Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 89
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    24,950
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    91441
    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    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.
    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.

  2. #42
    Internet Beyotch
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    15,804
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    23556
    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    Where does your knowledge about the evidences and the Italian law come from?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    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.
    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.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    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.
    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.
    Actual bumper sticker series: Jesus is my co-pilot. Satan is my financial advisor. Budha is my therapist. L. Ron Hubbard owes me $50.

  3. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    11,012
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame View Post
    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.
    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.

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    2,218
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    5633
    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    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.
    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-

  5. #45
    Port de bras!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Ravenclaw
    Posts
    30,106
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    33169
    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame View Post
    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.
    Oh yes, now I remember. This whole "selective DNA cleanup" thing is a very compelling argument against her guilt.
    "Nature is a damp, inconvenient sort of place where birds and animals wander about uncooked."

    from Speedy Death

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Infected with the joy of skating!!
    Posts
    10,540
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    14026
    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.
    Keeper of Nathalie Pechelat's bitchface.

  7. #47
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,173
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame View Post
    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.
    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.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Infected with the joy of skating!!
    Posts
    10,540
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    14026
    Apparently there was a knife found in Sollecito's apartment with a small amount of Meredith's DNA on it. That is probably the most compelling evidence.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/op...f=global&_r=1&
    Keeper of Nathalie Pechelat's bitchface.

  9. #49

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    10,724
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    33043
    Quote Originally Posted by Coco View Post
    Apparently there was a knife found in Sollecito's apartment with a small amount of Meredith's DNA on it. That is probably the most compelling evidence.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/op...f=global&_r=1&
    From that article:
    One of the major pieces of evidence was a knife collected from Mr. Sollecito’s apartment, which according to a forensic scientist contained a tiny trace of DNA from the victim. Even though the identification of the DNA sample with Ms. Kercher seemed clear, there was too little genetic material to obtain a fully reliable result — at least back in 2007.

    By the time Ms. Knox’s appeal was decided in 2011, however, techniques had advanced sufficiently to make a retest of the knife possible, and the prosecution asked the judge to have one done. But he refused. His reasoning? If the scientific community recognizes that a test on so small a sample cannot establish identity beyond a reasonable doubt, he explained, then neither could a second test on an even smaller sample.
    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.
    Lady 2: there isn't anything about me on goooogle, I mean, I must take it off if there is.....
    Lady 3: The google is a terrible thing, I mean I don't want anything on there! (Overheard by millyskate on a London train.)

  10. #50
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,705
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    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.
    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    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.
    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    It has also been reported she was slapped several times during the interogation. I don't know whether that would happen here or not.
    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by OliviaPug View Post
    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.)
    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 by loulou; 03-28-2013 at 10:28 AM.

  11. #51
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,705
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame View Post
    My knowledge of the evidence comes from what came out at the public trials.
    I didn't know you were there.


    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame View Post
    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.
    Your opinion is she should be sentenced not guilty. Which can't be possibly decided but according to Italian law.


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


    Quote Originally Posted by MacMadame View Post
    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.
    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 by loulou; 03-28-2013 at 02:14 PM.

  12. #52
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    11,012
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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?
    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.

    In the US do they read Miranda Rights wehn they arrest you, or also whenever they question you?
    Knox was questioned before being arrested.
    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 by Skittl1321; 03-28-2013 at 12:30 PM.

  13. #53
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,705
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    People are mistreated here too, and I never said they weren't.
    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 by loulou; 03-28-2013 at 02:09 PM. Reason: I make so many mistakes, I'm really sorry for the trouble to read through them

  14. #54
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    11,012
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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.

  15. #55
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,705
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    If a person is questioned without a lawyer before arrest, anything collected from that questioning CANNOT be presented in court.
    Can anyone confirm this?


    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    And if it is shown they did not understand the interrogation due to the language barrier, the evidence is often not admissible either.
    If. I think Knox had every opportunity to do so, according to Italian law. She didn't lack representation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    I'm standing by use of the word mistreated. I think it is perfectly appropriate.

    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.
    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.

  16. #56
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    11,012
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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 by Skittl1321; 03-28-2013 at 03:07 PM.

  17. #57
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,708
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    I didn't know you were there.
    You don't need to be there to know what's on the record.

  18. #58

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    2,218
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    5633
    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    In the US do they read Miranda Rights wehn they arrest you, or also whenever they question you?
    Knox was questioned before being arrested.
    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-

  19. #59
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,173
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    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.

  20. #60
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    11,012
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    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.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •