I think Amanda Knox will be staying away from Italy for the rest of her life now.
and if still guilty, she will have to stay away from any country with an extraditon treaty with Italy. The yanks won't send their citizens to be tried in a foreign country but they expect other countries to extradite to America, how many British have been sent to America for trial and imprisonment.?
Whether you think she's innocent (as I do) or otherwise, it is undeniable that there have been significant procedural proprietaries in both the investigation and judicial processes which make any conviction, at best, shaky.
Whether you think she's innocent (as I do) or otherwise, it is undeniable that there have been significant procedural proprietaries in both the investigation and judicial processes which make any conviction, at best, shaky.
We'll I guess that us up to the Supreme Court of Justice really. They will decide upon the evidence presented.
I've read this guy's book where he discusses the problems with the DNA evidence, but here he gives an interview with the Daily Mail.
The DNA stuff is quite difficult to understand because, well, it's all technical and stuff. But the testing procedures used went against every international standard.
The testing on the knife used amplification techniques which the lab were not designed to do, international standards say the lab should be specially set up to eliminate contamination.
It also had no control samples and the amount used to test was so small that the sample couldn't be tested again. You would never see these results allowed to be admitted into evidence in the UK, let alone be used to convict.
The original raw data was never handed over to the independent scientists appointed by the first appeal court, and they have still never been handed over.
Anyway, I will be interested to see what this appeal court decides about this.
One of the most interesting things from the article is that Gill says Nencini decided that the DNA on the handle of the knife was distributed in such a way as to show a stabbing grip. Which was effectively the judge making it up as he went along, and is obviously nonsense.
I've read this guy's book where he discusses the problems with the DNA evidence, but here he gives an interview with the Daily Mail.
The DNA stuff is quite difficult to understand because, well, it's all technical and stuff. But the testing procedures used went against every international standard.
The testing on the knife used amplification techniques which the lab were not designed to do, international standards say the lab should be specially set up to eliminate contamination.
It also had no control samples and the amount used to test was so small that the sample couldn't be tested again. You would never see these results allowed to be admitted into evidence in the UK, let alone be used to convict.
The original raw data was never handed over to the independent scientists appointed by the first appeal court, and they have still never been handed over.
Anyway, I will be interested to see what this appeal court decides about this.
One of the most interesting things from the article is that Gill says Nencini decided that the DNA on the handle of the knife was distributed in such a way as to show a stabbing grip. Which was effectively the judge making it up as he went along, and is obviously nonsense.
Well some of that is true and some of it is just one persons interpretation of it. Yes, the DNA was a small sample but when it was extrapolated, it was 100% Meredith's DNA. All the peaks matched. The defence never denied that but tried to discredit the prosecution with the sample size rather than focus on what the result was. Loads of other stuff but suffice to say that there is always more than one way of interpreting information.
I think Amanda Knox will be staying away from Italy for the rest of her life now.
She would be advised to stay away from any nation or its dependencies in the EU, if she were to rock up in say Guadalupe she could be arrested on a EU warrant and transported to Italy.
I hate how the media have behaved through all this too. Meredith is the victim not knox.
This, word for word, is how I feel. Don't get me started on the whole "Foxy Knoxy" thing...even if she's innocent it's still an utterly vile way of reporting on a murder case.
Well some of that is true and some of it is just one persons interpretation of it. Yes, the DNA was a small sample but when it was extrapolated, it was 100% Meredith's DNA. All the peaks matched. The defence never denied that but tried to discredit the prosecution with the sample size rather than focus on what the result was. Loads of other stuff but suffice to say that there is always more than one way of interpreting information.
Well, it's more than one person's interpretation. A few have come to the same conclusion including Gill, one of the most prominent experts in the World, and the independent experts appointed by the Italian appeal court. Furthermore, everyone is agreed that the sample wasn't blood. The DNA was something other than blood. Which according to Nencini is ok because the knife must have been cleaned to get the blood off. Somehow leaving a speck of Meredith's non blood DNA and the other sample from the blade which was....potato!
The prosecution have the woman who carried out the tests, and Nencini! Who in his judgment made some pretty bold claims. Such as the stabbing thing and saying that the multiple DNA profiles found on the bra clasp were down to the other women who lived in the flat handling Meredith's bra. This is despite the DNA profiles all being male. Five male DNA profiles found on the bra clasp. Hmmmm, never mind, 4 women lived in the house so that would explain it.
But hey, this is the man who said he didn't need to establish a time of death, as Knox and Sollecito didn't have alibis between 9.20 and 12.30, so it could be anytime within those parameters.
So the murderous vile hag is appealing, not from the photos I have saw of her.😝
She should be doing hard time for murder, how anyone can find the repulsive vile killer attractive beggars belief, a female plague victim from the 14th century would be more aesthetically pleasing to the eye than this vile woman.
