PDA

View Full Version : Amanda Knox Verdict Today



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

BigB08822
10-06-2011, 10:19 PM
I know people in the US to have been convicted on FAR less. That isn't belief on my part.

People that had DNA evidence such as this? I realize it has happened, especially in the past. But now it would be very odd to see someone convicted with nothing but really iffy circumstantial evidence and no DNA evidence to link them to the crime.

BigB08822
10-06-2011, 10:21 PM
I'm sure the young, confused and unable to speak the language excuse would have worked really well. ;)

There would have been no need of any excuses because she would have had a lawyer present, her "confession" would have never happened in all likelihood and if it did it would have been taped and not lost. If those things still happened then what do you know, she wouldn't have been convicted without any evidence. It goes both ways, smarty pants.

zippy
10-06-2011, 10:25 PM
I think people of certain socioeconomic and racial backgrounds in the US believe authority figures in the US are there to protect them from misdeeds of others. Thus they view authority as inherently there to defend them and their interests--authority is on their side. In other countries, I don't think people even from privileged backgrounds carry that same assumption, or at least not to the same degree.

But even in the US, people not from privileged backgrounds don't necessarily presume authority figures are out to protect them or their interests (this not infrequently backed up by practical evidence). So the skepticism you described towards Italian authorities is not dissimilar to how some in the US view US authorities. I know people in the US to have been convicted on FAR less. That isn't belief on my part.

Oh, of course, just to clarify, I didn't mean to insinuate that this experience is the same for everyone in the US, certainly there are terrible inequalities in how certain groups are treated by the police. I know many people who have had bad encounters with US authorities. I don't want to get into a long treatise on that, just wanted to point out that a young college girl from a presumably privileged, uneventful background would likely have so little life experience to give her the tools to deal with such an interrogation, and that differences in cultural norms in how we interact with each other might have been a factor.

It's interesting that in the article above, Sollecito states that he thought the police were going to protect him, and I think Knox says in other articles that she was very trusting and trying to be helpful too. In my own (much more minor) experience, I remember just assuming that these customs guys were going to be helpful, pleasant, etc., and being totally shocked and subsequently rattled when they started yelling at me, calling me stupid, etc. There's a certain insecurity when you're abroad and something happens, you don't know the rules, how to act, especially if you're being yelled at by someone in a position of power.

Prancer
10-06-2011, 10:28 PM
There would have been no need of any excuses because she would have had a lawyer present

Only if she asked for one.

allezfred
10-06-2011, 10:31 PM
There would have been no need of any excuses because she would have had a lawyer present, her "confession" would have never happened in all likelihood and if it did it would have been taped and not lost. If those things still happened then what do you know, she wouldn't have been convicted without any evidence. It goes both ways, smarty pants.

There's a lot of "ifs" there. Still coming across as the angel abroad against third world justice system schtick though. ;)

Meanwhile, I've learned the reason why the British tabloids were calling her Foxy Knoxy is because that was her Myspace username. :scream:

skatingfan5
10-06-2011, 10:34 PM
Only if she asked for one.But she would have been told that she had the right to have one present and that if she couldn't afford one, one would be provided to her and that if she gave up that right, that anything she said to the police could be used against her.

milanessa
10-06-2011, 10:41 PM
But she would have been told that she had the right to have one present and that if she couldn't afford one, one would be provided to her and that if she gave up that right, that anything she said to the police could be used against her.


Do you know that's true under Italian law? Some have indicated it's not.

skatingfan5
10-06-2011, 10:46 PM
Do you know that's true under Italian law? Some have indicated it's not.I don't know for sure, but it had been indicated earlier in the thread that it wasn't. But I thought we were talking about what would have happened had things (the murder, Amanda's questioning by the police, the trial) taken place here in the U.S. instead of Italy. Perhaps I got lost somewhere in thread drift?

milanessa
10-06-2011, 10:48 PM
I think you might be right - it's me that got lost. :lol:

IceAlisa
10-06-2011, 10:52 PM
And of course, this has been turned into class and racial warfare. :sheep:
I wonder how many countries agalisgv has visited/lived in and how many different legal systems she has experienced to appear so confident about what the citizens might feel.

