Please, the 1800s would have laughed at this argument. I'm not sure the people at Salem would have convicted.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Space CoyoteSpace Coyote Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    Surely, anyone convicted without an eyewitness or photographic evidence is convicted based on imagination? The actual evidence might tend more towards one imaginary scenario than another, but essentially it's whether or not this scenario is beyond all reasonable doubt.

    A scenario based on comic books, vampires and machismo.

    Sounds like an iron-clad case to me. If it was being held in the 1800s.

    Could you point out the bit where I said that "therefore, this incidence is entirely justified", please?

  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Surely, anyone convicted without an eyewitness or photographic evidence is convicted based on imagination? The actual evidence might tend more towards one imaginary scenario than another, but essentially it's whether or not this scenario is beyond all reasonable doubt.

    Imagination is so not the word you're looking for. A deduction based on evidence might rely on some degree of ingenuity in order to connect the dots, but outright imagination shouldn't enter into the picture at all. A lawyer who relies on imagination to make his or her case would, I feel, have to be putting forward a very weak case indeed.

    At any rate, they're convicted on the evidence and its probable meaning, not imagination.

  • Space CoyoteSpace Coyote Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Surely, anyone convicted without an eyewitness or photographic evidence is convicted based on imagination? The actual evidence might tend more towards one imaginary scenario than another, but essentially it's whether or not this scenario is beyond all reasonable doubt.

    Imagination is so not the word you're looking for. A deduction based on evidence might rely on some degree of ingenuity in order to connect the dots, but outright imagination shouldn't enter into the picture at all. A lawyer who relies on imagination to make his or her case would, I feel, have to be putting forward a very weak case indeed.

    At any rate, they're convicted on the evidence and its probable meaning, not imagination.

    I don't think it would be entirely unlikely for a prosecutor to ask a jury to imagine a scenario and ask them to convict if they believe that, based on the evidence before them, this scenario seems plausible.

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Surely, anyone convicted without an eyewitness or photographic evidence is convicted based on imagination? The actual evidence might tend more towards one imaginary scenario than another, but essentially it's whether or not this scenario is beyond all reasonable doubt.

    Imagination is so not the word you're looking for. A deduction based on evidence might rely on some degree of ingenuity in order to connect the dots, but outright imagination shouldn't enter into the picture at all. A lawyer who relies on imagination to make his or her case would, I feel, have to be putting forward a very weak case indeed.

    At any rate, they're convicted on the evidence and its probable meaning, not imagination.

    I don't think it would be entirely unlikely for a prosecutor to ask a jury to imagine a scenario and ask them to convict if they believe that, based on the evidence before them, this scenario seems plausible.

    Based on the evidence is the key phrase.

    That key phrase is what is missing in this case.

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Surely, anyone convicted without an eyewitness or photographic evidence is convicted based on imagination? The actual evidence might tend more towards one imaginary scenario than another, but essentially it's whether or not this scenario is beyond all reasonable doubt.

    Imagination is so not the word you're looking for. A deduction based on evidence might rely on some degree of ingenuity in order to connect the dots, but outright imagination shouldn't enter into the picture at all. A lawyer who relies on imagination to make his or her case would, I feel, have to be putting forward a very weak case indeed.

    At any rate, they're convicted on the evidence and its probable meaning, not imagination.

    I don't think it would be entirely unlikely for a prosecutor to ask a jury to imagine a scenario and ask them to convict if they believe that, based on the evidence before them, this scenario seems plausible.

    They're not convicting based on their imaginations, though. They're convicting based on the evidence. The imagination is just there to help you understand what the evidence means.

    Anyway, this feels like a semantics argument now.

    The point is that this conviction, which relies on imagined scenarios that changed multiple times over the course of the case and had weak backing evidence, is not at all like the average murder trial where there's substantial evidence supporting the prosecution.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Surely, anyone convicted without an eyewitness or photographic evidence is convicted based on imagination? The actual evidence might tend more towards one imaginary scenario than another, but essentially it's whether or not this scenario is beyond all reasonable doubt.

    Imagination is so not the word you're looking for. A deduction based on evidence might rely on some degree of ingenuity in order to connect the dots, but outright imagination shouldn't enter into the picture at all. A lawyer who relies on imagination to make his or her case would, I feel, have to be putting forward a very weak case indeed.

    At any rate, they're convicted on the evidence and its probable meaning, not imagination.

