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

loulou
02-18-2012, 07:23 PM
Perhaps Italy doesn't have that history. But even if you have a thousand years and a perfect record of justice preceding this, it means nothing if this particular case was flawed. Your own appeals court says that it was; your prosecutor says that it wasn't. Clearly there is room here for disagreement.

Sometimes I can't make my exact point in english - no matter how hard I try. I'm sorry.

What do you mean by flawed?

If the prosecutor case is weak, it'll lose against defendant. And vice versa. Losing doesn't imply flaw, as in professional misconduct.

In this case all laws and procedures were applied, both in first degree trial and in second degree trial.
There's no concrete base for anyone to state that a certain prosecutor was seeking conviction at all costs, that he was dirty, that he somehow got a witness to lie, that they wanted to build a case against the american girl, and they wanted to close it for the international profile it gained. Expecially since most people doing that don't even know local law.

If Italy had history about this sort of behavior, then I could see room for the comments I read. That's what I meant.



Why? People here have, in the past, weighed in on verdicts in other trials. I don't remember hearing a peep of protest about any of them. I could see being concerned about what we all think if, say, we were on a jury, but since we aren't, why are we to refrain from thinking?

Of course you can talk and think and form your own opinion. But you're not supposed to believe this or that. Evidence was not produced to convince us. The only people that should be very aware and very well convinced are the ones in charge of the verdict. Which we have no reason to doubt did their job throughly.

loulou
02-18-2012, 07:44 PM
From what I have read, Guede's conviction is for murder and sexual assault. His sentence was reduced because he agreed to a fast track trial and because of his age/lack of prior convictions/evidence he gave against Knox/Sollecito. I have never read that his conviction was reduced to lesser charges.


Flaws and all, the murderer is in prison.

Original sentence states something close to accessory to murder. As in: Guede was not convicted for having himself physically commit the murder, Knox was. Guede was convicted for his actions were considered favouring, or contributing to, the actual physical omicide perpetration.

But I can see english wikipedia translated plainly "murder". It's not accurate.

-- Yes, Guede got his sentence reduced by chosing a fast track, which means he gave up his right to a new trial and accepted to get a decision in the preliminary session, with no debate, no new evidence, no questioning old evidences.



One good thing about the book deal - she can pay the man she falsely accused the money she owes him.

If I were Lumumba I wouldn't keep my hopes high.



I feel like we have flip flopped here. It is usually you telling me that Italy is not the Shangri La that I think it is. :)

Italian justice system is really messed up, you can check it out on any international index.

Italians wanted it that way, so they could keep being corrupted and having less convictions for corruption than Sweden has, so they could keep being amongst the biggest tax evadors of all time, without a single person in jail for tax evasion.

Lately, Italy has been seeing deterioration of its scientific community (used to have a tradition of physics and chemistry). That's probably reflecting on lab analysis too.

But all this is going to the advantage of those under trial and with means, not the other way around.

And again, in my opinion: Italy needs help and international awareness on the issues I mentioned above, and a few more. So far, the little international attention is misfocused.

DAngel
02-18-2012, 10:08 PM
There SHOULD be a lot more compassion for Kercher's family here. They've been utterly destroyed by this, and the Knox family hasn't. Their daughter is alive, she has a future and they've pulled through it quite well. Knowing how flawed the trial was that saw 2 people put away without physical evidence, does no one care that the Kercher's got no justice?


So why don't you and Allezfred create a thread about the Kercher's family? The title of this thread is "Amanda Knox Verdict Today". Is it so strange that people are talking about Amanda Knox (and the verdict), instead of the Kercher's family? Must every post here contain a condolence message for the Kercher's family before the two of you will be satisfied?

Prancer
02-18-2012, 10:20 PM
Of course you can talk and think and form your own opinion. But you're not supposed to believe this or that. Evidence was not produced to convince us. The only people that should be very aware and very well convinced are the ones in charge of the verdict. Which we have no reason to doubt did their job throughly.

When a verdict is overturned because there isn't enough evidence to support it, it would suggest to me that while the ones in charge of the verdict did their jobs, they did not perhaps do them well.

Which is what I mean by flawed. Even in the most rigorous system, mistakes and miscarriages of justice occur. It happens.


She may not have committed murder - the lack of physical evidence would suggest that - but she's not innocent of everything.

Is anyone here arguing that Amanda Knox is an angel?

Is anyone here arguing that justice has been done for Meredith Kercher?

cruisin
02-18-2012, 10:32 PM
When first arrested, Knox pointed the finger at a completely innocent man. Not Guede, but her boss, Lumumba. He WAS innocent, but was nevertheless arrested and interrogated for days before that was proven.

I would still like to know, exactly, how Lumumba's name came up. was it volunteered by Amanda or was it from a cell phone message? Did she actually accuse him, or did she simply suggest names to consider. Not that the latter is okay, but it's not outright accusing.


Secondly, she's still on trial over allegations that she falsely accused the police of beating her. That's yet to be determined, but from what I've read there is a lack of physical evidence to prove the police DID beat her so she might go down for it - although again, I think she's already served the time on it.

How will that be proven either way. It certainly is not okay to accuse the police of beating her, if it did not happen. But, did she do that? Or could there have been more translation issues? Did she say they physically beat her?


There SHOULD be a lot more compassion for Kercher's family here. They've been utterly destroyed by this, and the Knox family hasn't. Their daughter is alive, she has a future and they've pulled through it quite well. Knowing how flawed the trial was that saw 2 people put away without physical evidence, does no one care that the Kercher's got no justice?

Why do you assume that we have no compassion for Kercher? We are not discussing Kercher here. If Guede killed Meredith, why would the Kerchers have more justice if two innocent people stayed in jail?



Italian justice system is really messed up, you can check it out on any international index.

Italians wanted it that way, so they could keep being corrupted and having less convictions for corruption than Sweden has, so they could keep being amongst the biggest tax evadors of all time, without a single person in jail for tax evasion.

Lately, Italy has been seeing deterioration of its scientific community (used to have a tradition of physics and chemistry). That's probably reflecting on lab analysis too.

But all this is going to the advantage of those under trial and with means, not the other way around.

And again, in my opinion: Italy needs help and international awareness on the issues I mentioned above, and a few more. So far, the little international attention is misfocused.

This makes me so sad. I adore your country. I don't like to think anything negative about it.

pingu
02-19-2012, 08:17 AM
How will that be proven either way. It certainly is not okay to accuse the police of beating her, if it did not happen. But, did she do that? Or could there have been more translation issues? Did she say they physically beat her?

During the trial she said that during the interrogatory she had been slapped on the back of her head.

cruisin
02-19-2012, 03:12 PM
During the trial she said that during the interrogatory she had been slapped on the back of her head.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but for me there is a huge gap between getting slapped on the back of the head and being beaten. So, how did her claim of a slap, get turned into beaten? How would anyone prove whether or not she got a smack on the back of the head? There would, most likely, be no physical evidence of that.

*Jen*
02-19-2012, 07:06 PM
Is anyone here arguing that Amanda Knox is an angel?

Is anyone here arguing that justice has been done for Meredith Kercher?

Actually, yes. Look at the bit I quoted originally and one of the comments made after it.


I would still like to know, exactly, how Lumumba's name came up. was it volunteered by Amanda or was it from a cell phone message? Did she actually accuse him, or did she simply suggest names to consider. Not that the latter is okay, but it's not outright accusing.


She said she was in the house on the night, had heard Meredith scream and then accused Lumumba. He's suing her for defamation, IIRC.

It could merely be that Amanda was a scared girl being falsely accused in a language she didn't understand and in the confusion, said anything just to get the police off her back. None of us can know how we would react in a similar situation, maybe we'd do the same thing. It could also be her trying to throw the police off her own trail, as the prosecution claimed, but again there's no physical evidence so I doubt she's guilty of murder.


So why don't you and Allezfred create a thread about the Kercher's family? The title of this thread is "Amanda Knox Verdict Today". Is it so strange that people are talking about Amanda Knox (and the verdict), instead of the Kercher's family? Must every post here contain a condolence message for the Kercher's family before the two of you will be satisfied?

Because it's the same topic and doesn't really warrant a separate thread. You can't talk about Amanda Knox without at least acknowledging what she was accused of.

I'm not being completely one sided here. I've said I don't think Amanda is guilty of murder - I can see parts of both sides. Trouble is, it seems you can't.


I'm not trying to be difficult, but for me there is a huge gap between getting slapped on the back of the head and being beaten. So, how did her claim of a slap, get turned into beaten? How would anyone prove whether or not she got a smack on the back of the head? There would, most likely, be no physical evidence of that.

I could be wrong, but legally, I don't think there is much difference. In the UK, there wouldn't be, as they differentiate between hitting someone with a weapon and without. Assault could be there mere threat of violence, and not an actual punch or slap.

It varies from country to country and there are obvious differences in Italy, but I think a slap and a beating are considered much the same. I think the only way it could be proven would be if the interviews were recorded on video, and ALL that video is shown. Otherwise, it's a case of she says v they say. I tend to think the police are clutching at straws to make up for holes in their own investigation.

DAngel
02-19-2012, 07:45 PM
I'm not being completely one sided here. I've said I don't think Amanda is guilty of murder - I can see parts of both sides. Trouble is, it seems you can't.


How wonderful for you. You can now pat yourself on the back.

duane
02-19-2012, 08:06 PM
Actually, yes. Look at the bit I quoted originally and one of the comments made after it..
You said Meredith's family "got no justice", which suggests that no one is being punished for Meredith's murder. Someone is being punished--the only person other than Meredith's whose DNA was all over the crime scene. Now, was this justice fair? 30 years later reduced to 16? Hell to the no! Still, the killer is in prison. That's justice. You want to be critical of Guede's sentence, fine...and I doubt you would find any disagreements. But you weren't doing that.

