Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Amanda Knox retrial begins

Options
1…2021232526

Comments

  • Options
    #662
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,415 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    Cianmcliam wrote: »
    If the confession was obtained illegally it could not have been used in the case for incriminating Patrick.
    A wonderful piece of sleight of hand that wouldn't have happened in any other jurisdiction.
    Cianmcliam wrote: »
    The Supreme Court ruled on this before her trial, her first confession was made while she was a witness and witness statements that are self-incriminating could not be admitted. Her second confession at 5:45 was made after she had become a suspect but as she didn't have representation it was inadmissible in either case. Her handwritten note (where she sows suspicion on Sollecito saying he had blood on his hands at his apartment) was admissable for all cases.
    All of them contradictory and all without the benefit of a lawyer's advice.

    Whatever about a nineteen year old foreigner not knowing the languiage properly and not understanding the gravity of her situation, the police had to have known all of this. Yet they proceeded to unlawfully obtain self-incriminating statements up to and beyond the point when a prosecutor was present and a confession was being typed up. A prosecutor who is known for questioning and threatening people without due process and placing false charges against them.

    Without transcripts or recording devices. All of which are normal procedures and have been for decades. This was 2007. Not the 1960s.


  • Options
    #663
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,415 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    Means Of Escape wrote: »
    No it's not
    She was not formally charged until she was deemed a suspect
    The police garnered enough information from their initial interview to move her from a witness to a suspect
    In her naievity she refused a lawyer
    The core of the content of what she said despite no lawyer present affirms that she was integral to the case and knew a lot more than she ever admitted following that first conversation.
    And they deemed all this without telling her and without giving her the benefit of a lawyer.

    "Refusing a lawyer" is not an acceptable excuse for depriving somebody of their rights. It's so easy to make that statement with nothing to gainsay it.


  • Options
    #664
    Means Of Escape
    Registered Users Posts: 1,897 ✭✭✭Means Of Escape


    CMOTDibbler wrote: »
    And they deemed all this without telling her and without giving her the benefit of a lawyer.

    "Refusing a lawyer" is not an acceptable excuse for depriving somebody of their rights. It's so easy to make that statement with nothing to gainsay it.

    And a suspect refusing a lawyer is a definitive showing of innocence ?

    As an intelligent person she would have realised that anything she said would be used against her .
    Would she not have contacted her father to alert him to the situation and been told to seek legal representation ?
    You are stating that the police shoehorned her statements into a case where she classed as a prime suspect ?
    What got her into the jam she found herself in were the inconsistencies in her statements , the lies she told and their belief that she was being very frugal with the truth tegardjng her whereabouts at the time of the murder
    Had she a lawyer present they would still have moved her from a witness to a suspect regardless of whether he/she instructed Knox not to answer any questions put to her during that interview.


  • Options
    #665
    Lingua Franca
    Registered Users Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭Lingua Franca


    Hi there Means Of Escape, would you mind answering these please?
    Lingua Franca wrote: »
    Ok, I was just wondering why you said the motive was the same as the reason that Homolka 'murdered' her sister. Since that death was actually accidental and incidental to the crime they were committing (they'd drugged and raped her before and presumably hoped to do so again) it makes no sense as an analogy. Had you compared it to the later, deliberate murders they committed I'd have got it.

    ...it's back in court? Do you have a link for that?

    and
    Lingua Franca wrote: »
    He pled guilty upfront and has served his sentence. Why on earth would he go seeking a retrial?

    Where are you getting your news on all these new court cases from?


    Can you tell us what you know about these new court cases?


  • Options
    #666
    Harvey Normal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 750 ✭✭✭Harvey Normal


    Means Of Escape wrote: »
    And a suspect refusing a lawyer is a definitive showing of innocence ?

    As an intelligent person she would have realised that anything she said would be used against her .
    Would she not have contacted her father to alert him to the situation and been told to seek legal representation ?
    You are stating that the police shoehorned her statements into a case where she classed as a prime suspect ?
    What got her into the jam she found herself in were the inconsistencies in her statements , the lies she told and their belief that she was being very frugal with the truth tegardjng her whereabouts at the time of the murder
    Had she a lawyer present they would still have moved her from a witness to a suspect regardless of whether he/she instructed Knox not to answer any questions put to her during that interview.