    I don't think it would be entirely unlikely for a prosecutor to ask a jury to imagine a scenario and ask them to convict if they believe that, based on the evidence before them, this scenario seems plausible.

    I see a huge problem with that. It has to be beyond a reasonable doubt that a scenario happened.

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Surely, anyone convicted without an eyewitness or photographic evidence is convicted based on imagination? The actual evidence might tend more towards one imaginary scenario than another, but essentially it's whether or not this scenario is beyond all reasonable doubt.

    Imagination is so not the word you're looking for. A deduction based on evidence might rely on some degree of ingenuity in order to connect the dots, but outright imagination shouldn't enter into the picture at all. A lawyer who relies on imagination to make his or her case would, I feel, have to be putting forward a very weak case indeed.

    At any rate, they're convicted on the evidence and its probable meaning, not imagination.

    I don't think it would be entirely unlikely for a prosecutor to ask a jury to imagine a scenario and ask them to convict if they believe that, based on the evidence before them, this scenario seems plausible.

    They're not convicting based on their imaginations, though. They're convicting based on the evidence. The imagination is just there to help you understand what the evidence means.

    Anyway, this feels like a semantics argument now.

    The point is that this conviction, which relies on imagined scenarios that changed multiple times over the course of the case and had weak backing evidence, is not at all like the average murder trial where there's substantial evidence supporting the prosecution.

    You don't know that! You're just knee jerking!

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • Space CoyoteSpace Coyote Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Surely, anyone convicted without an eyewitness or photographic evidence is convicted based on imagination? The actual evidence might tend more towards one imaginary scenario than another, but essentially it's whether or not this scenario is beyond all reasonable doubt.

    Imagination is so not the word you're looking for. A deduction based on evidence might rely on some degree of ingenuity in order to connect the dots, but outright imagination shouldn't enter into the picture at all. A lawyer who relies on imagination to make his or her case would, I feel, have to be putting forward a very weak case indeed.

    At any rate, they're convicted on the evidence and its probable meaning, not imagination.

    I don't think it would be entirely unlikely for a prosecutor to ask a jury to imagine a scenario and ask them to convict if they believe that, based on the evidence before them, this scenario seems plausible.

    Based on the evidence is the key phrase.

    That key phrase is what is missing in this case.
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Are you fucking retarded or something? Have you even read the articles? The police and prosecution changed their stories multiple times and told the jury to "imagine what might have happened".

    They got convicted ON A FUCKING IMAGINATION.

    Amanda Knox also changd her story multiple times, so that by itself is hardly an admission of wrongdoing.
    This isn't some Americans going, "Oh those Italians have it out for us!"

    THEY GOT CONVICTED ON NO-FUCKING-EVIDENCE

    Would have been a better post, then?
    Couscous wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    I see a huge problem with that. It has to be beyond a reasonable doubt that a scenario happened.

    I have mentioned that in a previous post in the tree, yes.

  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Plus you know, this is all in the context of Italy impotently putting those 26 CIA operatives on trial a few years back

  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Amanda Knox also changd her story multiple times, so that by itself is hardly an admission of wrongdoing.

    I don't see how you can draw a comparison.

  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Have any of the jurors explained why they decided to wear the Italian flag?

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Have any of the jurors explained why they decided to wear the Italian flag?

    Because ITALY! FUCK YEAH! :P

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • GrimReaperGrimReaper Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Surely, anyone convicted without an eyewitness or photographic evidence is convicted based on imagination? The actual evidence might tend more towards one imaginary scenario than another, but essentially it's whether or not this scenario is beyond all reasonable doubt.

    Imagination is so not the word you're looking for. A deduction based on evidence might rely on some degree of ingenuity in order to connect the dots, but outright imagination shouldn't enter into the picture at all. A lawyer who relies on imagination to make his or her case would, I feel, have to be putting forward a very weak case indeed.

    At any rate, they're convicted on the evidence and its probable meaning, not imagination.

    I don't think it would be entirely unlikely for a prosecutor to ask a jury to imagine a scenario and ask them to convict if they believe that, based on the evidence before them, this scenario seems plausible.

    Based on the evidence is the key phrase.

    That key phrase is what is missing in this case.
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Are you fucking retarded or something? Have you even read the articles? The police and prosecution changed their stories multiple times and told the jury to "imagine what might have happened".

    They got convicted ON A FUCKING IMAGINATION.