Wow you managed to squeeze the word vile in 3 times haha, well played
Well, it's more than one person's interpretation. A few have come to the same conclusion including Gill, one of the most prominent experts in the World, and the independent experts appointed by the Italian appeal court. Furthermore, everyone is agreed that the sample wasn't blood. The DNA was something other than blood. Which according to Nencini is ok because the knife must have been cleaned to get the blood off. Somehow leaving a speck of Meredith's non blood DNA and the other sample from the blade which was....potato!
The prosecution have the woman who carried out the tests, and Nencini! Who in his judgment made some pretty bold claims. Such as the stabbing thing and saying that the multiple DNA profiles found on the bra clasp were down to the other women who lived in the flat handling Meredith's bra. This is despite the DNA profiles all being male. Five male DNA profiles found on the bra clasp. Hmmmm, never mind, 4 women lived in the house so that would explain it.
But hey, this is the man who said he didn't need to establish a time of death, as Knox and Sollecito didn't have alibis between 9.20 and 12.30, so it could be anytime within those parameters.
This kind of post is exactly what I mean and I am just as guilty of it. There is so much contradictory information out there that it's easy to get sucked in to one written account of it.
The best thing I have read is the 102 page transcription of the Supreme Court summing up. It had all sides and all the information about the DNA. There are a number of things in your post that are not quite accurate. I'll see if I can find a link for you,
Well, it's more than one person's interpretation. A few have come to the same conclusion including Gill, one of the most prominent experts in the World, and the independent experts appointed by the Italian appeal court. Furthermore, everyone is agreed that the sample wasn't blood. The DNA was something other than blood. Which according to Nencini is ok because the knife must have been cleaned to get the blood off. Somehow leaving a speck of Meredith's non blood DNA and the other sample from the blade which was....potato!
The prosecution have the woman who carried out the tests, and Nencini! Who in his judgment made some pretty bold claims. Such as the stabbing thing and saying that the multiple DNA profiles found on the bra clasp were down to the other women who lived in the flat handling Meredith's bra. This is despite the DNA profiles all being male. Five male DNA profiles found on the bra clasp. Hmmmm, never mind, 4 women lived in the house so that would explain it.
But hey, this is the man who said he didn't need to establish a time of death, as Knox and Sollecito didn't have alibis between 9.20 and 12.30, so it could be anytime within those parameters.
This, word for word, is how I feel. Don't get me started on the whole "Foxy Knoxy" thing...even if she's innocent it's still an utterly vile way of reporting on a murder case.
I totally agree. How must Meredith's parents feel when they see her called that?
This kind of post is exactly what I mean and I am just as guilty of it. There is so much contradictory information out there that it's easy to get sucked in to one written account of it.
The best thing I have read is the 102 page transcription of the Supreme Court summing up. It had all sides and all the information about the DNA. There are a number of things in your post that are not quite accurate. I'll see if I can find a link for you,
Is this the Supreme Court judgment that said it was an established fact the there were multiple attackers based on Guede's fast track trial where there was no challenge to that theory? Despite 8 out of 9 experts declaring at the Knox/Sollecito hearings that a single attacker was possible/probable?
I've read all the rulings too, but I probably get some things wrong in the remembering.
Despite that, what's your view of the Nencini judgment? There were some shocking errors in that and logic failures, wouldn't you agree?
I think comments on her looks either way are in poor taste. Nevertheless, the name Foxy Knoxy was given to her by her soccer teammates when she was a girl, and it had nothing to do with her appearance. Rather it was European tabloids that picked up on the name, calling her "Foxy Knoxy: a sex-mad American party girl," which no doubt delighted the Italian prosecutor who quite seriously tried to paint her as a she-devil.
I think comments on her looks either way are in poor taste. Nevertheless, the name Foxy Knoxy was given to her by her soccer teammates when she was a girl, and it had nothing to do with her appearance. Rather it was European tabloids that picked up on the name, calling her "Foxy Knoxy: a sex-mad American party girl," which no doubt delighted the Italian prosecutor who quite seriously tried to paint her as a she-devil.
I rather think the will need to as they do have an extradition treaty with Italy.
I think she's guilty anyway since she's got dodgy eyes....
i too think she's guilty she looks smug like she knows she's gotten away with it and she has, since the simply wont extradite her and there's nothing the italians or britts can do about it
I rather think the will need to as they do have an extradition treaty with Italy.
I think she's guilty anyway since she's got dodgy eyes....
The UK has denied several extradition requests from the U.S., so by no means does any petition automatically have to be granted. In the U.S. treaty with Italy Article X requires Italy to present a case summary from a magistrate that provides “a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offense for which extradition is requested.”
And with no physical evidence, evolving motives and a dubious witness, it's hardly a foregone conclusion, nor should it be.
The UK has denied several extradition requests from the U.S., so by no means does any petition automatically have to be granted. In the U.S. treaty with Italy Article X requires Italy to present a case summary from a magistrate that provides “a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offense for which extradition is requested.”
And with no physical evidence, evolving motives and a dubious witness, it's hardly a foregone conclusion, nor should it be.
Indeed, I've been reading that the may use their double jeopardy law to deny the extradition although I wouldn't imagine the Italians will be best pleased about a refusal.