Cyn
10-06-2011, 10:56 PM
Reading through this thread and several of the links is giving me an uncomfortable feeling of déja-vu from when I was following the case of the West Memphis Three :( .

kia_4EverOnIce
10-06-2011, 11:11 PM
This sounds to me like something composed by an Italian rather than an American.

To me too it seems an Italian text, translated into English. But then, I don't understand: in which language were these notes first written? (I mean, it's this English version the original one, or it's just a translation of something written in Italian?)


whole posts

happy to hear this from an American :)

sadly, I think it's often the case when a citizen from a determined country is convicted abroad, there's this sort of patriotism playing.


Knox would never have been convicted in the U.S. and that is widely believed.

People that had DNA evidence such as this?

Yes, but think at how the DNA evidence were considered in the first trial, then they were considered Knox's and Sollecito's DNA. As someone else said, after the first trial also US public opinion was much more divided.
It's the second trial who had changed the scenario.

laurenannie
10-06-2011, 11:11 PM
Things will vary from state to state, but beyond Miranda warnings there are limits as to what police can do during the course of the interrogation, they cannot do anything which is inherently coercive to get a statement. New Mexico doesn't have a list of forbidden activities, the judge will evaluate the situation individually, but a 14 hour interrogation where the target is not provided food or water, in a language in which the target does not speak fluently, and where the target is hit by officers would not fly. Police officers can interrogate a suspect for several hours or over the course of several days, but food, water, breaks, etc. are required even if the target chooses not to have counsel present. Now of course, there is no proof about what happened at the interrogation, it is Amanda and Raffaele's word against the police officers.

I thought the confession was thrown out anyway? (Though, of course, with the media coverage the jurors probably all knew about the confessions anyway).

MacMadame
10-06-2011, 11:36 PM
Okay to me this reeks of a biased account:


Police investigator Letterio Latella testified today that Knox and Sollecito's cell phones were inactive most of the night, and activity on the cell phones stopped almost simultaneously. Sollecito's phone was inactive from 8:42 p.m. until 6:52 a.m. the next day, while Knox's phone was quiet from 8:35 p.m. on Nov. 1 and didn't show any activity until 12:07 p.m. the next day, when she tried to call Kercher.
In what universe is one phone not having activity from 8:35pm to past noon the next day while the other stops almost 10 minutes later and resumes early in the morning "almost simultaneously".

I believe, if Amanada Knox had been in this situation in the US, the original DNA 'evidence' used to convict her would not have been admissible. Also, she knows the language here and the legal system and would have soon "lawyered up" which would have caused quite a few other things to happen too. I suspect, in the end, she never would even have been charged.

This doesn't mean no one in the US is ever charged by mistake or prisoned wrongly. But given the situation of this crime and these defendants, it seems unlikely.

Prancer
10-07-2011, 12:02 AM
Yes, but think at how the DNA evidence were considered in the first trial, then they were considered Knox's and Sollecito's DNA.

To me, the physical evidence, including the DNA, was always severely lacking, even in the first trial.


This doesn't mean no one in the US is ever charged by mistake or prisoned wrongly.

Plenty of people are wrongly convicted (and the reverse, too) in the US, and had the same evidence been presented at trial here, Amanda Knox may very well have been convicted here, too.

But I do think that the DNA evidence and the confession either would have been thrown out or that the admission of either would probably have been grounds for appeal of any conviction. But that's what happened in this case, too, more or less.


But she would have been told that she had the right to have one present and that if she couldn't afford one, one would be provided to her and that if she gave up that right, that anything she said to the police could be used against her.


Yes, I am familiar with Miranda. However, a lot of people babble endlessly to the police without asking for a lawyer, Miranda or not, particularly if they think they are innocent or they think that asking for a lawyer will make them look guilty--or they simply think they are too clever for the police to trip them up. It happens all the time; look at the number of people in the US who confess to the police without ever asking for a lawyer.