TheScarf Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Amanda Knox is to face a retrial in the murder case of Meredith Kercher Sky News are reporting. Apparently they're wanting to get the second killer of the Brit after convicting that Ivorian boy Rudy Guede. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 I knew she was a wrong'un. That's hot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScarf Posted March 26, 2013 Author Share Posted March 26, 2013 Is it only in Britain that you can't be tried for the same crime twice? Am I making this up? That's the first thing that popped into my head aswell. Well, after Knox naked of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
11thHour Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 I'm just wondering if she'd go back willingly and if not if the US will extradite her. Is that how that works? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightswoodBear Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 (edited) I'm just wondering if she'd go back willingly and if not if the US will extradite her. Is that how that works? I'd imagine there will be f**k all chance of her going back willingly for the trail as she is under no obligation to do so. If found guilty again, then Italy will then have to try and extradite her. edit: The media outlets are brilliantly getting out all the photos of her looking like a Bond villian. Edited March 26, 2013 by KnightswoodBear 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 I think Italy and the US have an extradition treaty, pretty sure mafia suspects have been extradited in the past. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
11thHour Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 I'd imagine there will be f**k all chance of her going back willingly for the trail as she is under no obligation to do so. If found guilty again, then Italy will then have to try and extradite her. Yeah thats what I thought. Would I f**k also. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Idiot Bástard Son Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 I'd imagine there will be f**k all chance of her going back willingly for the trail as she is under no obligation to do so. If found guilty again, then Italy will then have to try and extradite her. edit: The media outlets are brilliantly getting out all the photos of her looking like a Bond villian. Depends what media outlets you look at; those in the US have it the other way round. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Pete Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Is it only in Britain that you can't be tried for the same crime twice? Am I making this up? The so-called "Double Jeopardy Law" is no longer in use in Scotland as of 2011 and is no longer in use in England & Wales where murder cases are concerned. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckles Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 (edited) After seeing the guy who had been accused of murdering their daughter, Amanda ,walk free on a 'not proven' verdict, the Duffy family from Hamilton led a campaign ( from 1992) to have both the not proven verdict, and the Double Jeopardy law scrapped. However, since at the moment none of the criteria required by the new ruling for a re-trial ( tainted first trial, admission of guilt, new evidence) seem to be met in this instance, the person who was controversially aquitted still enjoys his freedom The details surrounding the verdict in this case make for interesting reading. http://www.hamiltonadvertiser.co.uk/news/local-news/hamilton-news/2009/12/17/man-cleared-of-killing-hamilton-student-amanda-duffy-could-be-retried-51525-25407317/ Edited March 26, 2013 by chuckles 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Ought to give her new book some decent publicity, IMO. A side note, anyone who is interested in the case should have a read of John Follain's book regarding the ins and outs of the case. A compelling read, and completely impartial. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 It is completely irrational but I always hoped she was guilty because of her behaviour before and during the trial. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Anyone else mind that The Daily Heil put up the article with the wrong verdict? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassiveFanDan Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Wid. Obviously. I remember that Gaz - it was the Mail's long-running barrel-scraping campaign to have her proven guilty that ended up convincing me she was innocent, or at least not quite as obviously guilty as I had previously thought. It's a really weird case, and she's a bit weird herself, but the Mail basically wanted her to go to jail for having a sex life. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 The definition of danger f**k. Allegedly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Anybody seen her interviews? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Anybody seen her interviews? Yeah I watched a bit of it yesterday. She did seem quite sincere at times, but I can't help but feel that she had something to do with it all. Really annoying that due to libel laws her account of the case "Waiting to be Heard" is not being published in the UK, yet I was able to download it via Audible yesterday. Strange! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Yeah I watched a bit of it yesterday. She did seem quite sincere at times, but I can't help but feel that she had something to do with it all. Really annoying that due to libel laws her account of the case "Waiting to be Heard" is not being published in the UK, yet I was able to download it via Audible yesterday. Strange! Yeah my feelings aswell,shes obviously been media coached but she knows a lot more 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Yeah I watched a bit of it yesterday. She did seem quite sincere at times, but I can't help but feel that she had something to do with it all. Really annoying that due to libel laws her account of the case "Waiting to be Heard" is not being published in the UK, yet I was able to download it via Audible yesterday. Strange! I have to admit I was in the "guilty as f**k" camp until the two American photographers spoke about their experiences of the guy in charge of the investigation & how he'd attempted to frame them for a murder after they'd done a piece years earlier about his botched handling of the case. It seems this guy has quite the reputation in Italy, & that's one of the reasons Amanda Knox became such a cause celibre to the Italians, plenty of whom smelled another of his fit-ups. He was however lucky enough to have quite possibly the right prat in the right place at the right time - by all accounts Amanda Knox was someone best described as "a little of her goes a long way". The retrial is more the Italian trying to make a "win-win" out of the situation. They'll find Knox & the Adrian Mole lookalike guilty again, but won't press for their extraditions - like the old "burning in effergy in absentia" of the Venetian Inquisitions. This will prevent any enquiry into the actions of the local Italian police chiefs in the matter (in particular the dodgy DNA reports later quoshed by forensic experts in Rome) & any potential can of worms that may open. It will also ensure no danger of Knox returning to Italy to take part as a witness in any such enquiry into police procedures in the Umbria area. I'm surprised the SFA haven't asked the Italian judiciary for tips on how to do an investigation into Scottish football that will lead to the ultimate conclusion that Rangers must be reinstated back to the top division 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 (edited) I have to admit I was in the "guilty as f**k" camp until the two American photographers spoke about their experiences of the guy in charge of the investigation & how he'd attempted to frame them for a murder after they'd done a piece years earlier about his botched handling of the case. It seems this guy has quite the reputation in Italy, & that's one of the reasons Amanda Knox became such a cause celibre to the Italians, plenty of whom smelled another of his fit-ups. He was however lucky enough to have quite possibly the right prat in the right place at the right time - by all accounts Amanda Knox was someone best described as "a little of her goes a long way". The retrial is more the Italian trying to make a "win-win" out of the situation. They'll find Knox & the Adrian Mole lookalike guilty again, but won't press for their extraditions - like the old "burning in effergy in absentia" of the Venetian Inquisitions. This will prevent any enquiry into the actions of the local Italian police chiefs in the matter (in particular the dodgy DNA reports later quoshed by forensic experts in Rome) & any potential can of worms that may open. It will also ensure no danger of Knox returning to Italy to take part as a witness in any such enquiry into police procedures in the Umbria area. I'm surprised the SFA haven't asked the Italian judiciary for tips on how to do an investigation into Scottish football that will lead to the ultimate conclusion that Rangers must be reinstated back to the top division The main prosecutor Mingini does seem to have a bit of a reputation, finding himself in the dock shortly after the first trial to face charges relating to a previous case in which he was head prosecutor. I think he was found guilty, but given a suspended sentence. Regardless of how shady Mingini appeared, there was far too many inconsistencies in the alibi of Knox and Sollectio. I find it hard to believe that upon finding the main door of their house open, with the bathroom floor covered in blood, that anyone would proceed to take a shower and piss off before deciding to alert authorities. Sollectio claimed that he had phoned the Postal Police when in fact they had showed up before he had made a call. He claimed to have spoken to his father at roughly the time the crime was said to have taken place, yet his phone was turned off at the time, and remained that way for the rest of the night, along with Amanda's. His DNA was found on Meredith's bra clasp, although this was largely inadmissible due to the high probability of cross contamination as it was only discovered 40 odd days later. Meredith's DNA was discovered on a knife in Sollectio's apartment, somewhere which she had never been before. In all liklihood, Rudy Guede was probably the person that actually murdered Meredith, but someone had to let him into the cottage, and it's difficult to believe that Meredith was that person. Edited May 1, 2013 by Adam 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.