I rather think the will need to as they do have an extradition treaty with Italy.
I think that the conviction / acquittal / conviction nature of the case might make for a complex and lengthy extradition battle. Might take years. Decades.
Indeed, I've been reading that the may use their double jeopardy law to deny the extradition although I wouldn't imagine the Italians will be best pleased about a refusal.
No, they won't be pleased at all. But it's my understanding there will be an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, which should be interesting.
Comments
and if still guilty, she will have to stay away from any country with an extraditon treaty with Italy. The yanks won't send their citizens to be tried in a foreign country but they expect other countries to extradite to America, how many British have been sent to America for trial and imprisonment.?
Should have read "improprieties", obviously!
We'll I guess that us up to the Supreme Court of Justice really. They will decide upon the evidence presented.
I've read this guy's book where he discusses the problems with the DNA evidence, but here he gives an interview with the Daily Mail.
The DNA stuff is quite difficult to understand because, well, it's all technical and stuff. But the testing procedures used went against every international standard.
The testing on the knife used amplification techniques which the lab were not designed to do, international standards say the lab should be specially set up to eliminate contamination.
It also had no control samples and the amount used to test was so small that the sample couldn't be tested again. You would never see these results allowed to be admitted into evidence in the UK, let alone be used to convict.
The original raw data was never handed over to the independent scientists appointed by the first appeal court, and they have still never been handed over.
Anyway, I will be interested to see what this appeal court decides about this.
One of the most interesting things from the article is that Gill says Nencini decided that the DNA on the handle of the knife was distributed in such a way as to show a stabbing grip. Which was effectively the judge making it up as he went along, and is obviously nonsense.
Well some of that is true and some of it is just one persons interpretation of it. Yes, the DNA was a small sample but when it was extrapolated, it was 100% Meredith's DNA. All the peaks matched. The defence never denied that but tried to discredit the prosecution with the sample size rather than focus on what the result was. Loads of other stuff but suffice to say that there is always more than one way of interpreting information.
She would be advised to stay away from any nation or its dependencies in the EU, if she were to rock up in say Guadalupe she could be arrested on a EU warrant and transported to Italy.
This, word for word, is how I feel. Don't get me started on the whole "Foxy Knoxy" thing...even if she's innocent it's still an utterly vile way of reporting on a murder case.
Well, it's more than one person's interpretation. A few have come to the same conclusion including Gill, one of the most prominent experts in the World, and the independent experts appointed by the Italian appeal court. Furthermore, everyone is agreed that the sample wasn't blood. The DNA was something other than blood. Which according to Nencini is ok because the knife must have been cleaned to get the blood off. Somehow leaving a speck of Meredith's non blood DNA and the other sample from the blade which was....potato!
The prosecution have the woman who carried out the tests, and Nencini! Who in his judgment made some pretty bold claims. Such as the stabbing thing and saying that the multiple DNA profiles found on the bra clasp were down to the other women who lived in the flat handling Meredith's bra. This is despite the DNA profiles all being male. Five male DNA profiles found on the bra clasp. Hmmmm, never mind, 4 women lived in the house so that would explain it.
But hey, this is the man who said he didn't need to establish a time of death, as Knox and Sollecito didn't have alibis between 9.20 and 12.30, so it could be anytime within those parameters.
Wow you managed to squeeze the word vile in 3 times haha, well played
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/vile?s=t
This kind of post is exactly what I mean and I am just as guilty of it. There is so much contradictory information out there that it's easy to get sucked in to one written account of it.
The best thing I have read is the 102 page transcription of the Supreme Court summing up. It had all sides and all the information about the DNA. There are a number of things in your post that are not quite accurate. I'll see if I can find a link for you,
I totally agree. How must Meredith's parents feel when they see her called that?
Obviously they have a complete lack of empathy just like their heroine.
I've read all the rulings too, but I probably get some things wrong in the remembering.
Despite that, what's your view of the Nencini judgment? There were some shocking errors in that and logic failures, wouldn't you agree?
Well, you see, Amanda Knox is pretty (supposedly, I find her rather plain and dead in the eyes) so that trumps EVERYTHING. Duh. ;-) >:(
Now now, let's not let facts get in the way
I rather think the will need to as they do have an extradition treaty with Italy.
I think she's guilty anyway since she's got dodgy eyes....
The UK has denied several extradition requests from the U.S., so by no means does any petition automatically have to be granted. In the U.S. treaty with Italy Article X requires Italy to present a case summary from a magistrate that provides “a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offense for which extradition is requested.”
And with no physical evidence, evolving motives and a dubious witness, it's hardly a foregone conclusion, nor should it be.
Indeed, I've been reading that the may use their double jeopardy law to deny the extradition although I wouldn't imagine the Italians will be best pleased about a refusal.
I think that the conviction / acquittal / conviction nature of the case might make for a complex and lengthy extradition battle. Might take years. Decades.
It's the first sign of guilt. Along with a beard, crooked nose or big lips.
No, they won't be pleased at all. But it's my understanding there will be an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, which should be interesting.