Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 89
  1. #61
    Internet Beyotch
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    15,806
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    23556
    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    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?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    Yes, there are a number of reasons why the Harvard Law professor might be a complete idiot as you said.
    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.

    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?
    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.)

    you valued the proves,
    Btw, it's proofs. Proof is a noun, prove is a verb. Yes, English sucks.
    Actual bumper sticker series: Jesus is my co-pilot. Satan is my financial advisor. Budha is my therapist. L. Ron Hubbard owes me $50.

  2. #62
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    656
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    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?
    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. #63
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    California Dreaming....
    Posts
    1,209
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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. #64
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    California Dreaming....
    Posts
    1,209
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by IceAlisa View Post
    I don't know. The US police have mismanaged their own share of cases in their own way.
    And what country doesn't have some major screw-ups within their legal system?

  5. #65
    Port de bras!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Ravenclaw
    Posts
    30,111
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    33169
    Quote Originally Posted by Peaches LaTour View Post
    And what country doesn't have some major screw-ups within their legal system?
    That was my point.
    "Nature is a damp, inconvenient sort of place where birds and animals wander about uncooked."

    from Speedy Death

  6. #66
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,173
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    If a person is being questioned as a suspect, police are supposed to inform them of that and read them their rights.
    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. #67
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    11,012
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by duane View Post
    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.
    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 by Skittl1321; 03-28-2013 at 10:07 PM.

  8. #68

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    NY/NJ
    Posts
    4,924
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    32055
    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    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.
    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."
    "Marge, if you're going to get mad at me every time I do something stupid, then I guess I'm just going to have to stop doing stupid things!" - Homer Simpson in the Mr. Plow episode

  9. #69
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,173
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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. #70

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Top Secret FSU Witness Protection Location
    Age
    31
    Posts
    20,716
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    33350
    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.
    -Brian
    "Michelle would never be caught with sausage grease staining her Vera Wang." - rfisher

  11. #71
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    89
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BigB08822 View Post
    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.
    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.

  12. #72

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Top Secret FSU Witness Protection Location
    Age
    31
    Posts
    20,716
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    33350
    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post

    The light slapping Amanda accused of the police can't be proven, and both sides would have reasons to lie.
    And it appears that it can't be proven that Amanda murdered Meredith but they will just keep on trying...
    -Brian
    "Michelle would never be caught with sausage grease staining her Vera Wang." - rfisher

  13. #73

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Top Secret FSU Witness Protection Location
    Age
    31
    Posts
    20,716
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    33350
    Quote Originally Posted by Judge Dred View Post
    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.
    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.
    -Brian
    "Michelle would never be caught with sausage grease staining her Vera Wang." - rfisher

  14. #74
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,708
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I am on the west coast so haven't watched it yet.

  15. #75
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,173
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Judge Dred View Post
    The Kercher family lost their daughter! Brutally murdered.
    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. #76
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,708
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by duane View Post
    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.
    ITA.

  17. #77

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    11,437
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    4286
    Quote Originally Posted by BigB08822 View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by duane View Post
    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.
    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?
    One day your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching.

  18. #78

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Age
    33
    Posts
    6,547
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    975
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by duane View Post
    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.
    Last edited by haribobo; 05-01-2013 at 11:30 AM.

  19. #79
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    4,392
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    In American law how many times can a person be retried for the same crime?

  20. #80
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Age
    25
    Posts
    9,105
    vCash
    1529
    Rep Power
    0
    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.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •