Amanda Knox Verdict reached

[AZwildcats]

Originally Posted by Cash is Clay

Shes white she will be aight .

 

[bravo]

Originally Posted by AZwildcats

Originally Posted by Cash is Clay

Shes white she will be aight .

if your white, your right.  

 

[dimez81]

watch the movie with hayden panettiere to get a understanding.

 

[thunderchunk69]

Originally Posted by throwedyonasb

Originally Posted by AZwildcats

Originally Posted by Cash is Clay

Shes white she will be aight .

if your white, your right.  

you're
you must not be white

 

[omgitswes]

Originally Posted by ThunderChunk69

Originally Posted by throwedyonasb

Originally Posted by AZwildcats

if your white, your right.  

you're
you must not be white

But yeah no clue what this case is about.

 

[moonmaster3]

Originally Posted by whiterails

Guilty?   Probably.
Beyond a reasonable doubt?   Nope.

Circumstantial evidence, lies and story-changing?  Yup.

Hard physical evidence placing her at the scene?  Nope.

You do realize circumstantial evidence is given just as much weight as direct evidence right? 

 

[bravo]

Originally Posted by omgitswes

Originally Posted by ThunderChunk69

Originally Posted by throwedyonasb

if your white, your right.  

you're
you must not be white

But yeah no clue what this case is about.

\

 

[mojodmonky1]

stupid question.

is the italian justice system the same as the US system where the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty, and they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[703 hwy]

Smh, this girl is as guilty as they come. Spare me the legality bs.

 

[jello b afro]

Originally Posted by ThunderChunk69

Originally Posted by throwedyonasb

Originally Posted by AZwildcats

if your white, your right.  

you're
you must not be white

this made me chuckle

 

[whiterails]

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by whiterails

Guilty?   Probably.
Beyond a reasonable doubt?   Nope.

Circumstantial evidence, lies and story-changing?  Yup.

Hard physical evidence placing her at the scene?  Nope.

You do realize circumstantial evidence is given just as much weight as direct evidence right? 

It actually doesn't.   Not in any legitimate court of law anyway.
You're either not clear on the definition of circumstantial evidence, the definition of "direct evidence", or are referring to an unjust legal system.

 

[a55a5in11]

sounds to me like the whether she did it or not, the police effed up this whole thing with cross contamination

 

[moonmaster3]

Originally Posted by whiterails

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by whiterails

Guilty?   Probably.
Beyond a reasonable doubt?   Nope.

Circumstantial evidence, lies and story-changing?  Yup.

Hard physical evidence placing her at the scene?  Nope.

You do realize circumstantial evidence is given just as much weight as direct evidence right? 

It actually doesn't.   Not in any legitimate court of law anyway.
You're either not clear on the definition of circumstantial evidence, the definition of "direct evidence", or are referring to an unjust legal system.

You're kidding right? What criminal jurisdiction in America gives more weight to direct evidence then circumstantial evidence? This type of CSI mindset is the reason why people like Casey Anthony go free. 
For further clarification, and to all future jurors in here...I'll even provide a pin point citation so you don't even have to read more than one page out of an opinion:

348 U.S. 121, 140