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

IceAlisa
10-07-2011, 12:29 AM
To me, the physical evidence, including the DNA, was always severely lacking, even in the first trial.


The DNA evidence in the first trial was successfully disputed as the sample was deemed insufficient for accurate testing. What do you find lacking the DNA evidence in the second trial, conducted by the independent lab?

It's hard, even impossible to say whether Knox would have been convicted here in the US. However, I'd love to see a volunteer who'd want to be tried in a high profile case without sequestering the jury. Anyone?

agalisgv
10-07-2011, 12:57 AM
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.Sadly, it's not at all uncommon.

I remember a case with little circumstantial evidence, no DNA evidence, and the defendant had an alibi backed up by over a dozen witnesses. He was still convicted with no real grounds for appeal.

It's rather shocking how little it takes to put someone away--particularly if that person doesn't have money or access to aggressive and competent legal representation.

loulou
10-07-2011, 11:32 AM
Do you know that's true under Italian law? Some have indicated it's not.

When the US law says: "If you can't afford a lawyer, one will be appointed by the state", does it mean you have to prove you can't afford a lawyer?

I know in Italy, you're provided with all justice expences - and you get to chose who represents you - (with few exceptions, like expertises required before the actual trial begins) if your earnings are lower than X.
That X is ridiculously low.
But since a good chunk of italian population evades taxes (many employers make less than their employees - which rises no suspicion), that results in having only tax evadors and true homless people exploiting this way.

Middle to low classes have to pay for legal expences, without being able to afford them.
Just like the US health care system.


-- The judge who freed Knox and Sollecito gave an interview: "I think Guede knows what happened that night, and he doesn't tell the truth. I think Knox and Sollecito know what happened that night, and they're not talking either. But there were simply not enough proves for me to convict them. The truth and the trial truth are two very different things".

Prancer
10-07-2011, 01:10 PM
It's rather shocking how little it takes to put someone away--particularly if that person doesn't have money or access to aggressive and competent legal representation.

Some examples: http://www.antideathpenalty.org/DPcases.html


When the US law says: "If you can't afford a lawyer, one will be appointed by the state", does it mean you have to prove you can't afford a lawyer?

Of course.


The truth and the trial truth are two very different things".

True. It's not what you believe, it's what you can prove.

Angelskates
10-07-2011, 01:28 PM
Of course.

How? Is there an income amount you need to be below, or do they actually look at income and expenditure? Not that anyone would choose legal aid (would they?), but I'm just wondering.

Prancer
10-07-2011, 01:33 PM
How? Is there an income amount you need to be below, or do they actually look at income and expenditure? Not that anyone would choose legal aid (would they?), but I'm just wondering.

Public defender requirements vary by state. In my state, it goes strictly by income; if you are below or at the federal poverty line, you can have a free public defender. If you make 125 percent to 187.5 percent above the poverty line, you can have a public defender but you have to pay some of your fees. If you make more than 187.5, you are on your own.

But again, that varies by state.

Angelskates
10-07-2011, 01:36 PM
Public defender requirements vary by state. In my state, it goes strictly by income; if you are below or at the federal poverty line, you can have a free public defender. If you make 125 percent to 187.5 percent above the poverty line, you can have a public defender but you have to pay some of your fees. If you make more than 187.5, you are on your own.

But again, that varies by state.

Interesting, thanks.

cruisin
10-07-2011, 02:32 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.

I don't know that Americans are that naive. Anyone who's ever been pulled over for a traffic violation (especially something vague), and had to deal with some Nazi type cop, is pretty skeptical about the "protect and serve" thing.



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.

I think the reason for that is the lab determining that the DNA evidence was contaminated and no good. The first trial, people were not so sure. The second trial, the flaws came out and people felt more sure.

As to the cell phone thing. I'm puzzled by the words used. Was it that there was no activity on the phones for that time frame, or were they turned off. Can they determine/prove that the phones were turned off? Maybe they just didn't get calls or make calls?

kia_4EverOnIce
10-07-2011, 02:49 PM
I think the reason for that is the lab determining that the DNA evidence was contaminated and no good. The first trial, people were not so sure. The second trial, the flaws came out and people felt more sure.

I agree, I was answering to post #331.

loulou
10-07-2011, 02:57 PM
True. It's not what you believe, it's what you can prove.

The judge also said that, as a human being, he felt for the Kerchers, understood their pain and their disappointment. As a judge, he couldn't tell them a thing.

cruisin
10-07-2011, 03:31 PM
-- The judge who freed Knox and Sollecito gave an interview: "I think Guede knows what happened that night, and he doesn't tell the truth. I think Knox and Sollecito know what happened that night, and they're not talking either. But there were simply not enough proves for me to convict them. The truth and the trial truth are two very different things".

I agree that truth and trial truth are two different things, however, that comment is rather inappropriate. While he may feel that Knox & Sollecito know something, that doesn't mean they had anything to do with the murder. If they know something, but didn't do anything, did they deserve to be convicted? I believe the most telling thing would be Amanda not leaving the country when she had the chance. If she'd really had anything to do with the murder, why would she have stayed?

Rob
10-07-2011, 04:27 PM
I read that the Knox family has invited the Sollecito family to Seattle for a visit.

loulou
10-07-2011, 09:56 PM
I agree that truth and trial truth are two different things, however, that comment is rather inappropriate. While he may feel that Knox & Sollecito know something, that doesn't mean they had anything to do with the murder. If they know something, but didn't do anything, did they deserve to be convicted? I believe the most telling thing would be Amanda not leaving the country when she had the chance. If she'd really had anything to do with the murder, why would she have stayed?

The judge never said that Knox and Sollecito were murderers. Only that he think sthey know what really happened.
His comment was actually very sober, and, imo, was not inappropriate.

The reasoning that sounds: "Knox is innocent otherwise she would have left the country", imo, is very weak, for a number of reasons.
Some people, in some place, after they did ugly things, still don't feel the urge to run.
Call them stupid, call them immature, say they feel un-touchble, say they don't fell any guilt and they are unable to weight consequences.
All those things happened in the past all over the globe.

Also, if she was wise enough to run knowing she was guilty, why wasn't she wise enough to run knowing she wasn't?
When something this serious happens in your house, under unclear circumstances, how do you figure you're not risking a trial?

Either way, she had reasons to run. She didn't then. She did now. You bet she's not going back for the last trial degree, innocent or guilty.



I read that the Knox family has invited the Sollecito family to Seattle for a visit.

The Sollecitos aren't going though (and the Knoxs knew that before they sent the invitation).

Reports say they stayed close until the verdict, because they knew they were tied in it.
But once the sentence was out, their ways parted (for good). That's from the news, but also from Sollecito's father.

Amanda is safe and sound in the US.
Sollecito has to figure out wether he'll be going to the final degree, or he'll be running.


-- BTW, for those who said Knox was a really nice person, because so many people that knew her said so.
Well, the Knoxs hired a PR company in 2007 with the aim to pass this image to media and bust the case around it.
Amongst all other things they did.
Mind: I'm not saying she's not a nice girl. Just that she's been told how to look so in the past four years, while they digged on everyone who could say a good word about her.

-- Again: this is nothing Guede could have dreamt of doing.

skatingfan5
10-07-2011, 10:18 PM
Mind: I'm not saying she's not a nice girl. Just that she's been told how to look so in the past four years, while they digged on everyone who could say a good word about her.

-- Again: this is nothing Guede could have dreamt of doing.No, he had some local people say some not so nice things about him, but I suppose if he had enough $$$ he would have been able to find some to say the same sort of nice things about him as apparently the Knox family was able to uncover with their spending. :rolleyes: Of course, Guede also had all that DNA of his on the victim and a handprint of his in the victim's own blood to explain away --- I'm not sure that having dozens of people saying what a nice guy he really always had been would be able to make much of a difference against the physical evidence.

cruisin
10-07-2011, 10:34 PM
The reasoning that sounds: "Knox is innocent otherwise she would have left the country", imo, is very weak, for a number of reasons...
...Also, if she was wise enough to run knowing she was guilty, why wasn't she wise enough to run knowing she wasn't?
When something this serious happens in your house, under unclear circumstances, how do you figure you're not risking a trial?

Why would she run, if she didn't do anything? Why would she expect to be tried, if she didn't do anything? Why would she stay, to help, if she could leave, at that point?