Amanda Knox's convction was overturned.

[Bluce Ree]

I think the idea of a book deal is disgusting even if she is innocent. Now she will profit from the death of her friend. I don't like that at all.
But as I said, if she was innocent and Guede did break in and kill her than I am glad, if she was guilty then that does suck.

That says it all about her character - I wouldn't mind writing a book and profit from my dead "best" friend and prison experience-mentality.

Typical planet, the good guys pay the ultimate price while the bad guys take all the credit.

It sucks but what can you do? Hopefully, no one will buy that book and some ridicule and shame for wanting to profit from her roommate's death will be cast over her.

 

[Graybrew1]

It sucks but what can you do? Hopefully, no one will buy that book and some ridicule and shame for wanting to profit from her roommate's death will be cast over her.

Well, I won't buy the book.

 

[Tropicana]

It sucks but what can you do? Hopefully, no one will buy that book and some ridicule and shame for wanting to profit from her roommate's death will be cast over her.

Oh please, u just know there will be millions queuing up to read the Amanda Knox story! She will be interviewed from Regis & Kelly to Piers Morgan about her experiences and book, then a film will come out depicting a sweet suburban American girl who does charities and bakes apple pie for homeless people, having to fight off dodgy Italian prison guards and cell mates that traded her around like a pack of cigarettes; and how awful we Europeans simply are.

And how with the belief of an American flag and a bible, the lone spirit of this one girl probably described as courageous and heroic, et cetera; would find freedom and kindness upon her return home, in the film.


As you can see, I've been watching way too many American TV/films to the point I know how the stories are set out.

 

[Graybrew1]

Oh please, u just know there will be millions queuing up to read the Amanda Knox story! She will be interviewed from Regis & Kelly to Piers Morgan about her experiences and book, then a film will come out depicting an sweet suburban American girl having to fight off dodgy prison guards and cell mates that traded her around like a pack of cigarettes; and how awful we Europeans simply are.

And how with the belief of an American flag and a bible, the lone spirit of this one girl probably described as courageous and heoric, et cetera; would find freedom and kindness upon her return home.

One thing is for sure. People will buy anything.

I promise I won't Tropi.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Oh please, u just know there will be millions queuing up to read the Amanda Knox story! She will be interviewed from Regis & Kelly to Piers Morgan about her experiences and book, then a film will come out depicting a sweet suburban American girl who does charities and bakes apple pie for homeless people, having to fight off dodgy Italian prison guards and cell mates that traded her around like a pack of cigarettes; and how awful we Europeans simply are.

And how with the belief of an American flag and a bible, the lone spirit of this one girl probably described as courageous and heroic, et cetera; would find freedom and kindness upon her return home, in the film.


As you can see, I've been watching way too many American TV/films to the point I know how the stories are set out.

Bro, you just laid out a synopsis her publicist can use.

 

[Tropicana]

Bro, you just laid out a synopsis her publicist can use.

LOL

All American synopsis are like that anyway.

*Edgy American voice over guy*

In the small cottage.... in a picturesque Italian village lies... the murder... the love affair... the injustice... "Incarceration of Miss Liberty" - the Amanda Knox True Life Story coming soon in theatres near you!


Talk about clichés.

 

[Bluce Ree]

LOL

All American synopsis are like that anyway.

*Edgy American voice over guy*

In the small cottage.... in a picturesque Italian village lies... the murder... the love affair... the injustice... "Incarceration of Miss Liberty" - the Amanda Knox True Life Story coming soon in theatres near you!

Talk about clichés.

Oh, man! I totally heard that in my head in Don Lafontaine's voice.

 

[Illiterati]

Oh, man! I totally heard that in my head in Don Lafontaine's voice.

I still miss him so very much. Movie previews aren't the same anymore, and they never will be.

 

[Bluce Ree]

I still miss him so very much. Movie previews aren't the same anymore, and they never will be.

True. Pablo Francisco does an excellent impression.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPBvFXf9Q2U

 

[mzzz]

^lol, that was great.

 

[Rac80]

Yeah, I meant Davis. I hit the "d' right next to the "s" by accident.

I can't argue with you on the details of the case because I've only started familiarizing myself with it. From what I've read so far, though, there was nothing linking him directly to the murder other than "eye-witness" testimony but there was plenty that could cast even a smidgen of doubt.

When Casey Anthony goes free with everything that was dumped on the courtroom floor but Troy Davis gets lethal injection for shaky testimony and circumstantial evidence, I gotta cry foul.

well I agree with that. the casey anthony case convinced me we need IQ tests for jurors. Notice how NONE of them went to the press to defend their verdict for several weeks...then one spoke (off camera) that they thought she was guilty with the evidence but they decided her father had something he was hiding. you are supposed to decide on the evidence NOT your "feelings".

