Amanda Knox's THIRD trial began in Italy today

[davidn3600]

You would think after the mess Italy has made of this case, they would want it to just go away. Amazing how they just wont let this case go.

http://gma.yahoo.com/amanda-knoxs-lawyer-asks-she-tried-endlessly-131416527--abc-news-topstories.html


You see, even though we may get upset at times at things like the Zimmerman verdict, there is a very good reason we forbid double jeopardy in America. It stops this kind of nonsense.

[LittleBlue]

1. Italy's legal system is a joke

She's been standing trial for years. Like some sort of medieval court.

[dipsydoodle]

3. You may well find that in the eyes of the world

the US legal system may equally be considered so - a joke.

[sabrina 1]

9. Actually Italy's legal system, much like our own, is far from being a joke. And just like here

at times, the system gets manipulated.

[LittleBlue]

10. Like someone pointed out elsewhere, it's the same system that

convicted seismologists of manslaughter for failing to predict an earthquake.

Sorry, it's a joke.

[davidn3600]

11. So jailing scientists for failing to predict an earthquake isnt a joke?

http://in.news.yahoo.com/italian-scientists-jailed-failing-predict-earthquake-142341124.html

[sabrina 1]

13. Would you like me to provide you with a list of 'joke' convictions, and another list of convictions

that didn't, but should have happened here in the US? I would not play THAT game if I was trying to show what a joke one system is over the other, if I were you.

[davidn3600]

14. Every system makes mistakes...no one claims our system is perfect

Anyone that has read my posts on here knows I am usually very critical of the courts, law enforcement, and prison system.

But in America, double jeopardy is forbidden for this kind of reason...that the government can keep trying until it gets the verdict it's satisfied with. It can't do this in America. Once a jury lets you go, it's over.

That alone makes our system better than Italy's.

[dipsydoodle]

2. Double jeopardy is permitted in some circumstances in the UK for sound reasons.

The subject is a red herring in the case Knox who'd been found guilty. The Italian Court of Cassation set aside the result of an appeal trial as being unsafe leaving the original verdict standing for the time being.

[msanthrope]

4. Did Knox ever pay Lumumba the 40k euros in damages she owes? nt

[dipsydoodle]

12. Not clear but he's now claiming legal fee on top anyway.

The bar owner, Diya "Patrick" Lumumba, showed up at the trial Monday, saying he did so to underline the damage he suffered from Knox's false accusations. "I say the same thing I said six years ago. I think she is guilty, and that is why she slandered me," Lumumba told reporters.

Knox's conviction for slandering Lumumba has been confirmed by the high court, but it asked the Florence appeals court to examine whether to reinstate an aggravating circumstance that Knox lied to derail the investigation and protect herself from becoming a murder suspect.

In its first move, the Florence court rejected a motion by Knox's lawyers to exclude Lumumba from the new appeals trial as a civil participant, a status that allows him to seek further damages. His lawyer says Lumumba is owed more than 103,000 euros ($139,500) in legal fees.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/world_news&id=9267593

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. Isn't double jeopardy only applicable to acquittals, not vacated convictions?

Knox has not been found "not guilty" by a jury, has she?, so I don't think double jeopardy enters into it.

And for what it's worth, I don't think murder charges should be allowed to drop just because it's embarrassing - if there was enough evidence to justify trying her once (and while the US media clearly think there wasn't, and it's possible that they're right, my impression is that that opinion has more to do with her nationality than with unbiased assessment of the facts) then there is enough evidence to keep trying her until she is a) acquitted or b) convicted by a jury. How long it's taken shouldn't enter into it.

[davidn3600]

6. If you want to base this on facts...

Much of the forensics in this case would have been tossed out in an American court. And there would be no case.

The police allowed the crime scene to become contaminated. And the results themselves are called into question.

[dipsydoodle]

7. You didn't answer the question in post #5.

.

[davidn3600]

8. There was a jury in the appeals case

The higher court vacated the appeal letting the original sentence stand. But the appeal was a jury.