Amanda Knox, Meredith Kercher retrial

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

  1. MacMadame

    MacMadame Internet Beyotch

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    16,516
    That's not my point. My point isn't that Italy is a horrible place where Amanda Knox was treated horribly. My point is that, if this had happened in the US, it all would have gone down entirely differently due to the fact that it's her country and she knows the language and the system and has a support system in place here. I would say the same thing if you had been accused of killing someone in the US while visiting here and said you were innocent. "If this had happened in Italy, it all would have gone down differently because it would have been in your country where you know the language and legal system and have a support system."

    I'm sorry you are so defensive that you can't see that. But it just seems sort of obvious to me. If this happened to you, you'd know what to do. You'd know if the police were overstepping their bounds and if they weren't. You'd know if they were leading you to say something you shouldn't because you'd get all the nuances of the language. You could call family/friends and they could get you a lawyer and come down to the police station and make demands on your behalf. If you were here in the US, you'd have none of that. You'd be at a disadvantage automatically even if our system of justice was the greatest in the world! (Which some people think it is.) But great or not, you'd be at a disadvantage because it's not YOUR system in YOUR language and you'd have limited resources too.

    Dershowitz has been demonstrating his idiocy on a regular basis for a long time now. He likes to get his name in the papers and weighs in with controversial statements on all sorts of cases. He's not one whose opinion I tend to respect because I don't find him to be someone who weighs in with a thoughtful nuanced opinion but something self-aggrandizing and designed to provoke. That's true even when he's right about whatever he's saying. This case is not the first time I've found his statements to be idiotic. And being a Harvard Law Professor just means he's smart. You can be smart and still be an idiot.

    I really don't care what the press says and haven't read a lot of press on the subject. I've read the description of some of the evidence and as soon as they said they found Guede's DNA and other physical evidence that he was involved in the crime but nothing of Amanda or her boyfriend's, I considered that the rest didn't matter.

    There just isn't any reasonable explanation for how she could have killed a girl and managed to clean up only her own presence like that. The entire case falls apart based on that alone. That kind of clean-up only happens in the movies and books. All the other stuff -- how she did or didn't act, whether her face is or isn't pretty, if she hired a PR agency and how good they are or aren't, who she did or did not accuse (which I find despicable, btw, that she accused someone else not knowing if they were innocent or guilty), whether or not she's a good person, what the law is in this country or that, how the police did or did not interrogate her .... it's now all irrelevant.

    (Not only that but, from what I can tell, she was very likely high or drunk or both that night which makes it even more impossible that she was able to do this miraculous clean-up that a lay person couldn't do and an expert would have a lot of trouble doing as well.)

    Btw, it's proofs. Proof is a noun, prove is a verb. Yes, English sucks. ;)
     
  2. DAngel

    DAngel Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Messages:
    711
    Have you ever pondered that maybe if the news media had been fairer to Amanda Knox, maybe her family wouldn't have to hire "one of the best PR agencies in the US"?
     
  3. Peaches LaTour

    Peaches LaTour Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,216
    The U.S., government should stand by Amanda and tell Italy that enough is enough. Despite the differences in our legal systems, Italy had their chance and ultimately they let her go. End of story, IMO.
     
  4. Peaches LaTour

    Peaches LaTour Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,216
    And what country doesn't have some major screw-ups within their legal system?
     
  5. IceAlisa

    IceAlisa Épaulement!!!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    30,746
    That was my point.
     
  6. duane

    duane New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,173
    The police don't have to inform a person that he/she is a suspect, and are free to ask questions before an arrest. The police do have to inform the person that the questioning is voluntary, and that he/she is free to leave at any time. This is different from Miranda Rights.
     
  7. Skittl1321

    Skittl1321 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    11,538
    Perhaps this varies by state, or I may have just been wrong. I have always been told the police must inform you if you are being questioned as a suspect. If you are being detained, and not free to leave if Rights haven't been read to them, evidence collected is generally not considered admissible, unless they can prove they would have access to it without the questioning. As you say- no matter who they question, they still have to tell them it is voluntary.


    The one thing I do know, is no matter what, don't tell anything to a police officer about a crime without a lawyer present, even if you had no involvement at all. It is too hard for even a completely honest person to tell the same story the exact same way every time. Name, date of birth, state of residence, and that's it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2013
  8. Cheylana

    Cheylana Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,933
    Correct -- Miranda rights are guaranteed by the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution.

