Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by Vash01, Jan 30, 2014.
Would love to hear answers to these. But mostly I am fixated on the DNA. Those damn biology classes!
I've said I don't know if Amanda is guilty or not. I have not seen the entire transcripts, nor would I be able to apply Italy's laws to the situation. But...
Let's look at the scenarios:
1. Amanda is guilty. She served 3+ years in jail, while awaiting appeals. Her conviction is overturned and she leaves Italy. If she is guilty, she has only served a portion of what the sentence would be. And is most likely not going to be sent back to Italy to face the re-trial or whatever it is called. It is Amanda who benefits from the "mistrial of justice",
2. Amanda is not guilty, yet served 3+ years in jail. travesty of justice for Amanda.
But the Kerchers are victim in all scenarios. And they are not able to talk to, hold their daughter no matter what. Amanda's parents are.
I don't get the need to compare tragedies here.
I don't have 100% faith in ANY legal system. They all have miscarriages of justice at times. I'm rather surprised you do as normally you are quite cynical.
I should hope people would feel free to point out injustice when they see it. Just because something happens according the rules doesn't mean it can't be unjust. The very rules may be unjust.
ita, just because they are linked, i see no need to argue over who suffered more.
Never said it did. But I'm not going to have too much sympathy for someone who falsely accuses another of a crime as serious as murder. If Patrick Lumumba did not have an alibi, he could have been serving time in an Italian prison and Amanda Knox and the American media wouldn't give a crap about that miscarriage of justice. Bad enough that he spent two weeks in custody.
But again, if Knox didn't commit the murder, how would she know if she was falsely accusing someone or not? The police were looking for someone of African heritage from the very beginning of the investigation after they found hairs from the attacker in Meredith's hands. They latched onto Lumumba because of his text message exchange with Knox about work scheduling. Is it not possible Knox was just trusting the police when they told her they knew he was the killer? Of course it was terrible that happened to him and he was a victim too, but even without an alibi he would have been released in the same manner that he actually was - when it was proved that massive amount of physical evidence left at the crime scene matched Guede, not him.
Different country, different rules, different judges, different lawyers.....same essential issue. Was justice served?
I'm sure it was, as it was confusing for me, too.
A defendant is tried and convicted of criminal charges.
The defendant's lawyer can file an appeal, citing some sort of judicial error in the trial. The prosecution cannot appeal a not guilty verdict.
An appeals court takes the argument on judicial error and reviews the trial; the prosecution and defense both get to make arguments about the judicial issue (not the entire trial). The appeals court can:
*Reject the appeal--no finding if prejudicial error
*Reverse the conviction completely--something very wrong happened during the trial; the defendant goes free
*Reverse and remand--throw out the conviction and order a new trial
If the defendant believes that the appeals court made a judicial error in their decision, there are other appeals, but they work the same way--there is no new trial, but a review of the trial and the legal issues involved.
No one has any contributions to make about the evidence? I find criminal cases very interesting--there is always conflicting evidence, always the element of coincidence, and there is often doubt about what occurred. I'm not interested in bashing Italy's legal system; I think it's interesting to look at evidence--and not just in criminal cases. That's what really interests me about argument and rhetoric--what is the evidence? What part of it is persuasive and what part is not? How do you take that evidence and create a coherent argument out of it?
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/28/w...n=Feed: rss/cnn_topstories (RSS: Top Stories)
This is from the Daily Fail, however it was the only interview with Patrick Lumumba, I could find.
So it's pretty clear that the reason he was arrested was because Knox told the police that he committed the murder. Don't know why you are defending her baldfaced lies that she is on record as having made.
Maybe she was coerced? You have to remember she was just a teenager who was living in a foreign country at the time. Amanda Knox was interrogated for 8 hours. Overnight. Without food or water. In a police station. In a foreign country. In a foreign language. By a dozen different officers. Without being allowed a lawyer
In the five days after the murder of Meredith Kercher, Amanda Knox was interrogated by detectives for 43 hours. Think about that for a minute. That’s not a number in dispute. 43 hours of sitting at a table being badgered by questions from detectives in five days. 8 hours a day for an entire work week. In a foreign country. In a foreign language.
As Allezfred has said - she did lie, and she has admitted to lying and apologised for it in interviews (although apparently not in person to Lamumba).
It could well be that an immature 19 year old who made some bad choices found herself in a situation she didn't fully comprehend, being interviewed in a foreign country about a murder that had taken place in her house, panicked and implicated someone just so she could get out of the interview. Or, she could have been there after all and lied to save herself. I don't know. The point is she DID lie, and knowingly, but I think she's served her time for that. Why she lied only she knows.