    Amanda Knox also changd her story multiple times, so that by itself is hardly an admission of wrongdoing.
    This isn't some Americans going, "Oh those Italians have it out for us!"

    THEY GOT CONVICTED ON NO-FUCKING-EVIDENCE

    Would have been a better post, then?
    Couscous wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    I see a huge problem with that. It has to be beyond a reasonable doubt that a scenario happened.

    I have mentioned that in a previous post in the tree, yes.

    This.

    There's this really infantile (yes, knee jerk) reaction going on how because she's American and because the prosecution supposedly did a few cock ups magically makes her innocent.

    What i've been trying to say (maybe i've been too subtle) is that no one here has seen the evidence except the jury, maybe she's innocent, maybe she's guilty.. but there is this wholly ridiculous reaction going on, I mean.. seriously.. people are so eager here to mention some prosecution shenanigans but seem to be purposefully ignoring the other side of the coin like her repeatedly changing her story.

    Again, to emphasize this: I do not care whether she is innocent, guilty or the easter bunny. My constant view on all of this is that there's a ridiculous view going on of "Italy bad! America good! She good!".

    PSN | Steam
    ---
    I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
  • Space CoyoteSpace Coyote Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Amanda Knox also changed her story multiple times, so that by itself is hardly an admission of wrongdoing.

    I don't see how you can draw a comparison.

    Well, if both sides in a court case change their stories, then can we say that changing your story is indicative of anything?

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Have any of the jurors explained why they decided to wear the Italian flag?

    Just the colors.
    Few of the eight jurors looked at her. Six of the jurors were wearing red, white and green sashes -- the colors of Italy's flag.
    I don't know if it is supposed to be more formal or what.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Amanda Knox also changed her story multiple times, so that by itself is hardly an admission of wrongdoing.

    I don't see how you can draw a comparison.

    Well, if both sides in a court case change their stories, then can we say that changing your story is indicative of anything?

    We can say it is indicative that we aren't sure what the hell happened, especially if the evidence is pretty flimsy.

  • GrimReaperGrimReaper Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Have any of the jurors explained why they decided to wear the Italian flag?

    Because ITALY! FUCK YEAH! :P

    Again, proving my point. Want to know why that is? Because it's required by law, it's like in a British court the judge and solicitors are required to wear a wig and robe. It's a traditional thing and in Italy it only happens during sentencing.

    Seriously people, totally ridiculous knee jerk reactions.

    PSN | Steam
    ---
    I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Amanda Knox also changd her story multiple times, so that by itself is hardly an admission of wrongdoing.

    She, a 20-year-old girl, changed her story once after 14 straight hours of abuse.

  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Amanda Knox also changed her story multiple times, so that by itself is hardly an admission of wrongdoing.

    I don't see how you can draw a comparison.

    Well, if both sides in a court case change their stories, then can we say that changing your story is indicative of anything?

    Apart from the fact that you should probably hold the prosecution and the defense to a different standard since the prosecution has the burden of proof, you should definitely hold the defendant to a different standard than the prosecution. Their roles are completely different, as are what we can and should expect from them. If a defendant proves to be absolutely incompetent, that doesn't say anything about their guilt. If a prosecution demonstrates severe flaws in its reasoning and performance, however, then it is a sign that the defendant's guilt is seriously in question.

  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    GrimReaper wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Have any of the jurors explained why they decided to wear the Italian flag?

    Because ITALY! FUCK YEAH! :P

    Again, proving my point. Want to know why that is? Because it's required by law, it's like in a British court the judge and solicitors are required to wear a wig and robe. It's a traditional thing and in Italy it only happens during sentencing.

    Seriously people, totally ridiculous knee jerk reactions.

    Ah, well thanks for explaining that.

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    GrimReaper wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Have any of the jurors explained why they decided to wear the Italian flag?

    Because ITALY! FUCK YEAH! :P

    Again, proving my point. Want to know why that is? Because it's required by law, it's like in a British court the judge and solicitors are required to wear a wig and robe. It's a traditional thing and in Italy it only happens during sentencing.

    Seriously people, totally ridiculous knee jerk reactions.

    That didn't prove any point at all. I was making a joke based on AMERICA FUCK YEAH

    So, no point proven. Still.

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Wait, if it was required by law, why would only six of the eight wear the colors? Are you sure it isn't just traditional?

    Not that it's much of a difference.