    If a police officer questions you while you are in custody, then they must read you the Miranda rights. Custody doesn't just mean placed under arrest. It means any circumstance in which a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. Usually bringing someone to the police station for questioning will be considered "in custody" by the courts. Asking someone a couple of questions on the street generally will not be considered "in custody."

    If you are not properly Mirandized, then statements you make during such questioning are not admissible as evidence during a criminal trial. Sometimes, as you say, evidence collected based on statements made when in custody and not properly Mirandized can also get thrown out, as it is "fruits of the poisonous tree."
     
  9. duane

    duane New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,173
    A person only needs to be Mirandized when in police custody. Being in 'police custody' means you are under arrest. With Miranda, you have the right not to talk to the police, but being in police custody, you don't have the right to leave. If you are not under arrest--meaning you are not in police custody--you have the right not to talk and the right to leave at anytime.
     
  10. BigB08822

    BigB08822 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Messages:
    20,770
    Did anyone watch the interview tonight with Diane Sawyer? I was hoping for something more in depth although it was nice to hear from Amanda directly. I don't feel like I learned anything new, necessarily. I find myself getting angry with the Kercher family. I wish I didn't because I should feel badly for them but I feel they are on a witch hunt and they want Amanda to pay whether she committed the crime or not. I feel they would want as many people as possible to be locked up if they could convince a jury. It seems like most of it stems from anger that Amanda received all the attention and not Meredith and that must have been frustrating but it most certainly was not Amanda's fault. I am thinking of going and getting Amanda's book tomorrow. I wish they had asked Amanda if she will go to Italy for the trial (I am sure she will say no) and what she would do if she is found guilty again.
     
  11. Judge Dred

    Judge Dred New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2012
    Messages:
    89
    The Kercher family lost their daughter! Brutally murdered.

    The Italian authorities are responsible for finding those responsible. If they feel that there is enough evidence to warrant a retrial, then Knox should be retried. If it had been a member of your family who was murdered, you would expect nothing less.
     
    Buzz and (deleted member) like this.
  12. BigB08822

    BigB08822 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Messages:
    20,770
    And it appears that it can't be proven that Amanda murdered Meredith but they will just keep on trying...
     
  13. BigB08822

    BigB08822 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Messages:
    20,770
    You bring up an interesting point. Is there new evidence? Has Italy said they have a reason to start this retrial OTHER THAN hoping to get one that sticks this time? If they have new evidence then I will be interested in hearing about it when the trial begins, otherwise it continues to feel like a witch hunt to save face.

    I do feel bad for the Kercher family but you can't force someone to be guilty, they either did it or they didn't. Trying someone over and over again wont solve a thing.
     
  14. ks777

    ks777 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,727
    I am on the west coast so haven't watched it yet.
     
  15. duane

    duane New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,173
    True justice is when the actual murderer is tried and convicted, and all the evidence points towards the guy who is sitting in prison for her murder. The focus of the Kercher family should be getting the decision to reduce Guede's sentence overturned.
     
  16. ks777

    ks777 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,727
    ITA.
     
  17. *Jen*

    *Jen* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    11,561
    I think the issue is that the first trial was clearly full of procedural errors. That alone is enough for a retrial. You're totally missing the other side of the issue. A retrial could categorically and without a doubt CLEAR Amanda. The American media seems to be so focused on the idea that it's all a witch hunt, they're not looking at the silver lining.

    Why? The aren't the ones who caused the new trial. They're just the people who lost their daughter in the most brutal way imaginable, and the man convicted of it still says that Amanda and Rafaele were involved. Why shouldn't they be allowed another trial, free from procedural errors and tainted evidence?
     
    Buzz and (deleted member) like this.
  18. haribobo

    haribobo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,562
    Yes! Although has the Kercher family said anything about Amanda specifically, or just that they are welcoming a retrial? It doesn't bother me if they just want another trial to flesh out there truth- it only bothers me if they are saying they want it because they think Amanda is guilty, which at this point would be ridiculous to say.

     
    Last edited: May 1, 2013
  19. merrywidow

    merrywidow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Messages:
    4,442
    In American law how many times can a person be retried for the same crime?
     
  20. michiruwater

    michiruwater Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    Messages:
    9,210
    In American law you cannot be retried for the same crime because of double jeopardy. But I thought the last time someone asked that someone else pointed out that this isn't quite the same thing? Not sure.
     
