Will Amanda Knox win or lose her appeal?

[Scorpion NITE]

It's the prosecutor's claim that if the verdict is overturned Knox will return to the USA and he is saying the jury should consider that when coming to their decision. The reasoning is absolutely crazy, if Knox is innocent (or technically I suppose I should say if the guilty verdict is overturned) then why would it be a consideration for the jury what she does when she is not guilty of murder? And it's just as crazy the other way around - if the jury decide not to overturn the guilty verdict then she won't be going anywhere so why should they consider what she will do if found not-guilty?

So surely that is an indictment of the Prosecutor, rather than Amanda?

The prosecutor is whinging because IF Amanda returned home, the prosecution alleges that she would not return if and when they appeal to the Supreme Court.

It is a stupid attempt to appeal to emotion in my opinion...as most of the prosecution delivery has been.

 

[Darat]

So surely that is an indictment of the Prosecutor, rather than Amanda?

...snip...

Yes.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Yes.

Ah...it appears as if you were being sarcastic....as Rose pointed out to me.

It's been a long day!

 

[Darat]

No problem.

 

[davefoc]

And as I pointed out, the poll, whichever way it goes, is not a guide to perceptions of the JREF community. It's worthless.

Do you have a thought as to whether RS/AK will be convicted that you feel like sharing with us? You previously said that you were on the fence with regard to the guilt of RS/AK. Did that mean that you were on the fence with regard to the issue of their actual guilt or on the fence with regard to whether the evidence is enough to meet a beyond a reasonable doubt criteria?

 

[Rolfe]

And as I pointed out, the poll, whichever way it goes, is not a guide to perceptions of the JREF community. It's worthless.

Oh, an internet forum poll might not be mathematically representative of any demographic other than those who choose to vote on it!

Oh noes! How terrible! Let's all boycott all forum polls!

Rolfe.

 

[HumanityBlues]

It's the prosecutor's claim that if the verdict is overturned Knox will return to the USA and he is saying the jury should consider that when coming to their decision. The reasoning is absolutely crazy, if Knox is innocent (or technically I suppose I should say if the guilty verdict is overturned) then why would it be a consideration for the jury what she does when she is not guilty of murder? And it's just as crazy the other way around - if the jury decide not to overturn the guilty verdict then she won't be going anywhere so why should they consider what she will do if found not-guilty?

Not only is it crazy, but why are statements like these allowed in court?

 

[DrDave]

Oh, an internet forum poll might not be mathematically representative of any demographic other than those who choose to vote on it!

Oh noes! How terrible! Let's all boycott all forum polls!

Rolfe.

Boycott agreed, or should we put it to the vote?!

 

[Sideroxylon]

Oh, an internet forum poll might not be mathematically representative of any demographic other than those who choose to vote on it!

Thereby rendering this one useless in answering the question asked of it in the OP.

Oh noes! How terrible! Let's all boycott all forum polls!

Rolfe.

The ones in community are a bit of a laugh sometimes.

 

[Rolfe]

You think it's bad that a poll on the forum to find out what the forum, in general, thinks, is "useless" because only a self-selecting sub-set of members will vote?

You seem to have very high standards of utility.

Rolfe.

 

[Sideroxylon]

You think it's bad that a poll on the forum to find out what the forum, in general, thinks, is "useless" because only a self-selecting sub-set of members will vote?

You seem to have very high standards of utility.

Rolfe.

Well yes, Rolfe, and that is working with a fairly average bar I would have thought.

 

[Rolfe]

So if the OP had said, I'd like to find out what those members of the forum who choose to vote think, that would have been OK? For goodness sake, this is re-defining pedantry.

It's a straw poll. It's not Ipsos Mori or Gallup or System 3. Nobody thinks it is. It's a bit of fun, if that's the appropriate word in the context of a murder trial.

Your mean-spirited carping just begins to sound like someone miffed by the way the voting has stacked up.

Rolfe.

 

[yeti101]

Will Amanda Knox be acquitted?

i hope not because i think she was involved. The problem is the defence could pull an "OJ". Discredit the scientific evidence and plead reasonable doubt.

In this day & age jury's seem reluctant to convict on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence no matter how strong is often weighted much much less than forensic evidence. We seen this in the Casey Anthony case which ended in acquittal.

Neither decision would surprise me in this case.

 

[Rolfe]

Forensic evidence is circumstantial evidence.

Rolfe.

 

[yeti101]

you know what i mean. Jury's like nice CSI style hard scientific evidence that can't be disputed or muddied.

i think they thought they had that in the first trial. Now the defence has stepped up their game i could see a few people start to wobble to convict.

 

[Rolfe]

Yes, I do know what you mean. The fact that there's no trace of either Knox or Sollecito in the room where a chaotic bloody murder occurred, could be considered by some to be a bit of difficulty for the prosecution. Add to that the total absence of motive, and almost total absence of opportunity, and it begins to look quite tenuous.

I have no idea why you or anyone else thinks she was involved, quite frankly. The whole thing is quite easily and parsimoniously explained by a bunch of cops jumping to a conclusion way too early and on preposterous grounds, and simply refusing to lose face when subsequent correct investigation work identified the real murderer.

Rolfe.

 

[yeti101]

i think knox put guede up to it. Probably let him in the house , she may have been in the room at the time or after the murder then staged the break-in. I think knox covered the victims face and her or raf locked the bedroom door.

but that's just my opinion . With the defence putting up a good fight in the appeal & the wobbly jurys we have these days an acquittal wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Rolfe]

As they say, you're entitled to your own opinion. You are not however entitled to your own facts. There seem to be no facts at all to support your little fantasy.

Face it, the cops decided Amanda (not Raffaele, Amanda) had murdered Meredith almost immediately. Not on the grounds of any forensics, you understand, but because she cried at a point they thought was inappropriate, she showed minor levity in a context they thought was inappropriate, and she had dinner at a time they thought was inappropriate.

They smacked her around in an attempt to get a confession, and she started making irrational statements. This was a bit awkward because she promptly accused them of smacking her around. At this point, it became rather important that she remain a wrongdoer, or else that smacking might come back to haunt them. It all went so far that backtracking was going to cause a lot of people to lose face, or worse.

So when the forensics came back and showed a completely different perpetrator, instead of releasing the original suspects (as was done with Chris Jefferies in the Jo Yeates case), they embarked on a complicated CYA exercise to maintain the culpability of the original accused.

There isn't the slightest bit of evidence suggesting anything different. For a start, how did Knox and Sollecito manage to be at the cottage involved in killing Meredith before 9.30? Along with someone they barely knew?

Rolfe.

 

[yeti101]

there's a huge thread discussing the details of the case that's a subject for that thread.

I don't care enough to write many paragraphs on why I believe what I do. I'm not bothered about convincing anyone else.

 

[Rolfe]

Suit yourself.

Don't let the fact that your belief is actually factually impossible shake your faith.

Rolfe.