No, in the court of fashion and style there is no appeal. It is first impression only.
If you want to be creative, get out there and do it. It's not a waste of time" - Michael Giacchino, UP
Fashion police has already said they smell of grunge.
from Speedy Death
I live in the Seattle area...
from Speedy Death
from Speedy Death
When Knox made her initial statements, investigations did not have suspects and had not taken turns yet. So the police could have never indicated Lumumba as a suspect (there's proof of the proceding of the investigation).
Knox, talking to the police, indicated Lumumba as the killer and placed herself in the house while the crime was occurring.
The lie about Lumumba however is not an issue in her murder conviction.
As I understand it, in placing herself in the house while (supposedly) Lumumba was killink Kercher, Knox described precisely in detail what happened to the victim: so far no one has been able to explain logically and convincingly how she could have known what she described, hadn't she been there.
This is one of the 14 issues of the appeal trial sentence that the Supreme Court raised flags on, for not being legally and/or logically sound.
After talking to the police, Knox, while completely alone, decided to write her statements down, in her own nice hand writing, and then proceded to give the papers to the police.
Later on, she repeated the same statements during a conversation she had with her mother, while the two of them thought they had privacy.
The interrogation was not recorded, but Knox hand writing is still there, and so is the conversation she had with her mother.
There's a good reason for that: in a country heavily corrupted and allergic to rules, statute of limitation together with long procedures and overloaded courts, keep out of jail anyone with money. It's legalized anarchy.
This case is taking too long? Probably.
But please note the difference between burocracy and judging skills.
Italian judges are very good at their job; writer Saviano (author of Gomorra) said more than once that they are asked for their expertise from all over the world, for their experience and their skills.
Also, this happens to be a case that, for its relevance (young victim, young possible offenders, media attention, US diplomacy attention, money, lawyers involved) will not result in a light conviction, nor a conviction that comes from incompetence.
On the contrary, if anything, the overall scenario (for reasons I've already pointed out) suggests that if there's a way to let the two of them go without breaking work ethics, judges will gladly take it.
I believe that people in italian jails awaiting her sentences are more than a third of the entire jail population. It's orrible, but they mean it to be that way.
Every so often, they cry jail overpopulation (completely true), but instead of acting on the causes of the problem, they decide to release a number of people listing a number of crimes that will benefit grace. Each time, crimes in the list include white collar ones, and simply delete any justice trouble for important and wealthy people (from politicians to bankers), that have never served a day.
There should be international awareness about the italian justice huge problems, and there should be international pressure to solve them. There isn't much, go figure.
In any case, none of the travesties above will inflence Knox sentence: judges, as I said, are generally good, and will pay extra attention to this case.
Loulou, do you think that we will ever, really, feel that justice has been served? It seems that the Italian court has an impossible situation, in this case. There is so much contradiction. First a wild drug and sex party gone wrong. Now, an escalated argument over housework and toilet flushing. The crime scene, itself, was badly botched. There is no DNA to prove Knox or Sollecito were there during the murder. Knox'x behavior, after the murder, was bizarre, at best. The cartwheels, etc. She came across as a spoiled, out of control American. Even many americans saw her that way. She was judged, by many, on her perceived personality, rather than facts. They have DNA proof that Guede did it. What would be the motive for two kids, with no prior acts of violence, to participate? I realize that you are saying that she gave up Lumumba before multiple interrogations occurred. But, did they have her cell phone? It is my understanding that Lumumba's name came up due to texts on her cell phone. Was she really there? That is a huge question. And if she was there, was she involved? She admitted that she had been doing drugs that night, the police asked her to imagine what happened. Could her story be simply that, a fabrication, asked for by the police? I don't recall reading anything about her describing, in detail, exactly what happened to Kercher. But, rather, what she imagined happened. Was she accurate? If she was not in the room, but was there and covered her ears to the screams, how could she know what happened in the room? I do not question the competence of the Italian criminal courts. But, the back and forth, the changes in the story, the lack of real evidence all suggest that they really don't know what to do with this one. If the conviction is held up, there will be people who will never believe she did it. If she is exonerated, there will be people who think she got away with murder. As has already been said, no one wins, either way.
Grunge was the first and only time I ever was fashionable. Bring it on.Fashion police has already said they smell of grunge.
Then you can decide if the rules (as a whole) are unjust, and/or if they weren't followed.
Did you know that in italian trials, defendants can take the stand, make free statements and then refuse cross examination?
Sollecito did so in this last appeal.
You can rest reassured though: a troup of lawyers and diplomats is looking over Knox best interest.
I have reason to believe human rights are shaky ground in Russia or China.
I have reason to believe kids in some parts of Africa are dying even if they could be saved.
I have reson to believe having lobbies outside of politician rooms aren't helping the best interest of a country.
I have, however, no good reason to believe that Knox sentence will not be just, as I said: as just as humanly possible.
Because nothing in the scenario suggests it.
I have no reason to believe the judges are incompetent. No reason to believe they'll convict her if the science represents that scenario as impossible, no reason to believe they'll convict her if there's doubt, no reason to believe Knox is not well represented, no reason to believe she'll exploit every possible defense line and no reason to believe she'll be carefully heard.
I think it's pointless and harmuful to get into details. We'll never have the full picture, or the expertise to understand it, much less form an opinion.
Details are used to drive opinions, because you can stress some and conviniently ignore others. And while judges probably work best without a ton of pressure on their shoulders, rather than their compelling work ethics, Knox's best interest is to inflame the US people as much as possible, so that political and diplomatical actions will have to take it into account.
Last edited by loulou; 02-02-2014 at 07:30 PM.
^^ I agree with you, loulou. But, what I meant was do you think that people will ever really believe that justice was done? As I said, whichever way it goes, there will be large groups who feel the decision was unjust. We see it right here, in this thread. I feel confident that there are many, here who will feel she was unjustly convicted if the conviction holds. And I feel confident that there are those who will feel it unjust if she is exonerated. In that sense, it is a no win situation, for Kerchers, Knox, Sollecito, and the Italian courts. That is part of what I meant when I said the court is in an impossible situation. I believe the courts and judges are capable of evaluating evidence. But, the evidence seems so screwed up, and public opinion, so strong, can the court come out of this with people believing they were just?
And, if she is held to guilty, what does the US do? We do have extradition agreements with Italy. Because of the original guilty verdict, the US double jeopardy law will not apply. The US will have no legal reason not to extradite. When the US wants criminals extradited to the US, for punishment of crimes, we are loud and insistent. I don't see how the US could not comply and extradite.
Innocent people make false confessions while undergoing custodial investigations, especially when the investigation is prolonged and certain basic principles of human rights (such as access to an attorney and, if a foreigner, access to consular assistance) are not followed.
A few good examples of when this has happened are the Salem Witch Trials (which inspired The Crucible) and the cases of the Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven (which inspired In the Name of the Father. One of the reasons why the U.S. was criticized for waterboarding was that the people subjected to it said things that weren't true simply to stop the torture.
I don't think Amanda Knox should be blamed for having lied in custody. Who knows how each of us would have done under the circumstances? I am, however, appalled by the fact that the Italians prosecuted and convicted her for, essentially, being a victim of human rights abuses. What justification could there be for it, other than to discredit her and distract attention from their own actions?
Vagabond, I think a lot of this goes to the prosecutor, himself. Hadn't he been indicted for something, prior to the Knox trial? I don't condemn the entire Italian judicial system. But, something is very wrong here, for reasons you and many others have stated.
I wonder why Knox's interrogations were not recorded. Deliberate?