Prancer
02-19-2012, 10:17 PM
Actually, yes. Look at the bit I quoted originally and one of the comments made after it.

Okay. :confused:


Because it's the same topic and doesn't really warrant a separate thread. You can't talk about Amanda Knox without at least acknowledging what she was accused of.

I don't think anyone has forgotten that she was accused of murder. Quite the opposite, in fact.


I'm not being completely one sided here. I've said I don't think Amanda is guilty of murder

Then you, too, must think that justice was served for Amanda, which is what people have been saying.

Even if you believe that she was guilty of other things, she was serving time for murder. If she did not do it, is that not injustice, regardless of what else she might have done?

If she slandered Lumumba, he should win his slander suit. If he does, then she will have to pay for that, will she not?

But if you actually believe that Amanda Knox is innocent of murder, then you must be at least as outraged on her behalf as you are for Patrick Lumumba, no? After all, he was accused and he undoubtedly suffered--but he wasn't convicted and he spent only two weeks in jail.


Assault could be there mere threat of violence, and not an actual punch or slap.

Yes, that's also true in the US; assault is the threat of violence, battery is actual physical violence. Many people don't understand the distinction, but I believe those definitions are fairly universal in Western law.

cruisin
02-19-2012, 10:25 PM
Yes, that's also true in the US; assault is the threat of violence, battery is actual physical violence. Many people don't understand the distinction, but I believe those definitions are fairly universal in Western law.

Yes, but the word used above was beaten. What I wonder is how a slap on the back of the head translates to beaten. And did Amanda say slap on the head or did she say they beat her? For me, those are very different situations.

pingu
02-20-2012, 05:34 PM
Yes, but the word used above was beaten. What I wonder is how a slap on the back of the head translates to beaten. And did Amanda say slap on the head or did she say they beat her? For me, those are very different situations.

I remember there was a video of the trial where she said she had been slapped on the back of her head. Of course I may be wrong. I am looking for the video on youtube, if I can find it I'll post the link here and translate Amanda's words.

pingu
02-20-2012, 05:52 PM
Found it! I don't think this is the audio of the trial, I remember she was speaking italian and saying that a policemen said to her she was stupid, and slapped her on the back of her neck.
By the way this is an audio of her speaking in english, with italian subtitles:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeuOGsecLoc&feature=related
The moment where she's talking about being slapped is around 5.20.

loulou
02-20-2012, 06:00 PM
When a verdict is overturned because there isn't enough evidence to support it, it would suggest to me that while the ones in charge of the verdict did their jobs, they did not perhaps do them well.

Which is what I mean by flawed. Even in the most rigorous system, mistakes and miscarriages of justice occur. It happens.

The judge names a third party scientific expert that should examine evidence. As the judge is no expert himself, he relies a lot on the third party person. The third party expert though, listens to arguments brought by both prosecutor's experts and defandant experts. So it's a mix: the competence of the third party expert, plus how convincig the other two parts are.

(There's an interesting note to the side: local papers talk all the time about third party experts that aren't being transparent, or aren't chosen trasparently, in the land of corruption - where the prosecutor loses).

The second third party expert overturned the results of the first one, hence the verdict was too.

There's no reason to believe that those in charge of the verdict didn't do their job well, considering the evidence they were presented.




This makes me so sad. I adore your country. I don't like to think anything negative about it.

I never said Italy is my country (you asked, I didn't answer).

But bad news never got better by going blind. Infact, awareness is crucial to address them.

Italy is ranked 69th (http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/) by Transparency International, from least corrupted to most corrupted countries. Behind Rwanda, Costa Rica, Kuwait, Malasya, Cuba, Turkey, South Africa, Ghana, and many more.

If you consider the Bribe Payers Index (http://bpi.transparency.org/results/) (likelihood of companies to pay bribes abroad), Italy ranks 15th out of the 28 largest economies considered. Behind South Korea and Brazil, but ties with Hong Kong, Malasya and South Africa.

Freedom House doesn't think italian press is free (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_Press_(report)), only one in Western Europe, so that you can see Italy isn't part of the western world, even if you'd like it different.

Netindex.com (http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/) says Italy is 74th for download speed. That's after Barhain, Ghana, Libya, Kazakstan, Thailand, Turkey, Macedonia, Mongolia, Chile, Aruba, Vietnam, and many others.

Again: in the last ten years Italy is the country whose economy grew less in the entire world, except Zimabwe and Haiti (Haiti would have been ahead of Italy if it wasn't for the earthquake).

More: Italy is the country with more tax evasion in Europe, which puts it ahead of many other countries outside Europe too. - Greece might be battling in relative numbers, Italy is definitely ahead in absolute numbers.