  • Space CoyoteSpace Coyote Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Amanda Knox also changed her story multiple times, so that by itself is hardly an admission of wrongdoing.

    I don't see how you can draw a comparison.

    Well, if both sides in a court case change their stories, then can we say that changing your story is indicative of anything?

    Apart from the fact that you should probably hold the prosecution and the defense to a different standard since the prosecution has the burden of proof, you should definitely hold the defendant to a different standard than the prosecution. Their roles are completely different, as are what we can and should expect from them. If a defendant proves to be absolutely incompetent, that doesn't say anything about their guilt. If a prosecution demonstrates severe flaws in its reasoning and performance, however, then it is a sign that the defendant's guilt is seriously in question.

    If a prosecutor is incompetent, that is proof of innocence?

    Guilt and innocence are immutable facts that exist independent of any legal system, not dependent on anything that happens in the courtroom.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    If a prosecutor is incompetent, that is proof of innocence?
    A good reason to acquit.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Amanda Knox also changed her story multiple times, so that by itself is hardly an admission of wrongdoing.

    I don't see how you can draw a comparison.

    Well, if both sides in a court case change their stories, then can we say that changing your story is indicative of anything?

    Apart from the fact that you should probably hold the prosecution and the defense to a different standard since the prosecution has the burden of proof, you should definitely hold the defendant to a different standard than the prosecution. Their roles are completely different, as are what we can and should expect from them. If a defendant proves to be absolutely incompetent, that doesn't say anything about their guilt. If a prosecution demonstrates severe flaws in its reasoning and performance, however, then it is a sign that the defendant's guilt is seriously in question.

    If a prosecutor is incompetent, that is proof of innocence?

    Guilt and innocence are immutable facts that exist independent of any legal system, not dependent on anything that happens in the courtroom.

    It doesn't seem like anyone is talking about innocence, people are talking about how screwed up the trial was.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Oh Italy, worst country which I'd still be inclined to call first world.

    Although at this point I think I'd call it a second world nation, given how absolutely fucked and corrupt their government is to the point that basic services can break down (garbage collection).

    Okay, I know it's not relevant, but this does bother me.

    Second World nations are nations that were aligned with the Communist Bloc. Even if Italy sucks, it doesn't become a Second World Nation. It just becomes a shitty First World Nation. The definition has very little to do with standard of living, and everything to do with political alignment. Iran under the Shah was a First World nation, despite having a standard of living several times more godawful than, say, Yugoslavia or the USSR in the same time period. Taiwan was a First World Nation while it was dirt poor, because communism was illegal there.

    TL;DR--that is not how the Second World works!

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • GrimReaperGrimReaper Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Wait, if it was required by law, why would only six of the eight wear the colors? Are you sure it isn't just traditional?

    Not that it's much of a difference.

    In Europe a lot of law is very old and is usually ignored, seriously for example. In the case of wigs, sashes etc it's more in the lax law area. As in, at the most you're going to get a verbal spanking from a judge at most. Some judges probably just don't care because it's just a sash, hence why a couple of them not even wearing it. Hence, it's more tradition than anything else.

    EDIT: You have to remember that a lot of the countries in Europe have built up lots of laws over time, our countries are a lot older than the US so we're likely to accumulate "cruft" type law. Some kind of just developed into traditions, here's another example.. the UK cannot go to war without the permission of the Queen (this is by law) however that's purely ceremonial tradition the parliament really decides on that.

    PSN | Steam
    ---
    I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Amanda Knox also changed her story multiple times, so that by itself is hardly an admission of wrongdoing.

    I don't see how you can draw a comparison.

    Well, if both sides in a court case change their stories, then can we say that changing your story is indicative of anything?

    Apart from the fact that you should probably hold the prosecution and the defense to a different standard since the prosecution has the burden of proof, you should definitely hold the defendant to a different standard than the prosecution. Their roles are completely different, as are what we can and should expect from them. If a defendant proves to be absolutely incompetent, that doesn't say anything about their guilt. If a prosecution demonstrates severe flaws in its reasoning and performance, however, then it is a sign that the defendant's guilt is seriously in question.

    If a prosecutor is incompetent, that is proof of innocence?

    Guilt and innocence are immutable facts that exist independent of any legal system, not dependent on anything that happens in the courtroom.

    I only called Knox incompetent.