I think the idea of a book deal is disgusting even if she is innocent. Now she will profit from the death of her friend. I don't like that at all.
But as I said, if she was innocent and Guede did break in and kill her than I am glad, if she was guilty then that does suck.

Yeah book deals are all the rage. you would think she would want to put it behind her...but maybe this whole ordeal has left her with huge debts? i personally won't buy the book (Hey I turn off any story even about casey anthony) but some people will.

Not exactly. The defense never called on the witnesses who had recanted, despite their presence in the courthouse, and their affidavits were given little weight by the judge. They weren't unwilling to testify.

The thing about Troy Davis is you had a plethora of influential people all calling for a new trial or evidentiary hearing. When you have people like the head of the FBI, a judge, a former president and a congressman all doubting the evidence presented, it says something about the case.

When you get this from a judge:



You have to wonder whether there is any shred of doubt because, if you're going to execute someone, you'd better be damned sure there isn't a hair of doubt that he did it.

It's REASONABLE doubt, not beyond a shred of doubt. I listened to three judges, two prosecutors, and two defense attorneys discuss the Davis case for 2 1/2 hours....they convinced me he was given every chance and appeal and he was guilty. but then everyone has a different perspective.

 

[Bluce Ree]

[...]It's REASONABLE doubt, not beyond a shred of doubt. I listened to three judges, two prosecutors, and two defense attorneys discuss the Davis case for 2 1/2 hours....they convinced me he was given every chance and appeal and he was guilty. but then everyone has a different perspective.

I think those are two different issues. I agree with you about "reasonable doubt" when it comes to deciding whether a person is guilty or innocent. But when you're going to end someone's life, you need to be damned sure, not "I'm pretty sure even though some of the evidence and testimony was unreliable". It was a conviction on pure circumstantial evidence. The judge should have disallowed the death penalty in this case. If it wasn't a cop killing, that's how it may have turned out.

He may have been given every chance to appeal but that doesn't mean he had the best defense money can buy. A good, competent defense can and does make all the difference in the world.

 

[Rac80]

I think those are two different issues. I agree with you about "reasonable doubt" when it comes to deciding whether a person is guilty or innocent. But when you're going to end someone's life, you need to be damned sure, not "I'm pretty sure even though some of the evidence and testimony was unreliable". It was a conviction on pure circumstantial evidence. The judge should have disallowed the death penalty in this case. If it wasn't a cop killing, that's how it may have turned out.

He may have been given every chance to appeal but that doesn't mean he had the best defense money can buy. A good, competent defense can and does make all the difference in the world.

you do know that the vast majority of murder cases (and criminal cases in general) are purely circumstantial right? Now in the US legal system that means there were no eyewitnesses (which there were in his case), video evidence, or a confession. Even forensic evidence (bullet casings in the Davis case) is considered circumstantial evidence. enough circumstantial evidence become corroborating evidence. Even DNA is considered circumstantial. here's a great Wiki (yeah I know wiki isn't consdered "exper"t butI doubt you would enjoy the reams of legal briefs I could give you in reference) for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence


let's be honest - it all comes down to how one feels about the death penalty- I have no problem with it and so thus I feel the sentence was appropriate.

 

[Graybrew1]

I think those are two different issues. I agree with you about "reasonable doubt" when it comes to deciding whether a person is guilty or innocent. But when you're going to end someone's life, you need to be damned sure, not "I'm pretty sure even though some of the evidence and testimony was unreliable". It was a conviction on pure circumstantial evidence. The judge should have disallowed the death penalty in this case. If it wasn't a cop killing, that's how it may have turned out.

He may have been given every chance to appeal but that doesn't mean he had the best defense money can buy. A good, competent defense can and does make all the difference in the world.

The jury decides innocent or guilty. The judge decides the punishment. It can then be appealed several times after that. Ot really is a completely separate entity from the original trial.

 

[Rac80]

The jury decides innocent or guilty. The judge decides the punishment. It can then be appealed several times after that. Ot really is a completely separate entity from the original trial.

In many states the jury decides the penalty when it comes to death...it's called a "death-qualified " jury for that very reason. Some jurors have trouble giving a death penalty so in two separate trials you may have have a life verdict and a death verdict for the exact same crime. georgia is a state in which the jury gives the verdict in capital (death penalty)cases... the jury took 2 hours to convict him and after testimony in the penalty phase (when Davis finally spoke to the court) another 7 hours to sentence him to death.

 

[Graybrew1]

In many states the jury decides the penalty when it comes to death...it's called a "death-qualified " jury for that very reason. Some jurors have trouble giving a death penalty so in two separate trials you may have have a life verdict and a death verdict for the exact same crime. georgia is a state in which the jury gives the verdict in capital (death penalty)cases... the jury took 2 hours to convict him and after testimony in the penalty phase (whn Davis finally spoke tothe court) another 7 hours to sentence him to death.

Oops, you are correct. I keep forgetting that the laws are state by state.