Amanda Knox

Yes, everyone in Europe hates America

So is Hillary going to get involved every time a young white American picks up a conviction abroad? Somehow I don't see this getting quite as much play had Knox been black or Mexican.

The case against her, ridiculous or not, was tried in the court of law of the country in question and found guilty. Try fixing your own country's judicial problems before kvetching about others. I couldn't help but shake my head on Saturday morning when an American commentator BBC News was waxing lyrical about America's "high standard of justice" when one of the big stories over here at the moment is an autistic guy being extradited to America to face trial for hacking into the Pentagon computers because he was worried about an alien invasion.

And ElCap, that "pizza" quote is absurd. Also, posting a "fact sheet" from friendsofamerica.org? Seriously?

Here's some food for thought. Knox originally confessed to the crime, then changed her story a few days later. During separate questioning, her and Sollecito could not provide the same story about what the two of them were doing that night. Sollecito's footprints were supposedly found both in the bathroom and bedroom of the aprtment, in Meredith's blood.. And Knox's DNA was found on the handle of a knife which also had Meredith's DNA on the blade.

Now, it's certainly not the strongest case I've ever seen, but people have been convicted on a lot less, and in an American court of law to boot. This umbrage over her conviction stems from the fact that a)she's white, b)she's attractive, and c)her family is well-off.

Are all trials given this much scrutiny in America? And of course, you were in the interrogation room when she gave those statements under duress, right?

The argument can be made either way. Which is why it might be best for Senators and Secretaries of State to just back away from this instead of beating their chests and talking about it being a miscarriage of justice. This girl wasn't railroaded into a guilty conviction. There was evidence, there was a trial, there were multiple judges presiding over the trial and she was found guilty.

Also, I genuinely can't seem to find me saying "fix your own judicial system first" anywhere in that post I made.

It's relevant when members of America's political establishment start openly questioning the validity of another country's justice system. You want to hurl stones at another country's courts of law, you damn well better make sure that your own house is in order first.

My main bone of contention is that you, Knox's senator and now possibly Hillary Clinton have decided that they know and understand this case better than those who participated in it due to reading some American news articles and listening to Knox's family's side of the tale. I would posit that the judges and jurors that were in the court room are in a much better positioin to examine the evidence and reach a conclusion than armchair pundits sitting halfway around the world like yourself. You're not even being neutral here - in this thread you've made it perfectly clear that you think the trial was a farce and the verdict unjust. Even going so far as to quote portions of the prosecution's summation , taken out of context in a negative articles written in Knox's home town, whilst completely ignoring the emotive, manipulative defense closing statement which saw Knox's lawyer break down in tears(!).

There's a whiff of "we Americans should be afforded protection above all others" about the growing U.S. reaction to this case, and it's profoundly unpleasant. There are petitions calling for Barack Obama to step in, and for Italian food and holidays to be boycotted. It's bizarre and absurde, and painting Knox as some innocent victim when she has been tried and found guilty is an insult to the memory of Meredith Kercher. Perhaps Knox's supporters should think before exonerating Knox in the court of public opinion, given that they blame her "guilty" verdict on the exact same thing.

Phew. My apologies, everyone - rant over.

When your questioning of the verdict is based upon a biased article such as that Seattle PI article I will also exercise my right to free speech by finding it to be insulting to the memory and family of the young girl who was murdered.

This is a flaw in any and all jury-based justice systems. So now the questioning of this specific "guilty" verdict boils down to generalised statements about political influence and "squeezing foreigners". Of course, in this case they also sent down one of their own citizens, so it's not like they're trying to save face here.

Any actual evidence of that taking place here? Or is every foreign conviction of an American now subject to such suspicion?

First all Cap, I didn't initially say that questioning the verdict was insulting. I said painting Knox as an innocent victim, evern after she's been officially tried and convicted, is an insult. There's a difference between saying "well, I do think there are some oversights here" and proclaiming the verdict an outrage, the trial unjust and the whole thing an exercise in anti-American xenophobia. One expresses a wish for further scrutiny; the other turns the convicted party into the victim of the whole affair.

Secondly, the article in question is a)from Knox's hometown, and b)concerned with Knox's attire, her being comforted by prison guards, and so on and so forth. In addition to that, your own discussion of the closing statement is based around a reinforcement of your own viewpoint, i.e. that the prosecution weren't on the level and that Knox is likely innocent. You make no mention of the defence's overwrought closing statement, or of Knox's own tearful Italian soliloquy in which she directly pleaded with the courtroom to find her innocent. So yes, I'd say that both the article and yourself are more concerned with your own take on the story rather than any pursuit of justice.

So with the prosection the method is all, but when it's the defence's turn melodrama and playing to the cheap seats is just the defendant trying to prove their innocence. Gotcha.

Misfit, I like your Olive Garden joke.

Jesus, Cap, I just read that Radar article again. You're holding *that* up as your counterpoint? It talks about Knox like Glenn beck talks about Sarah Palin.

What has that got to do with anything? So OTT melodrama is acceptable from one side of the courtroom and not the other?

I'm not purposely ignoring anything. The trial may very well be overturned at appeal - that's what the appeal is for. Please read my first post again, and the others that say my main problem lies with the righteous indignation being expressed by some in the U.S., and the above-and-beyond involvement of Knox's senator and potentially the secretary of state.

I mean, Jesus Christ, you're proclaiming that the trial was rigged in her disfavour based on what? Op-ed pieces from American news sources? The fact that Italian politics is corrupt? And I'm the guy spouting nonsense here?

I mean, has there been any reason given as to why Knox falsely implicated Patrick Luamba? Or computer records not backing up a word of Sollecito's given alibi?