I agree. I just find that certain people on this thread, and on the previous FSU thread at the time of the appeal, and on comments on news articles (which I should never read because they make me lose faith in humanity ), believe that the Kerchers are bitterly refusing an obvious truth that Knox and Sollecito are innocent and have more sympathy for the falsely accused. Except that doesn't seem to be the case at all - Stephanie Kercher said they want the whole truth so they can draw a line under it and try to rebuild their lives.
I agree with you, there are no winners in this.
I don't know that anyone is defending her lie. And I think we all agree that Lumumba was treated horribly, and should never have been detained. He was a victim. I think several of us are simply asking how the lie happened. Did she volunteer the information, did she offer Lumumba up as the killer. Or did the police put that suggestion in her head by asking her to imagine it was him and describe the scene? A deliberate, bald faced lie is worse than a panicked, confused, manipulated, statement.
Jen, I agree there are and never will be winners here. A life was lost and many others changed forever.
There have been a lot of news stories lately of people being in jail due to coerced confessions here in the US, at least in my news feeds. I think that weighs on people more than it might have at another time when it wasn't so much in our consciousness. Just like there is some science behind the idea that we can't know if someone is a liar just by looking at them (re: the link posted here), there is also a lot of science about how to get someone to tell you the story you want to hear (also detailed in some links posted here, I believe). It's really easy to mess with a human's memory.
I think that knowledge is coloring how people are reacting to Knox' lie. It certainly makes it more understandable to some.
I also somewhat discount some of the more dramatic statements. Such as "she's never apologized to me." Maybe she has and Lumumba isn't willing to forgive her and so won't admit it publicly. Maybe her lawyers told her not to for some obscure legal reason that makes sense if you understand the law. Maybe she hasn't because she's a bitch. Who knows? It seems irrelevant to me when it comes to her guilt on the murder. Being a horrible, spoiled brat who tells lies doesn't make you a murderer. And some murderers are actually quite pleasant people when they aren't stabbing you to death.
The other thing that I find mystifying is the whole idea that (a) she's obviously guilty because she's pretty and a sexpot or (b) she's obviously not guilty because she's a pretty white American. Maybe it's just me but I don't think she's pretty AT ALL. I think she's kind of a dog in looks. (And I agree with Sharpie that her current haircut is a bit tragic.) I don't get why those Italian police officers think she was so full of sex either. To me that makes THEM kind of creepy and says pretty much nothing about her because it doesn't really seem to be about her but about their own ideas of womanhood.
LOL. I haven't met any murderers so I had no idea.
Don't forget, she "smelled of sex" per one of the Italian police officers present on the scene.
ITA, the officers' observations seemed creepy to me as well, just as much as the prosecutor's allegation of a violent sex ritual without evidence of such. I do, however, think she is attractive but the new haircut is fug. Must be evidence of something, not sure what.
Often their friends and neighbors say this about them. Don't you read any True Crime or watch it on tv?
I actually met someone at a party who had just been released from jail after killing someone. He was originally in there for manslaughter but on appeal got out by successfully arguing it was self-defense. So technically he wasn't a murderer. But it sure didn't seem like self-defense to me. (It was a bar fight but after the fight was over, he went out to his car and got a baseball bat and chased the guy down and based him to death. Shudder.) Anyway, he was a lot of fun and if he hadn't told me his history, I never would have guessed.
I also dated a guy for a short time whose brother was in the Trenton Home for the Criminally Insane for being a serial killer. I never met the brother but people said he was the sweetest guy. He was mentally ill and he had tried to get help before he killed the girl he got caught for killing and couldn't get anyone in the mental health industry to help him. Doesn't change the fact he electrocuted a bunch of young girls though.
It's evidence that Seattle is not a hotbed of fashion. Or something.
Guilty as charged
Will Seattle be allowed to appeal?
And appeal and have another trial, rinse, repeat. This HAS to be one of those exceptions to double jeopardy.
you can only have so much circumstantial evidence before you have to assume it is true
No, in the court of fashion and style there is no appeal. It is first impression only.
Fashion police has already said they smell of grunge.
I live in the Seattle area...
Smells like Teen Spirit to me.
Well, it's not like I live in the fashion capital of the world
Is that you?
Hell to the no.
LOL, I was gonna ask if you were Amish.
Separate names with a comma.