soundoff (20 Responses)

1. PeeMan
   

   Hmmm, Maybe the US has struck a deal behind the scenes with the Italian High court, to let this play out, but with Knox's freedom as a conclusion.
   Morning all

   September 7, 2011 at 9:20 am | Report abuse |
2. banasy©
   

   Morning, PeeMan.

   I really don't think so...I think her conviction will be upheld.
   I don't know why I feel this way; I just do.

   September 7, 2011 at 9:51 am | Report abuse |
3. PeeMan
   

   @ banasy© Morning my lady
   Yet how will they convict on the evidence they have now, knowing all the huge gaping whole in their case against her.
   Yes, they have convicted her already, but it ain't over until the FAT LADY sings!
   Right? 🙂

   September 7, 2011 at 10:07 am | Report abuse |
4. leeintulsa
   

   Keep in mind they do things differently over there.. I haven't followed this, but if she didn't do it, shouldn't she want as much evidence as she can get?

   September 7, 2011 at 10:18 am | Report abuse |
5. PeeMan
   

   @ Lee
   Better question is, does she really want any new evidence from the prosecution that convicted her to be brought in?
   Really, If you were innocent, the evidence is false or tainted, right ?

   September 7, 2011 at 10:25 am | Report abuse |
6. banasy©
   

   True, PeeMan, but on the other hand, the defense HAD to know if they appealed, the prosecution was going to fight it.

   My question: was the original trial a trial by jury or a bench trial?
   Where's JIF when you need him?

   I saw a tv doc about this right after she was convicted, and from what I remember, the evidence against her was...well...less than stellar.

   But then, the judicial system varies so widely around the world...

   September 7, 2011 at 11:12 am | Report abuse |
   • Jim in Auburn
     

     It was a combination of both. The judges, and lay judges (jurors) decide the case. But the lead judge really has all the power.

     September 7, 2011 at 4:57 pm | Report abuse |
7. Bimbo the Birthday Clown
   

   My comment questioning the original verdict has failed to post, but it is apparently OK to post comments with the name PeeMan. I continue to scratch my head in wonder at CNN's criteria. I'm sure it's automated, but what are the rules, exactly?

   September 7, 2011 at 11:14 am | Report abuse |
   • Dr Relaxation
     

     Calm down and have yourself a warm glass of pee, man.

     September 7, 2011 at 11:21 am | Report abuse |
8. PeeMan
   

   @ banasy© true, each countries judicial system in fact has it's own, so called justice.
   the clue here is, the court rejecting PROSECUTION evidence.
   from what I remember of the first trial, the prosecution request and submissions where excepted by the court judge more. than not.
   This recent denial is obviously unlike it's court system to side with the defense.

   September 7, 2011 at 11:23 am | Report abuse |
9. bobcat2u
   

   I still have in my mind that she was railroaded in this case. Things just don't seem to add up.

   Good morning banasy.

   September 7, 2011 at 11:26 am | Report abuse |
10. zadoc
    

    I don't follow cases like this, but I remember when the trial was first happening, catching parts of it on the news, and I thought that she would've never been convicted in a US court, ever. I guess a lot of people don't agree with that.

    POLL: Is Amanda Knox Innocent?
    Vote: http://www.wepolls.com/p/903067

    September 7, 2011 at 11:46 am | Report abuse |
11. banasy©
    

    @Bimbo:
    You cannot write anything with the combination of tee I tee in it, such as
    Poli
    Ti
    Tion or
    Comp
    Et
    It ion. And there are many words like that...just a guess as to what you were trying to post, tho.

    @PeeMan:
    Yep I can buy that, but perhaps that's the reason why Amanda is appealing-that the original judge let in something by the prosecution that clearly should have been excluded.
    That's probably way true of a lot of appeals by defense counsel, I would think.

    @bobcat2u:
    That's kind of what I got out of the doc, also, that the evidence was really flimsy. And hello!

    September 7, 2011 at 12:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bimbo the Birthday Clown
      

      I'm still not sure why you can't post the word for a very tall building. I went through a lot of trial and error to figure that out a few months ago.

      Maybe they should just publish a list. It is annoying to compose something and have it not post, then start over again, guessing what word MIGHT be a problem.

      September 7, 2011 at 1:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bimbo the Birthday Clown
      

      SKY

      SCR

      AP

      ER

      September 7, 2011 at 1:36 pm | Report abuse |
12. Media scientists
    

    45 tweet panel:oath in hope for defense of usa pupil /41north/ 42n 43n 45n/34n/12east 15e

    September 7, 2011 at 6:22 pm | Report abuse |
13. Jim S
    

    The Italians , from what I see, are much more direct and less likely to accept 'I was insane when this crime was committed but I'm all better now' or ' There's a teeny-tiny flaw in the prosecution's evidence so I should acquitted.' Does anyone in the U.S. wonder why an 'innocent' would need to lie extensively about her wherabouts e event, the sequence of events, the 'burglary', etc.? Meredith Kercher is DEAD with no chance of appeal. How would you feel if you were her parents? I know how I'd feel.

    September 9, 2011 at 10:05 pm | Report abuse |
14. Jim S
    

    The Italians , from what I see, are much more direct and less likely to accept 'I was insane when this crime was committed but I'm all better now' or ' There's a teeny-tiny flaw in the prosecution's evidence so I should acquitted.' Does anyone in the U.S. wonder why an 'innocent' would need to lie extensively about her wherabouts during the event, the sequence of events, the 'burglary', etc.? Meredith Kercher is DEAD with no chance of appeal. How would you feel if you were her parents? I know how I'd feel.

    September 9, 2011 at 10:06 pm | Report abuse |
15. Leopold
    

    Another way to read this is: The court just wants to issue a verdict and does not want to draw this out any more. I've been told in court "enough", but that does not mean the decision isn't going my way. It just means "I've heard enough. I don't need any more."

    One thing that is clear from some of the posts is: The American people are being told a vastly different story than what was actually presented in the Italian courts. The prosecution laid out a careful "whole picture" case. The defense tried to nit-pick at little bits of evidence, while leaving a large amount of evidence unchallenged. Big mistake.

    One of the most damning pieces of evidence is not DNA in this case. It's that bare footprint on the bath mat. It just simply does not bode well for the defense. Guede clearly had shoes on. Is the defense arguing that Guede took his shoes off in the bathroom, walked all the way back to Meredith's room barefoot where he firmly planted one foot in a pool of blood, then hopped on one foot back to the bathroom (since the defense is denying that there was a clean-up of the floor), so he could plant his footprint on the bathmat? The judges know that scenario is ridiculous, yet the defense fails to provide a plausible scenario on how that footprint got there, except to say, it must be Guede's.

    Except . . . it appears to match Solliceto. Could match someone else. These things are not exact. But for the defense to leave this unanswered . . . is a big, big mistake. It shows clearly that there was someone other than Guede there. And if there was, who?

    September 12, 2011 at 8:26 pm | Report abuse |