Amanda Knox, Meredith Kercher retrial

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

  1. IceAlisa

    IceAlisa Épaulement!!!

    31,168
    4,404
    113
    Right, Dershowitz was making a point that Knox would have likely been convicted here. I didn't copy the question.
    I was making the point that someone in a very high profile US case did.
     
  2. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    12,021
    1,360
    113
    I see.

    I think it is impossible to compare. I don't think she would have been interoggated in the same manner in the United States, for one.
     
  3. IceAlisa

    IceAlisa Épaulement!!!

    31,168
    4,404
    113
    I don't know. The US police have mismanaged their own share of cases in their own way.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2013
  4. PrincessLeppard

    PrincessLeppard Pink Bitch

    22,445
    5,073
    113
    The jury I was on convicted a guy of murder based mostly on circumstantial evidence. And I had no doubts going into deliberate.
     
  5. duane

    duane New Member

    2,173
    177
    0
    Alan Dershowitz is such an idiot. But he's made other idiotic comments (OJ, Desiree Washington).

    I hope Guede comes out and say "ENOUGH ALREADY!! I DID IT MYSELF!!"
     
    OliviaPug and (deleted member) like this.
  6. allezfred

    allezfred Old and Immature Admin Staff Member

    44,047
    10,559
    113
    I always thought it was the press who had started the whole "pretty American girl" stuff. Didn't realise it came from the lying cow herself.
     
  7. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    17,033
    3,522
    113
    I'm not sure it did, allezfred. I certainly never read that from her. Maybe in the early days she was giving a ton of interviews but these days she mostly keeps her mouth shut. Maybe her lawyer said it.

    Anyway, I don't think she's ugly but I don't think she's so pretty that I can't think straight about her guilt or innocence. :lol: And I think Meredith's family has decided she's guilty and will only be satisfied with a guilty verdict. So they probably will remain unsatisfied IMO because I can't see one happening given the current state of the evidence.

    Not to mention Dershowitz is an idiot if he thinks that her implicating someone else is proof of ANYTHING. (Besides, perhaps, a certain lack of moral character under stress.) Good grief, the man is a college professor. You'd think he'd never dealt with young people being accused of anything before. A significant portion of them act like stupid idiots and lie to get out of trouble all. the. time. Whether guilty or not. Heck. people confess to crimes they didn't commit if questioned the right way. He knows that. He just wants to get his name in the paper.
     
  8. Lorac

    Lorac Well-Known Member

    2,574
    152
    63
    The transcript from Alan Dershowitz was very interesting as there are many people here in the UK who truly believe that Amanda Knox is guilty and that she should still be in that Italian jail. As I lived in the US during the initial trial and back here in the UK during her appeal I found it was like night and day as to how the press and public reacted to Amanda Knox in the two different countries. The US portraying her as an innocent abroad who was being harangued by the big bad Italian legal system, the UK portraying her as a manipulative, lying bitch who murdered an innocent woman just for the heck of it!! Personally I think she did have a hand in the murder - at the very least she was aware of it and did nothing to help Meredith. But I am also aware many on this board think she is innocent (and that most of those are from the US - though maybe not all).

    Either way Amanda will never serve time for this if she is found guilty at the re-trail as she will never return to Italy and the US will not extradite her to Italy.
     
  9. loulou

    loulou Well-Known Member

    1,797
    162
    63
    Well, yes they do: it's Guede's sentence.


    Where does your knowledge about the evidences and the Italian law come from?


    I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, because I don't really know the case you mention.
    But if you mean that implicating an innocent person would make you look guilty, I don't think the professor was referring to that. There are a number of circumstances that came from that false confession, such as describing things that's very hard to say how she could have known, unless present.


    I'm not sure. The standard would be: trial, appeal, Supreme Court appeal.
    The Supreme Court has limited range of motion (can only address method, I think, not merit), and can: 1) confirm the appeal sentence, 2) reform the appeal sentence with a new one, 3) order to shed light on controversial issues in a supplement trial that will only be able to discuss said issues.
    I think, and that's what I'm most uncertain about, that the decision coming from the eventual supplement trial is definitive.


    What manner?


    I did.


    You have decided too: when you say above that the evidences don't hold up, you imply what the verdict should be.


    I don't think at all that's what he was saying.
    I believe he was saying that you should carefully take into consideration every word she said, and then analize all other proves keeping them in in mind. Which doesn't sound stupid at all to me.
     
  10. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    12,021
    1,360
    113
    For one, in a language she was not fully fluent in. If she had been arrested in the United States, there would have been no language issue at all.

    Also, she would have had a lawyer present, unless the police really screwed up, in which case any evidence collected during the interogation without a lawyer wouldn't be admitted to the court.

    It has also been reported she was slapped several times during the interogation. I don't know whether that would happen here or not. I am also not clear about what US laws are on providing food/water to people being interogated during long periods of time are, but that is something that has come up on several sites.
     
  11. Vash01

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

    26,863
    4,042
    113
    I am surprised they did not provide a translator when she was arrested. I don't think that would happen in the USA.

    I suspect if it's something like 'Zero dark thirty' they would deprive the person of food and water, in order to get information, but I doubt that in a civilian case (non-war) it would be allowed. I may be naive about this, however.
     
  12. MacMadame

    MacMadame Cat Lady-in-Training

    17,033
    3,522
    113
    My knowledge of the evidence comes from what came out at the public trials. I am not making any claims about Italian law therefore my knowledge of it is irrelevant. I am stating my person opinion based on what I know... Just like everyone else here. What else can we do? We're not lawyers on either side and we're not on any jury that's hearing the trial. We're just the public posting on the internet what our opinion is.

    And my opinion is that since there was DNA all over the murder scene, including enough to solidly nail Guede, but not any more of Amanda's than you'd expect from the fact that she lived there that this is reasonable doubt. There isn't anyway to clean up only your own DNA without fancy equipment she didn't have and had no knowledge of how to operate. This would be true of any defendant of any trial no what what they looked like, what their personality was, or how much I did or did not like them.

    Guede could have told her. Plus she was there ... after the fact. She could have seen things and drawn conclusion. Plus, the interrogation wasn't recorded. We don't know what leading questions she was asked prior to her accusation that she then used to make her accusation seem solid.

    Yep, I never said otherwise. I'm just saying that Meredith's family is doomed to be disappointed in my view and also that I don't agree with those who say they want the trial to have closure. They want Amanda to be found guilty to have closure. If they could get that without a trial, they'd be just as closed and probably happier as the trial will be hard to go through so they'd just as soon skip it IMO.

    There's no law that says "you have to be given X oz. of liquid per hour" or anything that black and white that I am aware of (and, if there are, I'm sure someone will correct me as it's FSU ;)) so it's not like these things don't come into question here. They do. You have one side saying the interrogation went too far and the defendant wasn't treated right and therefore any confession isn't valid and similar arguments while the other side says, no, he got regular bathroom breaks and didn't go hungry, etc.

    But I do think we're a lot more aware of that sort of thing as there is a lot of legal precedent that, if you aren't careful to make sure your suspect gets adequate food and drink and breaks, your confession and other evidence will be legally challenged and likely successfully.This is an area where sandards are different in other parts of the world and we are one of the countries that bends over the most to make sure no one can say the suspect was coerced into anything.

    I do think the entire interrogation would have been handled differently from beginning to end for so many reasons though. For one thing, she would have most likely have called her parents pretty early on in the process and they would have made sure she then "lawyered up" as they say in the TV shows and then everything would have taken a completely different path from that point forward. There's just no comparison.

    It's not even a US vs. Italy thing, or a Guilty vs. Innocent thing, really. It's a "Being at home where you have resources, understand the language, grew up with the system and have a fair idea of what to do to maximize things to your Benefit" thing.
     
  13. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    12,021
    1,360
    113
    This wsa really what I was getting at with my original comment. If she had been arrested in the US things would have been very different because she speaks the language, and she has a somewhat better understanding of the law- most everyone knows they have the right to have a lawyer present. In fact, I think the police have to tell you that.
     
  14. OliviaPug

    OliviaPug Well-Known Member

    2,285
    447
    83
    Yes, advising of the right to counsel is part of the "Miranda Rights" that police and others in authority must state to anyone taken into custody. ("You have the right to remain silent ... etc.)

    O-
     
  15. IceAlisa

    IceAlisa Épaulement!!!

    31,168
    4,404
    113
    Oh yes, now I remember. This whole "selective DNA cleanup" thing is a very compelling argument against her guilt.
     
  16. Coco

    Coco Well-Known Member

    10,966
    1,587
    113
    I think she commented on how she was portrayed as the pretty American, but she didn't start this. She was being called Foxy Knoxy about 48 hours after she was arrested, iirc.
     
