Amanda Knox, Meredith Kercher retrial

Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by skatefan, Mar 26, 2013.

  1. skatefan

    skatefan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,219
  2. mag

    mag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    7,268
    Heard this on the news this morning. According to CBC, the chance of Amanda being extradited should she be found guilty is zero.
     
  3. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    11,323
    Man, I didn't realize any Western countries allowed retrials like this... learn something new every day.

    I agree, the US won't extradite her for this. But it will mean she is trapped her for the rest of her life, because she can't risk traveling anywhere that will. After being aquitted, this must be horrible. If she really is innocent, compound that with losing her roommate, dealing with all the original proceedings, I just cannot imagine.

    Hopefully they will find her not-guilty again. It seemed like any evidence was really shaky, though what the hell she was thinking with her behavior while she was being held baffles me.
     
  4. ks777

    ks777 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,720
    yep, if I were Amanda, I would just ignore Italy. Can we just send Casey Anthony to Italy instead?
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2013
    nypanda and (deleted member) like this.
  5. Vash01

    Vash01 Fan of Julia, Elena, Anna, Liza, and Sasha

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2001
    Messages:
    25,890
    I had read yesterday that the Italian supreme court was about to make a decision within the next few hours on whether these two would be tried again, but I forgot to check the news later in the day. I thought the nightmare was over for them, particularly Amanda since she is back in her home country. I can't believe that any civilized country would charge a person twice for the same crime.....or is this the normal progression (from apellate court to supreme court)?

    I also don't believe the US government will extradite its own citizen, but what a nightmare for Amanda! It sounded like she was free, but she is not really free, unless she limits her travels to only countries that will not extradite her.
     
  6. *Jen*

    *Jen* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    11,552
    It's a normal progression.

    It might not end up being such a bad thing for anyone. The first trial was so badly flawed that a fresh one might be able to shed some light on it.

    It may or may not clear Amanda and Rafaele (probably will, given the evidence), but let's not forget in the face of the media circus was that the real victim was Meredith, and her family is still desperately seeking answers about what went on. If this trial can give them some closure, then it'll be worth it.

    Also, from Rafaele's lawyer: "Quashing an acquittal does not imply a belief that the accused are guilty but indicates a desire by the judges of the court of cassation to request further analysis" . It might, therefore, shed some light on how the DNA evidence was so badly flawed.
     
  7. ks777

    ks777 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,720
    I don't know, I wouldn't want to travel to oversea after what she had to go through..
     
  8. DAngel

    DAngel Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Messages:
    706
    So I guess the Italian witch hunt continues..
     
  9. Angelskates

    Angelskates Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,791
    Amanda was/is also a real victim, she was a victim of screw-ups, a majorly flawed investigation. It doesn't make Meredith less of a victim, but it bugs me when people use the "let's not forget the real victim" - there can be more than one victim in a botched investigation. I feel sorry for both families, and all victims of this investigation. However IMHO, if Meredith's family think this trial will give more/different answers, I think they are going to be sorely disappointed. I think they're now part of the witch hunt, they're so desperate for answers, they want people found guilty, regardless of whether they are or not. You say "If this trial can give them some closure, then it'll be worth it." - I find that astounding - is it worth convicting someone of murder - regardless of whether the trial is fair, or if she did it or not, to give the family closure? Since when is closure for the victim's family the purpose of a trial? I thought it was justice; to prosecute the actual perpetrator.
     
    mag, kylet3, OliviaPug and 3 others like this.
  10. michiruwater

    michiruwater Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    Messages:
    9,206
    Ridiculous. Amanda just needs to stay in the US. I can't believe this witch hunt is continuing.
     
  11. mag

    mag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    7,268
    I don't know very much about murder investigations. I do know those talented actors on "Cold Case" seem to be able to solve crimes 30 years after the fact, but is it really possible at this point to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, what really happened?
     
  12. michiruwater

    michiruwater Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    Messages:
    9,206
    Considering how badly the police bungled it, I doubt it.
     
  13. Rob

    Rob Beach Bum

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Messages:
    13,320
    Why are the police/prosecutors so convinced that Guede had an accomplice? I was once up on the evidence, but I have forgotten.
     
  14. Vash01

    Vash01 Fan of Julia, Elena, Anna, Liza, and Sasha

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2001
    Messages:
    25,890
    Well said. Nobody disputes that Meredith's violent death was tragic beyond words, and I do feel sorry for her family. However, as you correctly pointed out, simply convicting 'anyone' is not the right kind of closure for anyone.

    I watched a couple of interviews on CNN tonight on AC360. One of the experts said that the reason the case has gone to the Supreme court is that they want to look at the whole evidence, rather than pieces of it, and that the trial could go on for 2-3 years. They said it is not double jeopardy for Amanda. However, if I were Amanda, I would not go to Italy for the trial, of my free will. I am not an attorney, but from whatever I saw/heard during her trial, I don't have faith in the Italian justice system. They seem to crumble under public pressure.
     