  21. BigB08822

    BigB08822 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Messages:
    20,770
    I think the loophole is that Amanda was released because of lack of evidence to convict but she was not actually found innocent. Is that right? So the Italian courts can retry the case since she has not been found to be innocent yet.
     
  22. *Jen*

    *Jen* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    11,561
    I could be wrong, but I think it's all different levels of appeal. The highest court/final appeal has overturned the acquittal, so in the Italian system they retry completely as the final appeal. I think.

    As for the Kerchers: some things to remember. While Amanda has a $4 million book detail (which she may well deserve), they weren't able to afford the trip to Italy for the trial - they only saw parts of it. IIRC they weren't able to be there when the Knox/Sollecito convictions were overturned. All they know is that it was a trial marred with errors and a lot of it hashed out between US media depicting Amanda as a wronged victim while the British media painted her as a she-devil. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle - there's no evidence she was involved in the murder, but she was young and didn't know how to react and behaved inappropriately which caused some suspicion...mainly because she pointed the finger at some completely innocent guy. She admits now it was wrong, but the Amanda of then was no angel.

    Then we have Rudy Guede, who confessed but still insists the others were involved. Implicating them reduced his own sentence, so it's suspicious to begin with. Finally, the forensic evidence doesn't match up.

    The result is an epic cock up for all involved. Yes, it's painful for Amanda, but she at least has the comfort of knowing the truth about what happened regardless of what any court says. The Kerchers don't have that. All they have is the hope that this trial will finally bring them some closure, without mistakes about DNA or the weapon.
     
  23. Vash01

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

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2001
    Messages:
    26,061
    That's a good perspective on the situation, particularly the last paragraph. Also Amanda is safely home with her family. Kercher's family can never become whole. I feel sympathy for both sides.
     
  24. duane

    duane New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,173
    Not initially. He claimed he found some unknown man over Meredith with a knife, they wrestled, but the guy got away. Once Amanda and Rafaele were accused, Guede then joined the bandwagon.

    But regardless, DNA doesn't lie. As I said before, the focus of the Kercher family should be getting Guede's reduced sentenced overturned. Reportedly, he'll be up for parole in 2016!!
     
  25. BigB08822

    BigB08822 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Messages:
    20,770
    As was said on the interview last night, the $4 million book deal is going to just cover all the expenses Amanda's family has incurred paying for her defense and mortgaging everything to death to afford all the trips to Italy. I am sure the Kercher's wanted to be at the trial in Italy but it isn't as if Amanda is running off as a millionaire after all of this. Even if she did, if she is indeed innocent then I could care less if she is set for life, she already paid a big enough price for something she didn't do.
     
  26. Lacey

    Lacey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    8,770
    Does Amanda have to return to Italy for the trial, does she want to, is it mandatory?
     
  27. BigB08822

    BigB08822 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Messages:
    20,770
    She is not required to be at the trial and even if Italy did require attendance they would almost surely be unable to have the U.S. extradite her.
     
  28. *Jen*

    *Jen* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    11,561
    Not quite. When she was released her family said they spent $1 million, and the advance alone is worth $4 million. Saying now that she's not making money from it is probably just to cover the criticism. I know her legal fees will rise with the new trial, but it won't be more than another $1 million and the $4m is the advance - she will probably make more money from it.

    And yes, if she is innocent - so what? She deserves it.

    The point, however, has nothing to do with what you or I think of the money. The point is what the Kerchers think of it - they lost their daughter and couldn't afford to go to the trial so you can see how they might not see the justice in that. From their point of view, there is no way that Amanda has suffered more than that family. She had a 4 year ordeal and is now free since she can't be forced to go back there for the trial and the US is unlikely to extradite her. Meredith's family have got a life of wondering what the hell happened to their daughter. There's no multi million dollar book deal, currently no closure, and no end to their pain, so I can see why they would want a new trial.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2013
  29. OliviaPug

    OliviaPug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2002
    Messages:
    2,267
    It's not a matter of comparing the suffering.

    Of course the Kerchers will feel anything that Amanda does is unjust if they believe her to be guilty.

    Since Amanda's family believes her to be innocent, of course they feel like their and Amanda's suffering is unjust, and that they should take advantage of an opportunity to alleviate that suffering, at least from the financial end. Ditto re Amanda, if she knows herself to be innocent.

    This situation is awful. Convicting the wrong person doesn't make it any better. The Italian authorities made an awful situation even worse with their shoddy investigation.

    No one wins here.

    O-
     
    mag and (deleted member) like this.