  17. duane

    duane New Member

    2,173
    177
    0
    Exactly. Guede's DNA was found in and on Meredith's body and (along with Meredith’s blood) on Meredith's purse. His shoe prints (set in Meredith’s blood) were found in the bedroom and hallway, and his handprints (also in Meredith’s blood) were found on a pillow case in Meredith's room and on her wall. But somehow Amanda and Sollecito, who according to the prosecution assisted in the alcohol-induced sex killing, were able to distinguish and clean away their DNA from the crime scene.
     
  18. Coco

    Coco Well-Known Member

    10,966
    1,587
    113
  19. skatingfan5

    skatingfan5 Well-Known Member

    10,836
    2,051
    113
    From that article:
    They should have retested the DNA in 2011 -- lots of mishandling and mistakes made with this case -- in the investigation, the original trial, and the appeal trial.
     
  20. loulou

    loulou Well-Known Member

    1,797
    162
    63
    So, does anyone who travels in the US get to speak the language they're fully fluent in, every time, if they happen to be interrogated?


    I'm not familiar with the Italian law enough to say whether or not proves are inadmissible unless a lawyer is present to councel you (not to mention the distinction between before and after arrest). But, again, is everyone in the US provided with a lawyer before being questioned? Or, say, is it possible that the police would try to gather as much information as possible, even if the person in question doesn't have a lawyer, expecially if the person is interrogated while not under arrest?


    Knox said they slapped her twice. When asked to mimic what happened, she showed two ligh slaps on the back base of her neck, not in her face.
    Police, however, says it's not true.
    And of course Amanda says they intimidated her (I think two ligh slaps at the back of the neck base would be intimidation, rather than physical abuse - not that it would be excusable), and of course the police says it's not true.
    So? Is that also something that would never have happened in the US?


    In the US do they read Miranda Rights wehn they arrest you, or also whenever they question you?
    Knox was questioned before being arrested.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2013
  21. loulou

    loulou Well-Known Member

    1,797
    162
    63
    I didn't know you were there.


    Your opinion is she should be sentenced not guilty. Which can't be possibly decided but according to Italian law.


    Yes, there are a number of reasons why the Harvard Law professor might be a complete idiot as you said.


    I see. From that point of view though, every one who travels takes willingly his/her own chances.

    Just out of curiosity: you valued the proves, the testimonies, the environment, her age, her disadvantages.
    Have you ever pondered that the support of an entire country the weight of the US (whose diplomats attended the trials from time to time, whose press has been actively campaining, also because Amanda Knox could afford what was called "one of the best PR agencies in the US") is a gigantic pressure for the judges, to the point it can even be intimidating and unfair?
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2013
  22. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    12,021
    1,360
    113
    Of course not everyone here speaks the language, and if you don't speak English or possibly Spanish you are going to be in a tough situation- and I never said this wouldn't happen in the US to any person, I said if AMANDA was arrested in the US it would have been different. SHE does speak the language here.

    People are mistreated here too, and I never said they weren't- just recently there was a case of a guy thrown into solitary and FORGOTTEN about- he wasn't even charged yet. Minorities have a signifigantly higher false conviction rate as well.

    I have never been arrested or questioned for a crime so I do not know when Miranda rights are read exactly- they are definetly read upon arrest, however, I know that my sister- who was not arrested, had them read to her when being picked up by a cop for underage drinking. She was given a ticket and a ride home. The difference is that knowing the legal system Americans know they do not have to say ANYTHING to a cop without a lawyer present. A police officer could ask me directions to the nearest walmart, and I don't have to tell him if I don't have a lawyer present. If a police officer questioned me in another country, I wouldn't know if that was true.


    And yes, you definetly take a risk whenever you travel outside of the country. I think that cases like this really highlight that. I have no idea whether she is guilty or not, but the idea that an aquittal can be overturned is very eye opening to most Americans.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2013
  23. loulou

    loulou Well-Known Member

    1,797
    162
    63
    I don't think "mistreat" is an accurate word to use in this contest, if the eventual language barrier and the being questioned (before arrest) without a lawyer present are simply accepted standard treatment, in the US too.

    The light slapping Amanda accused of the police can't be proven, and both sides would have reasons to lie.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2013
  24. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    12,021
    1,360
    113
    I'm standing by use of the word mistreated. I think it is perfectly appropriate.

    If a person is questioned without a lawyer before arrest, anything collected from that questioning CANNOT be presented in court. And if it is shown they did not understand the interrogation due to the language barrier, the evidence is often not admissible either.

    However, the only point I wanted to make was that Amanda's case in Italy really can't be compared to if it happened here (in reference to Casey Anthony) because it would have been handled differently from the beginning.
     
  25. loulou

    loulou Well-Known Member

    1,797
    162
    63
    Can anyone confirm this?


    If. I think Knox had every opportunity to do so, according to Italian law. She didn't lack representation.


    A different handling doesn't mean Knox was mistreated. Mistreatment would imply that the laws have been discarded, or that the laws aren't adeguate. Did the US, as a country in its official capacity, bring up these issues?

    Of course being in your own country makes a difference. But no country can grant you anything but the standard treatment. And no one can accuse of mistreatment a foreign country just because it's not like being at home.
     
  26. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    12,021
    1,360
    113
    Based on what I can tell from Italian law, counsel is supposed to be offered, and interogations are supposed to be recorded. Neither of these things happened. That appears to be mistreatment to me.

    Knox did lack representation at her initial interogation. She was not able to speak to a lawyer before the interogation, nor was a lawyer present during it.

    I can't confirm the statement about inadmissible evidence if collected before arrest in all cases, it likely varies by state, but I know there have been cases where it was thrown out. Some states apparently can use evidence if you are detained, which is not an arrest. But I think most Americans know to never say a THING if you have been brought into a police station.
    I also have read of cases where any confession was ruled inadmissible because of the arrestees inability to speak English and the police did not provide a sufficient translator when reading their rights to them.


    Again- I was ONLY saying there can be no comparision of this case to Casey Anthony's. And that if Knox had been arrested in the US her interogation would have been different. I really have no interest in comparing the systems- I don't think the Italian system is evil, nor do I think the American system perfect. Merely things would have been very different for Knox if she was arrrested here (not necessarily better though- the court of public opinion tends to immediatly blame whomever the police do. But once aquitted, you stay aquitted.)
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2013
  27. ks777

    ks777 Well-Known Member

    1,767
    158
    63
    You don't need to be there to know what's on the record.
     
  28. OliviaPug

    OliviaPug Well-Known Member

    2,285
    447
    83
    Technically, Miranda Rights are read when someone is "held" or taken into custody and before any questioning begins. If an individual responds to questions asked informally, that's not usually considered a situation in which Miranda Rights must be given before questioning or at all. However, there can always be arguments that Miranda Rights should have been given in informal situations and any information obtained without a Miranda warning can be deemed inadmissible. The question of duress can come into play -- whether or not an individual felt they could leave, whether or not they felt trapped or in danger. The argument basically turns on whether or not the individual was making a statement of their own free will without any undue pressure. That's why spontaneous statements/confessions (before Miranda Rights are read) are often admitted into evidence. It's always good practice for a law enforcement officer to advise an individual of their Miranda Rights because it helps to eliminate the possibility that any statements will be excluded.

    O-
     
  29. duane

    duane New Member

    2,173
    177
    0
    From my understanding, Olivia is correct. Miranda Rights are read at the time of arrest; the time of being charged. If someone is read the Miranda Rights at home, and then taken into custody for questioning, Miranda Rights aren't read again, but the person is usually reminded that his rights have been read (tho I don't think the police are required to give a reminder). At any time during questioning, if a lawyer is requested, questioning must immediately end.

    If a person is simply suspected of a crime but never charged, and asked to come in for questioning, Miranda Rights are not read. A person who isn't charged can always refuse to be questioned, or end questioning at any time. It is often after being informally asked questions that a person is then charged, because he/she has said something contrary to what the police already know is fact.
     
  30. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    12,021
    1,360
    113
    However, as Olivia alluded to, there have been cases where evidence has not been admitted to the court because a person was being 'held' and not informed of their rights, but they made a statement under duress, and it was ruled in these cases they should have had their rights read to them.

    If a person is being questioned as a suspect, police are supposed to inform them of that and read them their rights.

    Spontaneous confessions are generally admitted, and incriminating things said during informal questioning when someone is not a suspect, but if a police is questioning someone in the same manner they would if they were arrested, they will usually have that evidence not admitted- you can't get around the laws by saying "but we hadn't arrested him yet". A judge isn't going to allow that.