  15. Coco

    Coco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2002
    Messages:
    10,699
    I worry for her then boyfriend, Rafael. He doesn't have another country to hide out in. This must be so draining financially and emotionally. Their whole 20s are taken up with this.

    Have the prosecutors even published a theory at this point? Have they ever said all 3 (Amanda, Rafael & Rudy) killed Meredith?
     
  16. loulou

    loulou Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,777
    Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School, March 27 2013, interview by Alessandra Farkas

    "All the lawyers and the judges I know have a very different opinion on this case, than the opinion of the average american, who only sees Amanda's pretty face and believes the superficial and biased US tv pieces on the matter".

    The US people, the internet and the press are on her side.

    "Amanda herself explained it: if I weren't beautiful, no one would talk about me. Then she brilliantly aired one of the best US PRs, which sold her look as proof of her innocence, making her seem a like a victim of the ancient italian court laws".

    Why are you so convinced Amanda is guilty?

    "I am convinced because I carefully examined the whole case. Circustantial evidences are enough to prove she's guilty and I believe the Italian Supreme Court did a an amazing job. The only issues of the first trial were the investigators' sloppyness and the state attorney's revengefulness".

    The US justice system would have convicted Amanda?

    "There's proof beyond any reasonable doubt which comes from her initial false confession, where she tried to implicate an innocent man. All the other proves have to be seen through the lense of that lie".

    What motive would have Amanda had to kill Meredith?

    "It wasn't pre-meditated, it was an impulsive crime, caused by an orgia, drugs and alchool".

    What will happen now?

    "If Amanda truely believes she's innocent, she should take the first flight to Italy and be there for her trial. But she won't, and she'll be on the run in the future".

    What do you mean?

    "For the rest of her life, Amanda will be trapped in her country: she'll be on the Interpol most wanted list, hence she could get arrested if she leaves the US".

    Can the US refuse to extradite Amanda?

    "I believe the Secretary of State won't. They wouldn't want Italy to become heaven for criminals running from US justice, so they'll play it fairly".

    Media wrote that the double jeopardy law prevents from getting a defendant on trial for the same crime twice.

    "That's not the case: Amanda was found not guilty at the end of her appeal, not at the end of her first trial. There's however another law, that prevents convicted people from making money out of their crimes, and states that any earnings should go the the family of the victim of the crime. The Kerchers will sue to get the millions Amanda is about to make".
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2013
  17. Coco

    Coco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2002
    Messages:
    10,699
    Wow, he's really struggling for relevancy.
     
  18. antmanb

    antmanb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    3,422
    I find it astounding that from the sentence "If this trial can give them some closure, then it'll be worth it" you extrapolate that it means convicting the wrong person , carrying out an unfair trial and bunch of other stuff, when Jen specifically mentioned that the new trial might actually clarify some of the issues with the original trial/investigation :confused:
     
  19. Angelskates

    Angelskates Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,791
    The purpose of a trial is not to give closure, it's to get justice. If this trial give's Meredith's family closure, but convicts the wrong person, is it worth it? Because Jen saying "If this trial can give them some closure, then it'll be worth it", is promoting closure over justice IMO. Do you think that if more evidence comes to light, but Amanda is found not guilty, that Meredith's family will see that as closure? I don't. In fact, the family have said they think Amanda is guilty, they said it several times during the last legal proceedings. Is closure really worth a trial, if the trial isn't just? I don't think so. Meredith's family are always going to have questions, closure does need to be a choice eventually. They could have chosen the acquittal as a point for closure, but they didn't, and I certainly understand that - they want more answers. They'll never get all of the answers IMO, and they do want Amanda to go to jail and be found guilty. There was even fist-pumping happiness when it was found out that there will be a retrial, they really do want to think they'll get the "definitive and final truth of Meredith's murder", but I don't think that's possible. They made their feelings very clear that they want a guilty verdict. That's what they want for closure. Even if Amanda is guilty, if she doesn't get a fair trial (and I don't believe it's possible that she can now), than a retrial is not worth "it" - it's not worth the possibility that an innocent person, or a person who was denied a fair trial, go to jail. I'm sure that Meredith family DO want to retrial in order to get more information, but they want that information not just so they can get personal closure, but because they want it to send Amanda to jail, fair trial or not.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2013
  20. Rob

    Rob Beach Bum

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Messages:
    13,320
    Is it possible for this trial to conclude that Guede acted alone? He is not on retrial. Or would it merely address whether or not Amanda and Raffaele were guilty.

    I don't think the Kerchner family will have closure if Amanda is convicted again, but remains free in the US. They can file a civil suit, but as we have seen with the Oj trial and the Goldmans, that does not necessarily bring closure.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2013
  21. Angelskates

    Angelskates Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,791
    According to the news reports, the Kercher family lawyer thinks, "This decision serves to review the definitive and final truth of Meredith's murder. Guede was not alone, the judges will tell us who was there with him." (Which is weird in itself, just because someone was there, doesn't mean that someone murdered her.)
     
  22. loulou

    loulou Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,777
    The Supreme Court sentence motivations aren't out yet, so we don't know for sure.
    The State Attorney argued very strongly against the appeal verdict, saying that a number of issues are highly illogical there - I won't go into details, because I'm tired right now, but the main illogical topics lie/descend/are tied exactly to what professor Dershowitz mentioned: the first confession Amanda made - One example: the appeal confirmed Amanda was guilty for falsely accusing Lumumba to be the murderer, but they also said Amanda was completely astranged from what happened. So, how could Amanda know for sure Lumumba wasn't the one, if she didn't know squat? That's one topic the State Attorney pointed out, saying it had no logic, about what the appeal court had stated.

    One thing I can tell you, is that Guede is in jail for "accessory to murder" (closest translation I can think of), and the State Attorney mentioned that with bitter irony. When motivations will be out (judges have up to three months to write them - I think - but I'm guessing they're going to make it faster rather than slower, and so will the new trial), we'll know if that is one the issues the Supreme Court cared to mention.

    The one thing every judge always agreed on is that all the three of them know more than they're saying. If that's the case, Guede may take the chance to re-think his line. So far he had to oblige to the fact he didn't have the means to sustain new trials, independently test eveidences, hire experts and so on. He actually gave up his right to bring in a new debate at the appeal. The State Attorney also stated that destinies which were initially tied, diverged later, and the one that payed the most, that however you spin it must be convicted for the wrong charge, is the only one with no means.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2013
  23. antmanb

    antmanb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    3,422
    Where did anybody argue that it should? Of course the purpose of the trial is to get justice, but getting justice is certainly not mutually exclusive with getting closure - why on earth would it be? And getting closure does not mutually exclude getting justice either, nor does it mean convicting the wrong person.

    Where has anyone argued that that giving closure and convicting the wrong person would be even a goal of this re-trial let alone be worth it? Non-one has said or argued that at all. As I said above, wishing for the family of a murdered girl to get closure from the re-trial does not mean that the wrong person must be convicted - why would anyone think that? Why does sayin "i hope someone get's closure from this" promote closure over justice? Jen didn't even mention justice in her post.

    I have absolutely no idea what the family think, how they feel, how certain actions will make them react or feel. I have actually not followed this case particularly closely. The only point I am making is that wishing that someone gets closure does not mean hoping for an unfair trial and the conviction of an innocent person, and that closure is more important than justice....because no-one said or even hinted that was the case.
     
  24. michiruwater

    michiruwater Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    Messages:
    9,206
    That transcript weirds me out. And I was always under the impression that circumstantial evidence should not ever lead to a conviction in US courts. Am I wrong about that?
     
  25. snoopy

    snoopy Team St. Petersburg

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    5,918

    When this has come up before, I believe people reported that “enough” circumstantial evidence can legally lead to a conviction. It is the reasonable doubt standard that is important, and if there is considerable circumstantial evidence to get to beyond a reasonable doubt, that can be reason for a conviction.
     
  26. ks777

    ks777 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,720
    They have a proof that Guede wasn't alone? I just don't see any motives for Amanda and her boyfriend to kill Meredith.
     
  27. mag

    mag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    7,268
    I don't believe there has to be proof of motive to convict. If you can prove how a murder was done (and that is the only way it could have been done,) and prove only one person could have done it, then while knowing their motive might be nice, it isn't necessary. I believe this is particularly relevant if the prosecutor is asserting that there was no premeditation as they seem to be in this case.
     
  28. MacMadame

    MacMadame Internet Beyotch

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    16,436
    :rolleyes:

    First of all, she's not that pretty. ;) Secondly, I am able to think for myself and am much more impressed by DNA evidence than faces. I think their evidence doesn't hang together.

    Yes. Most cases don't have absolute physical proof. There is some physical proof usually but sometimes none and it's all circumstantial. But if the circumstantial hangs together well enough, especially if it's overwhelming, and the defense can't convince the jury there is reasonable doubt, you get a conviction. There is no law that says you can't convict if the evidence is only circumstantial.
     
  29. IceAlisa

    IceAlisa Épaulement!!!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    30,667

    What I thought was strange was this:
    Casey Anthony gave false evidence (was it a confession?), implicated an innocent nanny and got off.

    I think Amanda is pretty but have no opinion on the case as I haven't followed the details.

    Does the Italian legal system set any limit on the amount of trials one can have?
     
  30. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    11,323
    In a different country.