Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 234
  1. #61
    Loving on babies!
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Twin heaven!
    Posts
    11,724
    vCash
    1570
    Rep Power
    41476
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayra View Post

    I feel about Amanda Knox much the same way I feel about OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony and John Zimmerman in the states. Guilty as feck but benefiting from lack of forensic evidence, bungled police involvement, shitty prosecution and a good defense team.
    I think you mean George Zimmerman. I doubt that John Zimmerman has been on trial for murder...
    I am free of all prejudices. I hate everyone equally.~W. C. Fields

  2. #62

    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    7,595
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1913
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasey View Post
    I think you mean George Zimmerman. I doubt that John Zimmerman has been on trial for murder...



  3. #63

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    2,221
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    5970
    In the U.S., convicted defendants have a right to review by an intermediate appellate court. In capital cases when a death sentence is imposed, there is a direct, automatic appeal and, of course, a stay of execution in the meantime.

    Convicted defendants can ALWAYS request an appeal. Whether or not the appellate court will grant the appeal and/or whether the appeal will be successful is quite another matter, and depends, in large part, on the grounds for appeal.

    O-

  4. #64
    Internet Beyotch
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    15,817
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    23556
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy View Post
    My point is that it didn't help her case and it didn't exactly make her look innocent.
    True. But lots of smarmy people turn out not to be murderers.

    Quote Originally Posted by poths View Post
    I'm quite confident that the Italian courts can decipher the evidence
    I'm not. For one thing, the evidence was compromised from the get-go. And there's been a massive case of CYA ever since. I doubt any court in any country could decipher the evidence now.
    Actual bumper sticker series: Jesus is my co-pilot. Satan is my financial advisor. Budha is my therapist. L. Ron Hubbard owes me $50.

  5. #65
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    17,231
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Loulou, I asked my husband, and I will try to explain as best I can. In a criminal case, you are always entitled to an appeal, if you are convicted. You appeal based on weight of evidence against verdict, conviction contrary to evidence, procedural or substantive errors. In the appeal it is decided to either uphold the decision of the lower court or to overturn it. Then the prosecutor decides if he/she will let the new decision stand or will retry the case. However, if the original trial produces a not guilty, there can never be an appeal. That would constitute double jeopardy.

  6. #66

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Driving the Han Yan Fan Van
    Posts
    9,178
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    34705
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasey View Post
    I think you mean George Zimmerman. I doubt that John Zimmerman has been on trial for murder...
    Death stare of sexiness?? It's entirely possible.
    BARK LESS. WAG MORE.

  7. #67
    Bountifully Enmeshed
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    At the Christmas Bizarre
    Posts
    38,154
    vCash
    250
    Rep Power
    46687
    Quote Originally Posted by cruisin View Post
    Loulou, I asked my husband, and I will try to explain as best I can. In a criminal case, you are always entitled to an appeal, if you are convicted. You appeal based on weight of evidence against verdict, conviction contrary to evidence, procedural or substantive errors. In the appeal it is decided to either uphold the decision of the lower court or to overturn it. Then the prosecutor decides if he/she will let the new decision stand or will retry the case. However, if the original trial produces a not guilty, there can never be an appeal. That would constitute double jeopardy.
    I think loulou's confusion stems from hearing that the case could not be appealed when the lower court found Knox not guilty if it had been held in the US.

    The prosecution cannot appeal in the US. The defense can.

    There are exceptions to the double jeopardy rule, too, so that's not entirely cut and dried, either.
    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."-- Albert Einstein.

  8. #68

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    11,438
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    4354
    Quote Originally Posted by BigB08822 View Post
    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.
    Yeah, I bet she's crying all the way to the bank Recoup is one thing, but she's made a clear fortune from this far beyond the legal fees. If she were the only one accused, that'd be something...but Rafael hasn't made that kind of cash, so once again there is a double standard.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nekatiivi View Post
    No sympathy for Kercher family anymore, their bitterness will not bring Meredith back.
    Nor will your bitterness change whether or not Knox and Sollecito were involved. I'm sorry for what you and your family went through, but I guarantee the Knox and Sollecito families are far better off than the Kerchers, who had their daughter brutally murdered. There's no end for them, ever. Assuming Amanda and Rafael are innocent, the Kerchers are still victims of the justice system as well. They've been let down by a botched investigation and questionable trial just as much as the others have. Where is their justice? At the end of the day, Amanda and Rafael are alive and their families will have more comfort in that than the Kerchers, who will only ever be able to visit their daughter and sister's grave and nothing more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zemgirl View Post
    Are Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito worse off than those "bitter" Kerchers? Especially Knox, who is in the US and can move on with her life?

    We don't know if Knox is innocent. We do, however, know that the Kerchers' loss is worse than anything that she has experienced, even if she was wrongfully convicted.
    Precisely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nekatiivi View Post
    I am sure Knox can't move on with her life at the current situation. :roll eyes:
    Why not? She's an independently wealthy young woman, walking free in her home country, and getting an education. Sounds like she has been getting on with her life. Even if the appeal upholds the convictions, she may never spend another day in prison. She has a life - that puts her in a far better position than Meredith.

    Of course what happened to Kerchers is extremely terrible but nothing will bring Meredith back. But their statements make it clear that they want Knox and Sollecito in jail even thought they are not sure if these two had nothing do with the murder. I have very little sympathy for that kind of mindset. Young life was lost in vain, why ruin two more for no reason?
    Try to put yourself in their shoes. Since 2007, they've been told that Knox and Sollecito did it. Unless the police admit they were wrong, which they haven't, what have that family got to go on? They've been let down by this as much as anyone else. Their mindset is that they believe what the police and two separate courts have told them, which is that Knox and Sollecito are guilty. If we as bystanders can't be objective, why do you expect the victim's family would be?

    They're not trying to ruin two more lives without reason; they're trying to get justice for their family. Whether or not that sense of justice is misplaced, I don't know, and neither can anyone else posting here.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching.

  9. #69
    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
    Yeah, I bet she's crying all the way to the bank Recoup is one thing, but she's made a clear fortune from this far beyond the legal fees. If she were the only one accused, that'd be something...but Rafael hasn't made that kind of cash, so once again there is a double standard.
    Just how much money has Amanda made, anyway?

    And how is it a double standard that she has made money and Rafael has not?
    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."-- Albert Einstein.

  10. #70
    Port de bras!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Ravenclaw
    Posts
    30,120
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    34026
    Yoohoo!? Legal eagles of FSU??!!

    I repeat, how do people who think Knox and boyfriend are guilty when their DNA wasn't found at the scene? And that other guy's DNA was all over, IIRC? That seems to be convincing that at least they weren't in the room, but perhaps in the house?

    I also want to see her tragic haircut.

    ETA: found the haircut--it IS tragic. Also, found this old article about facial expression and how people like to interpret what they see as the truth. We here on FSU are particularly fond of doing this, myself included.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...al-expressions

    My favorite quote:
    The eyes are not windows to the soul. They are organs for converting light into electro-magnetic impulses.
    Last edited by IceAlisa; 02-01-2014 at 12:38 AM.
    "Nature is a damp, inconvenient sort of place where birds and animals wander about uncooked."

    from Speedy Death

  11. #71

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    I Want to Go to There
    Posts
    9,825
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    38634
    Well…not surprising that some people are turning into a European v. American thing. Posters can be so predictable.

    I echo everything Coco has said in this thread. There are way too many cases of human beings saying things they think the interrogator wants to hear under intense interrogations and duress and having those statements shown to be false.
    "Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility." - Ambrose Bierce

  12. #72
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,707
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by OliviaPug View Post
    Convicted defendants can ALWAYS request an appeal. Whether or not the appellate court will grant the appeal and/or whether the appeal will be successful is quite another matter, and depends, in large part, on the grounds for appeal.
    Quote Originally Posted by cruisin View Post
    Loulou, I asked my husband, and I will try to explain as best I can. In a criminal case, you are always entitled to an appeal, if you are convicted. You appeal based on weight of evidence against verdict, conviction contrary to evidence, procedural or substantive errors. In the appeal it is decided to either uphold the decision of the lower court or to overturn it. Then the prosecutor decides if he/she will let the new decision stand or will retry the case. However, if the original trial produces a not guilty, there can never be an appeal. That would constitute double jeopardy.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    I think loulou's confusion stems from hearing that the case could not be appealed when the lower court found Knox not guilty if it had been held in the US.
    The prosecution cannot appeal in the US. The defense can.
    No. And I don't think I was ever confused, but I believe I don't make myself sufficiently clear.
    I was refferring to what OliviaPug says. I thought in the US appeal wouldn't be always granted, and, as far as I know, there was no base in Knox first trial that would have granted her an appeal in the US. Hence, she wouldn't have been free by now.

    Now I'm confused though, I don't know if appeal is always granted to the defendant.


    As far as comments about DNA and messed up evidences/investigations, I think it's hard for us to discuss.
    All we know is filterd, at best, by someone who knows how to. I believe both in the US and in the UK it is also filterd from an angle.

    Convictions can be made on strong circumstantial evidences (in the US too, I remember someone posting here they were on a jury and did it just fine).

    I have a hard time believing they would convict the two of them on strong circustantial evidence, if the scenario wasn't scientifically plausible too.
    Not in this case, there's too much behind those guys for that to happen: media attention, money, important lawyers and such a big country as the US, which is on it full weight.
    In my opinion, they are being careful, and if they can sentence not guilty without breaking work ethics, they will.
    US people always talk about Knox being pressured, but hardly see how the judges are.

    Sollecito's defence made news a few weeks ago: for the first time they asked to the judges to consider Knox and Sollecito seprately, as in not being together that night. It was reported they changed strategy because they had seen that the Supreme Court arguments on Knox initial statements left little to no room to a nice verdict, and hoped to make Sollecito's position less severe. It appears from the sentence it didn't work.

    As I understand it, but again, I don't think it's for us to understand, they are being convicted on strong circustantial evidences, which come mainly from Knox initial statements, when she falsely accused Lumumba. The scientifical part can be explained and does go with it. If it doesn't, Supreme Court will tell, with US diplomacy waiting outside the door.

    For those who say she's been forced, it appears that she made her statements three times: talking to the police, later on wrote them down while alone and then gave the sheets to the police, later again while talking to her mother thinking no one was listening (yes, it appears she told her mom Lumumba had killed Kercher).


    -- One more thing: someone asked if a defendant could lie on trial. I believe so, I believe the italian law allows a defendant to lie on trial. Witnesses can't though.
    UK lawyer Mills was convicted for lying on Berlusconi's trial to save his a$$, though then spared by statute of limitation. Mills had been bribed. When his tax people asked where the money came from, the fool wrote them a letter claiming it was Berlusconi's bribe "to cut tricky corners on stand". He must have thought they were all as filthy as he is.

  13. #73
    Bountifully Enmeshed
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    At the Christmas Bizarre
    Posts
    38,154
    vCash
    250
    Rep Power
    46687
    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    No. And I don't think I was ever confused, but I believe I don't make myself sufficiently clear.
    I was refferring to what OliviaPug says. I thought in the US appeal wouldn't be always granted, and, as far as I know, there was no base in Knox first trial that would have granted her an appeal in the US. Hence, she wouldn't have been free by now.

    Now I'm confused though, I don't know if appeal is always granted to the defendant.
    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.
    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."-- Albert Einstein.

  14. #74
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,707
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    No; appeals are only granted if there is a finding of judicial error in the initial trial.
    That makes quite a difference.
    It might suck that in Italy the prosecutor can appeal, but it must be nice to know that if you are convicted, you'll be able to read in detail why, and you'll be granted an appeal in which you'll have the chance to address your previous failures.


    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    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.
    I haven't heard anything that could weaken the first trial: as far as I know it was by the book. And I also haven't heard about new elements added later on. What I believe they did, is merely introducing different scenarios (particularly related the scientific evidences), that could plant doubts.

    But you're right: I can't say whether Knox would have been granted appeal in the US, nor anyone else can say she wouldn't have been convicted in the US.

  15. #75
    snarking for AZE
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    katbert greenhouse
    Posts
    30,170
    vCash
    2068
    Rep Power
    50062
    Quote Originally Posted by IceAlisa View Post
    Y
    I repeat, how do people who think Knox and boyfriend are guilty when their DNA wasn't found at the scene? And that other guy's DNA was all over, IIRC? That seems to be convincing that at least they weren't in the room, but perhaps in the house?

    :
    how many ignore lists are you on gurl?

    if anyone had the ability to scrub their dna out of that room, while leaving guede's - they need a CSI show.
    I feel like I'm in a dream. But it can't be a dream because there are no boy dancers!

  16. #76
    Bountifully Enmeshed
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    At the Christmas Bizarre
    Posts
    38,154
    vCash
    250
    Rep Power
    46687
    Quote Originally Posted by loulou View Post
    I haven't heard anything that could weaken the first trial: as far as I know it was by the book.
    That's the thing, though; the book would be different. A jury here might not convict on the same evidence; some evidence may or may not have been admitted; any number of things could have resulted in a different outcome.

    If they had been convicted and appealed, the success or failure of the appeal would also depend on what occurred at that specific trial.

    I think that if the trial had been held here in the US, the lack of DNA at the scene would have made it very hard for a prosecutor to get a conviction--provided that that information was allowed into the trial (one never knows)--because everyone watches CSI and jurors tend to think they know a lot about DNA evidence, much to the exasperation of both prosecutors and defense attorneys. Nearly all cases in the US are tried based on circumstantial evidence, so that by itself isn't a significant difference, but I think the DNA thing would be deadly for the prosecution here.

    And having said that, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Americans in general might overestimate their knowledge of DNA evidence, but that doesn't mean that DNA evidence or the lack thereof is not a real issue.
    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."-- Albert Einstein.

  17. #77
    Port de bras!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Ravenclaw
    Posts
    30,120
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    34026
    Quote Originally Posted by my little pony View Post
    how many ignore lists are you on gurl?
    I know Prancer doesn't have one. And she has a legal background, no?
    Quote Originally Posted by my little pony View Post
    if anyone had the ability to scrub their dna out of that room, while leaving guede's - they need a CSI show.
    They need a bloody Nobel in physiology or medicine.
    "Nature is a damp, inconvenient sort of place where birds and animals wander about uncooked."

    from Speedy Death

  18. #78
    snarking for AZE
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    katbert greenhouse
    Posts
    30,170
    vCash
    2068
    Rep Power
    50062
    prancer has all the backgrounds, remember that before you type
    I feel like I'm in a dream. But it can't be a dream because there are no boy dancers!

  19. #79
    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 know Prancer doesn't have one. And she has a legal background, no?
    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.
    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."-- Albert Einstein.

  20. #80
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Looking for cupcakes
    Posts
    30,765
    vCash
    5550
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by *Jen* View Post
    but I guarantee the Knox and Sollecito families are far better off than the Kerchers, who had their daughter brutally murdered. There's no end for them, ever. Assuming Amanda and Rafael are innocent, the Kerchers are still victims of the justice system as well. They've been let down by a botched investigation and questionable trial just as much as the others have. Where is their justice? At the end of the day, Amanda and Rafael are alive and their families will have more comfort in that than the Kerchers, who will only ever be able to visit their daughter and sister's grave and nothing more.
    I agree with this statement. The Kerchers are victims of the botched justice system. I really don't know what I think about Amanda's innocence or guilt.

Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •