Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 234
  1. #81
    Port de bras!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Ravenclaw
    Posts
    30,119
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    33169
    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    PML! I was a paralegal in business and real estate 25 years ago.

    It you want legal advice on a criminal trial issue, find a criminal lawyer. We ought to have one around here somewhere; we have several lawyers on board.
    I don't want legal advice, I want an opinion on the question of the lack of DNA of both Knox and boyfriend at the crime scene. How could they have done it? I have trouble believing in their guilt without DNA present.

    Do we have a criminal lawyer in the house?
    "Nature is a damp, inconvenient sort of place where birds and animals wander about uncooked."

    from Speedy Death

  2. #82
    Bountifully Enmeshed
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    At the Christmas Bizarre
    Posts
    38,154
    vCash
    250
    Rep Power
    46687
    Quote Originally Posted by IceAlisa View Post
    I don't want legal advice, I want an opinion on the question of the lack of DNA of both Knox and boyfriend at the crime scene. How could they have done it? I have trouble believing in their guilt without DNA present.
    But you're an American. We are rather fixated on DNA.
    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."-- Albert Einstein.

  3. #83
    Port de bras!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Ravenclaw
    Posts
    30,119
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    33169
    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    But you're an American. We are rather fixated on DNA.
    In the USSR they used to say that genetics is the sellout whore of imperialism. They said it with a straight face too.

    Is there another kind of whore that doesn't sell out?
    "Nature is a damp, inconvenient sort of place where birds and animals wander about uncooked."

    from Speedy Death

  4. #84

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Infected with the joy of skating!!
    Posts
    10,547
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    14026
    what does that even mean?
    Keeper of Nathalie Pechelat's bitchface.

  5. #85
    Port de bras!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Ravenclaw
    Posts
    30,119
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    33169
    Quote Originally Posted by Coco View Post
    what does that even mean?
    That it's not a science but an evil invention of the West, not sure about the whore part.

    So yeah, we are fixated on the DNA, should we be more fixated on how guilty she looked sitting in her boyfriend's lap?
    "Nature is a damp, inconvenient sort of place where birds and animals wander about uncooked."

    from Speedy Death

  6. #86
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Havering-atte-Bower
    Posts
    3,483
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I'm a lawyer, but have next to no experience in criminal law.

    As I understand it, the evidence is the testimony of Rudy Guede, who was convicted of Meredith Kercher's murder:

    Guede had originally said Knox had not been at the scene of the crime, but changed his story to say she had been in the apartment at the time of the murder. He said he had heard her arguing with Kercher, then glancing out of a window had seen Knox's silhouette leave the house. Three weeks after Knox and Sollecito were convicted, Guede had his prison term cut from thirty to sixteen years. A lawyer representing the Kercher family protested at a "drastic reduction" in the sentence. Guede will be eligible for release in 2014
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Guede#Rudy_Guede



    As for Raffaele Sollecito:

    The prosecutors advanced a single piece of forensic evidence linking Sollecito to Kercher's bedroom, a DNA fragment (Sollecito's Y chromosome) detected during analysis of Kercher's bra clasp, which had been cut from the strap. The clasp was visible in crime-scene video taken on 2 November when it had been found by Perugia's forensics squad who placed a marking card beside it for Stefanoni's team from Rome. Stefanoni's team only realised it had been missed 46 days later, by which time they had inadvertently moved it four feet across the room, where it was found under a rug in a pile of other items. Giulia Bongiorno, leading the defence, questioned how Sollecito's DNA could have got on the metal clasp of the bra, but not on the fabric of the bra strap from which it was torn. "How can you touch the hook without touching the cloth?" Bongiorno asked. The back strap of the bra had multiple traces of DNA belonging to Guede. During a cross-examination Bongiorno screened film of the belated recovery of the bra clasp that appeared to show Stefanoni touching the hooks of the clasp with her glove; Stefanoni admitted that, contrary to what she had said at pre-trial hearings, she may have touched the hooks. DNA evidence remained the central plank of the prosecution case against Sollecito.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_...aele_Sollecito



    I'd say he was framed and she is being convicted on the testimony of a murderer with whom she apparently had only a passing acquaintance.

    If anyone has a better theory, please share.

  7. #87
    Port de bras!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Ravenclaw
    Posts
    30,119
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    33169
    OK, so what do people who think Knox and Sollecito are guilty have to say to explain this? Thanks, Vagabond.
    "Nature is a damp, inconvenient sort of place where birds and animals wander about uncooked."

    from Speedy Death

  8. #88
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    17,212
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    These two statements don't seem to match to me. Either an appeal is always granted (to the defendant) or it isn't - I understand a defendant can always request.
    In Italy, appeal is always granted. Which is why Knox is free.
    What doesn't match? The appeal is always granted. The appeal determines the upholding or the reversal of the lower court's ruling. Then, if the decision is overturned, the prosecutor decides if he will retry the case or let it stand. There would be no reason for appeal if the person is not convicted. I am confused as to what is confusing you.



    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    No; appeals are only granted if there is a finding of judicial error in the initial trial.

    Whether or not there would have been an appeal granted in this case would have depended on the trial. I don't think you can say one way or another, given the differences in systems.
    Actually, that is not correct. Appeals are always granted in criminal cases. The appeal is where they determine whether or not there was judicial error and whether or not the lower court decision should hold. See above. Got my info from the 3 lawyers in my family.

  9. #89
    Bountifully Enmeshed
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    At the Christmas Bizarre
    Posts
    38,154
    vCash
    250
    Rep Power
    46687
    The original case against Amanda Knox (and from the BBC, so we can't be accused of using stupid Amerikan new sources): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/15036490

    I understand from reading the previously linked article that the prosecutors changed their theory on why Kercher was murdered, from some sort of sex thing that went awry to an argument over the cleanliness of the apartment. I'm not really sure where Guede came into that, but if I find it, I will post it.

    ETA: Departing from a previous motive favoured by prosecutors – that of the "sex game gone wrong" – Crini asked the court to consider that the murder had arisen from a household row over cleanliness that had been sparked by Guede's "disgusting and incongruous habit" of not flushing the toilet.

    Not sure how the entire murder would have unfolded from there or why the theory was changed, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by cruisin View Post
    What doesn't match? The appeal is always granted. The appeal determines the upholding or the reversal of the lower court's ruling. Then, if the decision is overturned, the prosecutor decides if he will retry the case or let it stand. There would be no reason for appeal if the person is not convicted. I am confused as to what is confusing you.
    Prosecutors can appeal in Italy if there is no conviction.

    Quote Originally Posted by cruisin View Post
    Actually, that is not correct. Appeals are always granted in criminal cases. The appeal is where they determine whether or not there was judicial error and whether or not the lower court decision should hold. See above. Got my info from the 3 lawyers in my family.
    Er, yes, that's true. It's just that you have to have grounds on which to appeal, so it's not always done.

    And it seems that judicial fault was found in the re-trial: Strongly critical of the Perugia appeals court's handling of the case, the cassation court alleged that there had been a litany of procedural failures: a "manifest lack of logic" here, a "bald assertion with no factual basis" there, even, at one point, "factual deductions deriving from a series of conjectures and baseless suppositions".
    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."-- Albert Einstein.

  10. #90
    Port de bras!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Ravenclaw
    Posts
    30,119
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    33169
    OK, whether it was over the unflushed toilet or a re-imagined Eyes Wide Shut is pretty irrelevant. For all I care, they were trying to implant an alien into the victim. Where is the DNA? Yup, I AM fixated on the DNA.
    "Nature is a damp, inconvenient sort of place where birds and animals wander about uncooked."

    from Speedy Death

  11. #91
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    23,859
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Just to clarify, an appeal in the US is a review of a csse--not another trial. So while a review may take place, that doesn't mean the case may be retried by another court.

    IIUC, there appears to be a guaranteed second trial in Italy, no?

  12. #92
    Bountifully Enmeshed
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    At the Christmas Bizarre
    Posts
    38,154
    vCash
    250
    Rep Power
    46687
    Quote Originally Posted by IceAlisa View Post
    OK, whether it was over the unflushed toilet or a re-imagined Eyes Wide Shut is pretty irrelevant. For all I care, they were trying to implant an alien into the victim. Where is the DNA? Yup, I AM fixated on the DNA.
    Well, perhaps those who think Knox is guilty could explain what part of the evidence they find more compelling than the lack of DNA, since apparently those people find the case against her quite strong.
    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."-- Albert Einstein.

  13. #93
    Port de bras!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Ravenclaw
    Posts
    30,119
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    33169
    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    Well, perhaps those who think Knox is guilty could explain what part of the evidence they find more compelling than the lack of DNA, since apparently those people find the case against her quite strong.
    Yes, please. I am all ears (and eyes).
    "Nature is a damp, inconvenient sort of place where birds and animals wander about uncooked."

    from Speedy Death

  14. #94
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,173
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by poths View Post
    I need to leave this thread. Moronic, sentimental, uninformed statements like those above, slightly enrage me.
    LET the door hit you on your way out. Maybe it'll knock some common sense in you.

  15. #95
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,708
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BigB08822 View Post
    And if Amanda is innocent, which many think she is (myself included), then none of that is her fault. People seem to think that Amanda should spend the rest of her life locked up in a room feeling horrible for the Kercher family. Amanda has made some bad decisions and has never been one to come across as very remorseful but if I were wrongly convicted and went through this entire mess, I might have a hard time being too remorseful for anyone else as well. It is horrible that the Kercher died but it is also horrible that a young girl has had her life ruined. As for the $$$, why shouldn't she make money while she can? Her family spent millions defending her and getting her out of that country and going to visit when she was in prison. She is trying her best to recoup that. She knows more trials are to come and those aren't going to be free. She needs to make all the money she can.
    ITA. Also Amanda's parents are said to be broke after spending all of their savings.

  16. #96

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    11,437
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    4354
    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    Just how much money has Amanda made, anyway?

    And how is it a double standard that she has made money and Rafael has not?
    I believe the book deal alone was $4 million, no idea about other appearances.

    AS fr the double standard: it isn't. I just think it's pretty unfair if Sollecito ends up in prison and she doesn't, but they're both convicted. She's also ended up with a source of income that he hasn't. I guess basically, I think he is worse off than she is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vagabond View Post
    I'd say he was framed and she is being convicted on the testimony of a murderer with whom she apparently had only a passing acquaintance.

    If anyone has a better theory, please share.
    I pretty much agree with this. I was surprised they were found guilty again, and astounded that so much weight has been placed on the evidence of a self-confessed and convicted murderer who had his sentence reduced for implicating others. That rings loud alarms bells for me.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching.

  17. #97
    Bountifully Enmeshed
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    At the Christmas Bizarre
    Posts
    38,154
    vCash
    250
    Rep Power
    46687
    Quote Originally Posted by *Jen* View Post
    I believe the book deal alone was $4 million, no idea about other appearances.
    Considering her legal fees, I have no trouble believing that she isn't rolling in money at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by *Jen* View Post
    AS fr the double standard: it isn't. I just think it's pretty unfair if Sollecito ends up in prison and she doesn't, but they're both convicted. She's also ended up with a source of income that he hasn't. I guess basically, I think he is worse off than she is.
    What happened to his book?

    Quote Originally Posted by IceAlisa View Post
    OK, whether it was over the unflushed toilet or a re-imagined Eyes Wide Shut is pretty irrelevant.
    Hmm, I don't think it is because I wonder why the prosecution's theory changed. Did Guede change his story (again)? I just find it bizarre that the first time, they were all having sex and now it's that they were having an argument that escalated. That's a real switch; what was it based on?

    Also, the appeals court seemed to think it was significant that the court did not consider the issue of Guede being convicted of murder committed along with others. That's not a sentence I'm familiar with; how was the conclusion reached? I read that the prosecutor said that it was impossible for one person to have committed the murder. Why was that?
    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."-- Albert Einstein.

  18. #98
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    'Me so ashamed of my English'
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,016
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I'm a lawyer, quotes Wikipedia,

    Quote Originally Posted by Vagabond View Post
    I'm a lawyer, but have next to no experience in criminal law.

    As I understand it, the evidence is the testimony of Rudy Guede, who was convicted of Meredith Kercher's murder:



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Guede#Rudy_Guede



    As for Raffaele Sollecito:



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_...aele_Sollecito



    I'd say he was framed and she is being convicted on the testimony of a murderer with whom she apparently had only a passing acquaintance.

    If anyone has a better theory, please share.

  19. #99
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Turzynbaeva is the new Gedevanishvili
    Posts
    8,468
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by poths View Post
    I'm a lawyer, quotes Wikipedia,
    A lot of lawyers contribute to Wiki.

  20. #100
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    'Me so ashamed of my English'
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,016
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    Well, perhaps those who think Knox is guilty could explain what part of the evidence they find more compelling than the lack of DNA, since apparently those people find the case against her quite strong.
    With all due respect, Prancer, the issue is not that I can interpret the evidence differently but rather, that my own ego is not so inflated that I believe myself to be more informed, intelligent or competent than the Italian legal system.

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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
  •