Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 89
  1. #21

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    12,788
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    35722
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob View Post
    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.
    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.)

  2. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,713
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob View Post
    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.
    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 by loulou; 03-27-2013 at 01:40 PM.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,195
    vCash
    400
    Rep Power
    33486
    Quote Originally Posted by Angelskates View Post
    The purpose of a trial is not to give closure, it's to get justice.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angelskates View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angelskates View Post
    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.
    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.

  4. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Age
    25
    Posts
    9,108
    vCash
    1529
    Rep Power
    0
    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?

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    with the traditionless
    Posts
    5,620
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    8583
    Quote Originally Posted by michiruwater View Post
    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?

    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.
    What would Jenny do?

  6. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,709
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Angelskates View Post
    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.)
    They have a proof that Guede wasn't alone? I just don't see any motives for Amanda and her boyfriend to kill Meredith.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,887
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    90270
    Quote Originally Posted by ks777 View Post
    They have a proof that Guede wasn't alone? I just don't see any motives for Amanda and her boyfriend to kill Meredith.
    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.
    A good rant is cathartic. Ranting is what keeps me sane. They always come from a different place. Take the prime minister, for example. Sometimes when I rant about him, I am angry; other times, I am just severely annoyed - it's an important distinction. - Rick Mercer

  8. #28
    Internet Beyotch
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    15,830
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    24455
    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    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".


    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by michiruwater View Post
    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?
    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.
    Actual bumper sticker series: Jesus is my co-pilot. Satan is my financial advisor. Budha is my therapist. L. Ron Hubbard owes me $50.

  9. #29
    Port de bras!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Ravenclaw
    Posts
    30,125
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    34921
    Quote Originally Posted by michiruwater View Post
    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?

    What I thought was strange was this:
    "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".
    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?
    "Nature is a damp, inconvenient sort of place where birds and animals wander about uncooked."

    from Speedy Death

  10. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    11,015
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by IceAlisa View Post
    Casey Anthony gave false evidence, implicated an innocent nanny and got off.
    In a different country.

  11. #31
    Port de bras!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Ravenclaw
    Posts
    30,125
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    34921
    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    In a different country.
    Right, Dershowitz was making a point that Knox would have likely been convicted here. I didn't copy the question.
    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".
    I was making the point that someone in a very high profile US case did.
    "Nature is a damp, inconvenient sort of place where birds and animals wander about uncooked."

    from Speedy Death

  12. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    11,015
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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.

  13. #33
    Port de bras!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Ravenclaw
    Posts
    30,125
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    34921
    I don't know. The US police have mismanaged their own share of cases in their own way.
    Last edited by IceAlisa; 03-27-2013 at 05:31 PM.
    "Nature is a damp, inconvenient sort of place where birds and animals wander about uncooked."

    from Speedy Death

  14. #34

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Not after the same people as Theatregirl
    Posts
    21,935
    vCash
    350
    Rep Power
    38410
    Quote Originally Posted by michiruwater View Post
    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?
    The jury I was on convicted a guy of murder based mostly on circumstantial evidence. And I had no doubts going into deliberate.

  15. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,173
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    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!!"

  16. #36
    Prick Admin
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Having a kiki
    Posts
    42,405
    vCash
    506
    Rep Power
    25736
    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.

  17. #37
    Internet Beyotch
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    15,830
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    24455
    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. 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.
    Actual bumper sticker series: Jesus is my co-pilot. Satan is my financial advisor. Budha is my therapist. L. Ron Hubbard owes me $50.

  18. #38

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Home in England!!
    Posts
    2,477
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1014
    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.

  19. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,713
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ks777 View Post
    They have a proof that Guede wasn't alone?
    Well, yes they do: it's Guede's sentence.


    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame View Post


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


    Quote Originally Posted by IceAlisa View Post
    What I thought was strange was this:
    Casey Anthony gave false evidence (was it a confession?), implicated an innocent nanny and got off.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by IceAlisa View Post
    Does the Italian legal system set any limit on the amount of trials one can have?
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    I don't think she would have been interoggated in the same manner in the United States, for one.
    What manner?


    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame View Post
    I'm not sure it did, allezfred. I certainly never read that from her.
    I did.


    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame View Post
    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. And I think Meredith's family has decided she's guilty and will only be satisfied with a guilty verdict.
    You have decided too: when you say above that the evidences don't hold up, you imply what the verdict should be.


    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame View Post
    Not to mention Dershowitz is an idiot if he thinks that her implicating someone else is proof of ANYTHING.
    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.

  20. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    11,015
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    What manner?
    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.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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
  •