Can't help but feel that if she were ugly she'd be bundled onto the first plane back to Italy.
Are you suggesting pretty, young (at the time of the murder), white girl involved in some crime with salacious details is some sort of media draw? Surely not.
Are you suggesting pretty, young (at the time of the murder), white girl involved in some crime with salacious details is some sort of media draw? Surely not.
Any kind of crime with salacious details is a media draw, mix in attractive students and forn parts you're onto a winner. But media draw or not, I'm sure the "foxxy" bit will help when avoiding being extradited.
Seems old Raffa has tried to escape. Reports of him being arrested at the border with Slovenia.
This makes interesting reading about the evidence against her
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Evidence
The Italian judicial system moves at a glacial pace at best. Look at Berlusconi, the chances of these 2 ever serving time imho is zero.
The thing about this case is that the forensics are ambiguous, no smoking gun as such, but the person who can clear it all up is Rudy Goede. He pleaded guilty, but AFAIK has never said he acted alone under oath.
The forensic evidence seems pretty damning to me.
Reports of him being arrested at the border with Slovenia
Really?? I heard he was 24 miles from the border and accompanied the police voluntarily
Reports of him being arrested at the border with Slovenia
Really?? I heard he was 24 miles from the border and accompanied the police voluntarily
There must be at least 3 or him then, because he was also found near the Austrian boarder, according to the BBC 🙂
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25978340
Yes, 24 miles from the Austrian border according to the BBC 8)
The whole situation is very sad. I doubt we'll ever really know what happened unless someone confesses, but I don't see how a safe conviction can be made given the intense media coverage and judgement and some of the police behaviour. Not having access to a lawyer or representative in the 1st few days of being questioned and the theory of why it happened totally changing would put enough reasonable doubt in my mind not to convict. If it were in Scotland I'd have guessed a not proven verdict.
He may have been exactly 24 miles from both the Austrian and Slovenian boarders.
Austrian and Slovenian boarders.
Why weren't they at school?
"If it were in Scotland I'd have guessed a not proven verdict"
Which roughly translated into English means-
"We know you're guilty but we're having trouble assembling sufficient evidence to actually make it stick in front of the court".
So, hold on a second... Why's she in the US now? I remember her being in clink for the first trial, so how did she get out? Also, I thought people would have had to sat banged up if they were guilty but awaiting appeal.
Is that not the case in Italy.
"We know you're guilty but we're having trouble assembling sufficient evidence to actually make it stick in front of the court".
Yup. Or "we know you're guilty, but didn't follow the procedures so half our evidence isnt admissible".
The media circus that's followed the case, including the interview on Newsnight yesterday, have all made me feel a bit uncomfortable. I really don't think something of this importance should be played out in the press like it has been.
[quote=willard ]So, hold on a second... Why's she in the US now? I remember her being in clink for the first trial, so how did she get out? Also, I thought people would have had to sat banged up if they were guilty but awaiting appeal.
Is that not the case in Italy.
Won appeal (procedural irregularities, not found innocent). Went home. Wrote book that got a $1.5M advance (but VERY low sales). Retrial found her guilty again. In theory her and the bloke are appealing again so would be free to wander around but not leave Italy (if she was there but she isn't).
Yup. Or "we know you're guilty, but didn't follow the procedures so half our evidence isnt admissible".
It's even worse, the evidence was admissible in court. But one court of appeals illogically decided that it wasn't.
It's even worse, the evidence was admissible in court. But one court of appeals illogically decided that it wasn't.
Not sure what you're saying here? You think the appeals court was wrong and the first appeal should of been turn down?
From everything I've read they read the evidence the way I would of done.
She did do it, though.
Guilty.
Strangely, the Italians let her go though as she won her appeal. They should live with that decision I'm afraid.