lol..Did you see that comparison of prison time of hot teachers vs ugly ones with regards to sex with a minor? It proves this is 100% true
Haha. Yes. But remember this awesome Norm joke (paraphrase).
A school teacher was busted for sex with a 16 year old boy. Parents and police are calling her a predator. Among her male students, however, she is known as "the best teacher ever."
The decision was pretty much unexpected. The options on the table seemed to be guilty, or overturning the verdict and ordering yet another trial. Very few expected an annulment where neither defendant could be tried again.
why not? it didn't appear that a realistic search for justice was ever a factor in any of the trials/decisions, so why wouldn't they simply say "find them not guilty, and end all this circus"?
...but the trials and the entire proceedings have been a fiasco. Even if the ruling had gone differently I wouldn't have been in favor of extraditing her.
render an opinion, but the Italian justice system sure is crazy.
Agreed.
Michael Brown, OJ Simpson, Trayvon Martin....
Our legal system has its flaws and some of these cases definitely have raised questions, but at least we don't try and convict scientists for manslaughter because an earthquake killed some people.
There is nothing about the evidence that suggests her guilt.
How does she participate in an extremely bloody murder and not leave a single trace of DNA in the room where the murder took place? The single piece of evidence with her boyfriend's DNA on it was found something like 6 days after the crime, after roughly 26 people had traipsed through the room, including several who had had physical contact with the boyfriend. They also found his blood on a knife--but it wasn't even the right knife.
All, along, this was the combination, of a delusional, egotistical prosecutor, a complete botch job on the evidence collection, and a theory of the crime that even the prior appeals court finding them guilty threw out.
The fact that they exonerated them, rather than ordering a new trial, is extremely telling. Within 90 days, the Supreme Court will be making its analysis public. I promise that they will be beating the crap out of the original prosecutor, and concluding that there never was sufficient evidence to support an initial finding of guilt.
Could they have done it? Maybe. But you won't find that conclusion from the evidence. I very much doubt that this was a political outcome, because they are required to provide the public with a complete analysis of their findings within 90 days.
I have even lost some sympathy for the family of the murdered girl.
Yes, they suffered a terrible loss. But they are so blind to the possibility that the original trial result was just wrong. They are incredibly emotionally invested in Amanda Knox and her then boyfriend being the killers, regardless of the competence of the case, or the possibility of a miscarriage of justice.
There is nothing about the evidence that suggests her guilt. manh george : 1:52 pm : link : reply Nothing. Nada.
Don't have the stomach to re-engage in this case discussion, but anyone who buys the whole "Foxy Knoxy" "Devil with Angel Eyes" and "Satanic Orgy" nonsense that this Italian prosecutor has spewed, really needs to dig a bit deeper before casting judgement on Knox...
Rudy Guede murdered Meredith Kercher.. End of story.
RE: RE: RE: Don't know enough about the evidence to
render an opinion, but the Italian justice system sure is crazy.
Agreed.
Michael Brown, OJ Simpson, Trayvon Martin....
Our legal system has its flaws and some of these cases definitely have raised questions, but at least we don't try and convict scientists for manslaughter because an earthquake killed some people.
Those convictions were overturned.
RE: There is nothing about the evidence that suggests her guilt.
The fact that they exonerated them, rather than ordering a new trial, is extremely telling. Within 90 days, the Supreme Court will be making its analysis public. I promise that they will be beating the crap out of the original prosecutor, and concluding that there never was sufficient evidence to support an initial finding
Unlikely they will do this. They had the opportunity to do that 2 years ago, when they reviewed the appeals court ruling that overturned their first conviction. Instead of confirming this and condemning the prosecution, they ordered a new trial.
Put me in the camp that this was a political decision
At least this will avoid the extradition debate and based on the evidence seems like the proper decision.
Quote:
.
Hey Wuphat, let's talk skepticism. I may make another thread. Up for it?
Ok. Sounds good.
lol..Did you see that comparison of prison time of hot teachers vs ugly ones with regards to sex with a minor? It proves this is 100% true
Quote:
deal with it, uglies.
lol..Did you see that comparison of prison time of hot teachers vs ugly ones with regards to sex with a minor? It proves this is 100% true
C'mon, that's just a case of the punishment fitting the crime.
Quote:
deal with it, uglies.
lol..Did you see that comparison of prison time of hot teachers vs ugly ones with regards to sex with a minor? It proves this is 100% true
Haha. Yes. But remember this awesome Norm joke (paraphrase).
A school teacher was busted for sex with a 16 year old boy. Parents and police are calling her a predator. Among her male students, however, she is known as "the best teacher ever."
Me thinks that is the case...
Agreed.
Michael Brown, OJ Simpson, Trayvon Martin....
Quote:
render an opinion, but the Italian justice system sure is crazy.
Agreed.
Michael Brown, OJ Simpson, Trayvon Martin....
Our legal system has its flaws and some of these cases definitely have raised questions, but at least we don't try and convict scientists for manslaughter because an earthquake killed some people.
How does she participate in an extremely bloody murder and not leave a single trace of DNA in the room where the murder took place? The single piece of evidence with her boyfriend's DNA on it was found something like 6 days after the crime, after roughly 26 people had traipsed through the room, including several who had had physical contact with the boyfriend. They also found his blood on a knife--but it wasn't even the right knife.
All, along, this was the combination, of a delusional, egotistical prosecutor, a complete botch job on the evidence collection, and a theory of the crime that even the prior appeals court finding them guilty threw out.
The fact that they exonerated them, rather than ordering a new trial, is extremely telling. Within 90 days, the Supreme Court will be making its analysis public. I promise that they will be beating the crap out of the original prosecutor, and concluding that there never was sufficient evidence to support an initial finding of guilt.
Could they have done it? Maybe. But you won't find that conclusion from the evidence. I very much doubt that this was a political outcome, because they are required to provide the public with a complete analysis of their findings within 90 days.
Don't have the stomach to re-engage in this case discussion, but anyone who buys the whole "Foxy Knoxy" "Devil with Angel Eyes" and "Satanic Orgy" nonsense that this Italian prosecutor has spewed, really needs to dig a bit deeper before casting judgement on Knox...
Rudy Guede murdered Meredith Kercher.. End of story.
Quote:
In comment 12207839 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
render an opinion, but the Italian justice system sure is crazy.
Agreed.
Michael Brown, OJ Simpson, Trayvon Martin....
Our legal system has its flaws and some of these cases definitely have raised questions, but at least we don't try and convict scientists for manslaughter because an earthquake killed some people.
Those convictions were overturned.
The fact that they exonerated them, rather than ordering a new trial, is extremely telling. Within 90 days, the Supreme Court will be making its analysis public. I promise that they will be beating the crap out of the original prosecutor, and concluding that there never was sufficient evidence to support an initial finding
Unlikely they will do this. They had the opportunity to do that 2 years ago, when they reviewed the appeals court ruling that overturned their first conviction. Instead of confirming this and condemning the prosecution, they ordered a new trial.