    And while guilt and innocence aren't dependent on what happens in the courtroom, surely whether or not a defendant is found to be guilty or innocent is dependent on just that. As such, when the prosecution can't make a good case, it does make sense to find the defendant innocent. That's exactly what you're supposed to do.

  • WassermeloneWassermelone Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    GrimReaper wrote: »
    Again, to emphasize this: I do not care whether she is innocent, guilty or the easter bunny. My constant view on all of this is that there's a ridiculous view going on of "Italy bad! America good! She good!".

    I love this. Its so ridiculous.

    Has anyone in this thread actually said they believe her to be innocent?

  • Space CoyoteSpace Coyote Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    It doesn't seem like anyone is talking about innocence, people are talking about how screwed up the trial was.

    I haven't talked about Knox's guilt or innocence, nor said that the trial wasn't screwed up.
    kedinik wrote: »
    Amanda Knox also changed her story multiple times, so that by itself is hardly an admission of wrongdoing.

    She, a 20-year-old girl, changed her story once after 14 straight hours of abuse.

    Again, I haven't claimed that this was truly indicative of anything.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Also it is fairly clear to me that WRT criminal procedure "Italy bad! America good!" is a pretty reasonable summation.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • GrimReaperGrimReaper Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    GrimReaper wrote: »
    Again, to emphasize this: I do not care whether she is innocent, guilty or the easter bunny. My constant view on all of this is that there's a ridiculous view going on of "Italy bad! America good! She good!".

    I love this. Its so ridiculous.

    Has anyone in this thread actually said they believe her to be innocent?

    Did I say anyone was saying that? Seriously, there's some just plain silly Italy bashing going on, at most i've seen a couple of people say "hold on, what about what she said?" whilst the rest has been Italy bashing.

    Don't get me wrong, i'd be the first to jump on the conga wagon that is Italy bashing.. but some of it is just plain silly.

    PSN | Steam
    ---
    I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    It doesn't seem like anyone is talking about innocence, people are talking about how screwed up the trial was.

    I haven't talked about Knox's guilt or innocence, nor said that the trial wasn't screwed up.
    kedinik wrote: »
    Amanda Knox also changed her story multiple times, so that by itself is hardly an admission of wrongdoing.

    She, a 20-year-old girl, changed her story once after 14 straight hours of abuse.

    Again, I haven't claimed that this was truly indicative of anything.

    You ignored the extenuating circumstances and the difference between her role and duties and those of the prosecution in order to draw a comparison between a change in her story and the multiple stories of the prosecution.

    This warranted bringing up the extenuating circumstances in order to highlight the absurdity of your comparison.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    It doesn't seem like anyone is talking about innocence, people are talking about how screwed up the trial was.

    I haven't talked about Knox's guilt or innocence, nor said that the trial wasn't screwed up.

    You're the one who brought up the incompetent prosecutor as proof of innocence thing, so... yes you did?

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • WassermeloneWassermelone Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I looked at the Boing Boing article. I was expecting something a bit more extreme.

    It doesn't say anything about her innocence -- It merely derides Italy's court system.
    GrimReaper wrote: »
    Seriously, there's some just plain silly Italy bashing going on

    The 'Italy bashing' that I see is really 'Italian court system bashing' which is quite natural given their court system.

  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Very insightful interview with an author experienced in researching and reporting on Italian criminal cases: http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/131443.asp

    Relevant quotes:

    1) On the prosecution's weak evidence -
    Spoiler:

    2. On the prosecutor's history of pushing insane conspiracy theories -
    Spoiler:

    3. On Amanda changing her story -
    Spoiler:

  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    GrimReaper wrote: »
    GrimReaper wrote: »
    Again, to emphasize this: I do not care whether she is innocent, guilty or the easter bunny. My constant view on all of this is that there's a ridiculous view going on of "Italy bad! America good! She good!".

    I love this. Its so ridiculous.

    Has anyone in this thread actually said they believe her to be innocent?

    Did I say anyone was saying that? Seriously, there's some just plain silly Italy bashing going on, at most i've seen a couple of people say "hold on, what about what she said?" whilst the rest has been Italy bashing.

    Don't get me wrong, i'd be the first to jump on the conga wagon that is Italy bashing.. but some of it is just plain silly.

    You should probably stick to making specific complaints rather than vaguely alluding to misguided nationalism and expecting us to not interpret that as a response to the other conversations going on in this thread.

This discussion has been closed.