    They got the confession they wanted. If a lawyer has been present they wouldn't have badgered her to that extent.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #667
    Means Of Escape
    Registered Users Posts: 1,897 ✭✭✭Means Of Escape


    Lingua Franca wrote: »
    Hi there Means Of Escape, would you mind answering these please?



    and




    Can you tell us what you know about these new court cases?

    This is a thread resurrected from 3 years ago
    Everything posted here is pure conjecture
    The case is closed


  • Options
    #668
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,237 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    I've read lengthy back and forth discussions on other forums about this case that have raged on for years through the various checkpoints.

    Neither side is listening to the other. I have always felt the 'Knox is guilty' side are intoxicated by the tabloid elements of the case, and bolstered to the point of certainty from the first guilty verdict. A lengthy and thorough legal opinion of guilt remains a strong crutch from which to argue for the rest of time. The development of evidence and final conclusion has never mattered to that side. They had their guilty verdict and they've stuck rigidly to that since then.

    - an attractive young woman
    - of above average means
    - liberal sexually
    - with Internet blogs that were indicative of that liberal attitude to sex and drugs
    - and striking features

    committing a brutal murder of another attractive young woman is dream land for scumbag tabloid journalists. Indeed the aforementioned Netflix documentary lays that bare.

    Then you add in a conspiracy angle - i.e. the notion that the final judgement was politically motivated to avoid an awkward extradition question - and those on the guilty side are simply never going to let this go.

    The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. A man broke into a house and committed sexual assault and murder. A stupid young girl aroused suspicion in the Italian police who convicted her in their minds and then engaged in a massive exercise of confirmation bias. Amanda Knox was guilty of being a dislikeable and feckless young person, no more. She paid way way over the odds for that.


  • Options
    #669
    Means Of Escape
    Registered Users Posts: 1,897 ✭✭✭Means Of Escape


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    I've read lengthy back and forth discussions on other forums about this case that have raged on for years through the various checkpoints of this case.

    Neither side is listening to the other. I have always felt the 'Knox is guilty' side are intoxicated by the tabloid elements of the case, and bolstered to the point of certainty from the first guilty verdict. A lengthy and thorough legal opinion of guilt remains a strong crutch from which to argue for the rest of time. The rest has never mattered to that side. They had their guilty verdict and they've stuck rigidly to that since then.

    - an attractive young woman
    - of above average means
    - liberal sexually
    - with Internet blogs that were indicative of that liberal attitude to sex and drugs
    - and striking features

    committing a brutal murder of another attractive young woman is dream land for scumbag tabloid journalists. Indeed the aforementioned Netflix documentary lays that bare.

    Then you add in a conspiracy angle - i.e. the notion that the final judgement was politically motivated to avoid an awkward extradition question - and those on the guilty side are simply never going to let this go.

    The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. A man broke into a house and committed sexual assault and murder and a stupid young girl aroused suspicion in the Italian police who then engaged in a massive exercise of confirmation bias. Amanda Knox was guilty of being a dislikeable and feckless young person. She paid way way over the odds for that.

    Very valid points and can't be denied
    Most do not believe that she was the individual who murdeeed Kercher and would not have deserved a 20 odd stretch
    The tabloids were in a feeding frenzy to sell papers and this most certainly condemned her and her boyfriend
    She did pay a very high price for her naievity and most of the blame for this was a result of ineptitude on the part of the police force as seen in the Mc Cann case
    What does not sit well with people and the Kercher family is that through obfuscation and deceit on her part the true events were not forthcoming

    If they had Guede would still be be behind bars .
    That would have been justice for Meredith who has been forgotten in this whole sordid affair .


  • Options
    #670
    captbarnacles
    Registered Users Posts: 1,972 ✭✭✭captbarnacles


    A rapist and killer served less than 10 years in jail for his crimes. Not only did the Italian legal system punish Knox but they also punished the Kercher family.

    Also, it is likely Guede will reoffend given the nature of his crimes and the escalation from petty thief to murderer and that will be on them too.


  • Options
    #671
    Cianmcliam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 715 ✭✭✭Cianmcliam


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    I've read lengthy back and forth discussions on other forums about this case that have raged on for years through the various checkpoints of this case.

    Neither side is listening to the other. I have always felt the 'Knox is guilty' side are intoxicated by the tabloid elements of the case, and bolstered to the point of certainty from the first guilty verdict. A lengthy and thorough legal opinion of guilt remains a strong crutch from which to argue for the rest of time. The rest has never mattered to that side. They had their guilty verdict and they've stuck rigidly to that since then.

    - an attractive young woman
    - of above average means
    - liberal sexually
    - with Internet blogs that were indicative of that liberal attitude to sex and drugs
    - and striking features

    committing a brutal murder of another attractive young woman is dream land for scumbag tabloid journalists. Indeed the aforementioned Netflix documentary lays that bare.

    Then you add in a conspiracy angle - i.e. the notion that the final judgement was politically motivated to avoid an awkward extradition question - and those on the guilty side are simply never going to let this go.

    The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. A man broke into a house and committed sexual assault and murder and a stupid young girl aroused suspicion in the Italian police who then engaged in a massive exercise of confirmation bias. Amanda Knox was guilty of being a dislikeable and feckless young person. She paid way way over the odds for that.

    Yes the press were all over it like a rash, that does not indicate anything about whether a person is guilty or not. Nor does the 'simplest explanation'.

    The fact is there have been about 14 separate judgements on this case from the initial hearings to the appeals lodged by Guede, Sollecito and Knox. Only one has said Guede acted alone, the Hellman verdict which the Supreme Court totally savaged in response. All of the other judgements maintained all three acted together, apart from the fifth chambers of the Supreme Court that does not usually rule on murder cases. Even that judgement considers it proven that Knox was in the house on the night of the murder and Guede did not stage the burglary.

    On the other hand, you have US based blogs, the largest PR firm in Seattle, Knox's parents and biased journalists who could all take advantage of the fact that the proceedings were in another language.

    So yes, your point is totally proven.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #672
    Harvey Normal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 750 ✭✭✭Harvey Normal


    Cianmcliam wrote: »
    Yes the press were all over it like a rash, that does not indicate anything about whether a person is guilty or not. Nor does the 'simplest explanation'.

    The fact is there have been about 14 separate judgements on this case from the initial hearings to the appeals lodged by Guede, Sollecito and Knox. Only one has said Guede acted alone, the Hellman verdict which the Supreme Court totally savaged in response. All of the other judgements maintained all three acted together, apart from the fifth chambers of the Supreme Court that does not usually rule on murder cases. Even that judgement considers it proven that Knox was in the house on the night of the murder and Guede did not stage the burglary.

    On the other hand, you have US based blogs, the largest PR firm in Seattle, Knox's parents and biased journalists who could all take advantage of the fact that the proceedings were in another language.

    So yes, your point is totally proven.

    I don't think even the most ardent fantasist would argue that the Italian justice system covered itself in glory in any of the trials.

    Nothing to do with pro or anti Americanism - I'm anti American (in terms of its foreign policy) but believe Knox to be innocent. As for biased newspapers, because the murder involved a British citizen it was the British press who led the monstering of Knox and its from them that most people who think her guilty get their information.


  • Options
    #673
    Means Of Escape
    Registered Users Posts: 1,897 ✭✭✭Means Of Escape


    Sadly Guede was probably introduced to Kercher by the two as its not beyond the bounds of possibility that he provided them with the hash
    I doubt that it was the first time the miscreant was in the residence


  • Options
    #674
    brickmauser
    Registered Users Posts: 403 ✭✭brickmauser


    Means Of Escape wrote: »
    No it's not
    She was not formally charged until she was deemed a suspect
    The police garnered enough information from their initial interview to move her from a witness to a suspect
    In her naievity she refused a lawyer
    The core of the content of what she said despite no lawyer present affirms that she was integral to the case and knew a lot more than she ever admitted following that first conversation.

    The girl had little or no sleep was under incredible stress traumatized exhausted frightened and a naïve 20 year old with poor Italian. She had been intoxicated with dope on the night of the murder so she had a poor memory of events. Sollecito was also intoxicated on dope that night so it was easy to sow doubt in his head that she had been there all night. Once Sollecito was badgered into admitting he couldn't know for sure Knox did not leave during the night this suddenly became a "fact."
    A child who is blamed in the wrong by a teacher or parent will start to believe they actually did it.
    Knox was a very childish young woman so when confronted by cops screaming in her face is there any surprise she caved in and signed a confession?
    The same happened with the Guilford 4 and Birmingham 6 and Maguire 7
    They were badgered into admitting guilt and signed false confessions.


  • Options
    #675
    Lavinia
    Registered Users Posts: 8,089 ✭✭✭Lavinia


    just watching this documentary, one thing is this british "journalist" who is getting an oraga*m from having "a story for front pages" (even in his own words), geez it is disgusting.

    the other thing is that - not sure why - but i cannot believe a word from this A.K. person. just whatever she say sounds like a lie...


  • Options
    #676
    brickmauser
    Registered Users Posts: 403 ✭✭brickmauser


    Means Of Escape wrote: »
    Time served to date by Knox would have satisfied any manslaughter conviction anyway with good behaviour if she was complicit
    It is agreed that Guede was the main perpetrator of the crime but I do not believe that both were oblivious to what transpired in that room and knew nothing about it .

    On what evidence?
    No evidence whatsoever puts them at the house.
    None.
    They weren't there.


  • Options
    #677
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    brickmauser wrote: »
    On what evidence?
    No evidence whatsoever puts them at the house.
    None.
    They weren't there.

    Is there evidence to prove they were at Sollectio's house on the night?


  • Options
    #678
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,415 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    anna080 wrote: »
    Is there evidence to prove they were at Sollectio's house on the night?
    There was some circumstantial evidence such as a movie downloaded, but their phones were off or out of coverage (not that that would be concrete evidence either way anyway).

    The only question worth asking though, is why would they need to go back to her house? They were in the early stages of a relationship and by all accounts were besotted with each other, so it's a question that was never really addressed (apart from the obvious need to prove that they wanted to something, something, murder Kercher).


  • Options
    #679
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    So really there's as little evidence to prove that they were at Sollectio's house as there is to prove they were in Amanda's house on the night, but people are adamant that they were not at Amanda's because there is no proof and they were at Sollectio's watching a movie. Hmmm.


  • Options
    #680
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,316 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    anna080 wrote: »
    So really there's as little evidence to prove that they were at Sollectio's house as there is to prove they were in Amanda's house on the night, but people are adamant that they were not at Amanda's because there is no proof and they were at Sollectio's watching a movie. Hmmm.


    If there is no proof that they were at Amandas house then there is no proof they were involved in the murder. I would have thought that is the salient point.


  • Options
    #681
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,415 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    anna080 wrote: »
    So really there's as little evidence to prove that they were at Sollectio's house as there is to prove they were in Amanda's house on the night, but people are adamant that they were not at Amanda's because there is no proof and they were at Sollectio's watching a movie. Hmmm.
    No. People are not adament about either. There's nothing to prove it either way. The test for a succesful prosecution is to prove something beyond reasonable doubt. That's been the cornerstone of criminal law for a very long time.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #682
    retro:electro
    Registered Users Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    CMOTDibbler wrote: »
    No. People are not adament about either. There's nothing to prove it either way. The test for a succesful prosecution is to prove something beyond reasonable doubt. That's been the cornerstone of criminal law for a very long time.

    I'm not disputing what you're saying. But the same people who are disputing Amanda's presence in her home that night are placing her in the house of Sollectio when there is as little evidence to argue that she was there as there is to prove she was with Meredith.


  • Options
    #683
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,415 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    anna080 wrote: »
    I'm not disputing what you're saying. But the same people who are disputing Amanda's presence in her home that night are placing her in the house of Sollectio when there is as little evidence to argue that she was there as there is to prove she was with Meredith.
    I've just gone back a few pages and there's nobody making that suggestion definitively or otherwise.

    You asked was there any evidence that she was at Sollecito's house and nobody so far has said that there was.

    Not sure where you've got that from. Perhaps you could quote the post(s)?


  • Options
    #684
    Lingua Franca
    Registered Users Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭Lingua Franca


    Means Of Escape wrote: »
    This is a thread resurrected from 3 years ago
    Everything posted here is pure conjecture
    The case is closed

    Indeed, but I wasn't quoting three year old posts. You posted on the 6th of this month
    Means Of Escape wrote: »
    The reason why it's back in court is because there are unresolved issues in the case and that the Keecher family and many others believe that justice has not been served

    It's not back in court. The case is closed. And you said on the same day
    Means Of Escape wrote: »
    Possible that Guede made a plea bargain for information he had and this will be used in retrial as new evidence that allows said retrial

    He pled guilty and he has completed most of his sentence. He won't be seeking a retrial. The case is closed.

    In a thread where people are examining evidence to try to establish facts these are odd and easily disprovable statements.


  • Options
    #685
    brickmauser
    Registered Users Posts: 403 ✭✭brickmauser


    anna080 wrote: »
    Is there evidence to prove they were at Sollectio's house on the night?

    The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove they were at the cottage and they killed Kercher.

    They had NO evidence.

    Sollecito's computer log shows the couple downloaded and watched a movie at the time of the murder.


  • Options
    #686
    brickmauser
    Registered Users Posts: 403 ✭✭brickmauser


    anna080 wrote: »
    I'm not disputing what you're saying. But the same people who are disputing Amanda's presence in her home that night are placing her in the house of Sollectio when there is as little evidence to argue that she was there as there is to prove she was with Meredith.

    Once you accept that there is no evidence of Knox and Sollecito killing Kercher then what reason is there to doubt they were telling the truth. A film was downloaded and watched on their laptop that night which supports their story. The last time their phones were on was about 8 when they switched them off and the phones were not switched on til 6 the following morning. Nobody saw them outside the house where Sollecito lived.
    So you must assume their story that they had dinner watched a movie smoked dope had sex took a shower together and went to bed together is true.
    The presence of Geude in Kercher's bedroom is supported by a mountain of evidence.
    He clearly broke in was surprised by Kercher and he sexually assaulted her and then cut her throat.
    If Knox was there he presumably would have killed her too.

    The prosecution would have us believe a girl whose only run in with the law previously was for hosting a loud party in Seattle was a violent psychopathic murderer? A girl with no history of violence of any kind who worked three jobs to save up to go to Italy and whose only vice was her casual attitude to sex and smoking dope?
    Her only disagreement with Kercher was over house cleaning chores and leaving a skid mark after she used the toilet.
    We are supposed to believe she convinced a guy she only knew 6 days to join forces with another man involved in petty crime who they had never met before to take part in the rape and murder of her room mate?
    There is absolutely zero evidence that Rudy Geude knew Knox and Sollecito. She only met him twice when he briefly visited the guys who lived downstairs and a second time when he bought a drink in Le Chic where she worked as a waitress.

    The entire case against Knox and Sollecito was thrown out because it is utter BS


  • Options
    #687
    Means Of Escape
    Registered Users Posts: 1,897 ✭✭✭Means Of Escape


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    If there is no proof that they were at Amandas house then there is no proof they were involved in the murder. I would have thought that is the salient point.

    Surely Knox must have been in Kerchers room many times prior to the murder to converse with Kercher and left hair/skin samples etc so how was there no DNA found at all after the murder ?


  • Options
    #688
    Means Of Escape
    Registered Users Posts: 1,897 ✭✭✭Means Of Escape


    brickmauser wrote: »
    The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove they were at the cottage and they killed Kercher.

    They had NO evidence.

    Sollecito's computer log shows the couple downloaded and watched a movie at the time of the murder.

    He may be exceptionally clever !!
    I can download a movie and head off into town .
    I may never have watched it .


  • Options
    #689
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    Means Of Escape wrote: »
    He may be exceptionally clever !!
    I can download a movie and head off into town .
    I may never have watched it .

    It doesn't matter. There was no evidence there were with Meredith when she died.

    The burden of proof is on the prosecutor and they had no proof. That's how the legal system works in most countries.


  • Options
    #690
    Cianmcliam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 715 ✭✭✭Cianmcliam


    Means Of Escape wrote: »
    Surely Knox must have been in Kerchers room many times prior to the murder to converse with Kercher and left hair/skin samples etc so how was there no DNA found at all after the murder ?

    Even stranger, the room that Filomena was living in, with the fake burglary, had no DNA traces of Filomena herself even though she used it constantly. The only places they found Amanda's DNA was mixed with Meredith's blood in footsteps or where she scrubbed blood off and on a cigarette butt.

    This makes the Supreme Court decision to find Amanda not guilty of the murder despite being present in the house even more bizarre. It sets a very dangerous and illogical precedent that unless your DNA is found in the exact location of a crime, you didn't commit it, even if the sum of the other evidence points to that exact conclusion. If someone can live in a small room for months and yet not be detected through DNA sampling then this decision cannot stand.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #691
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,415 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    Cianmcliam wrote: »
    Even stranger, the room that Filomena was living in, with the fake burglary, had no DNA traces of Filomena herself even though she used it constantly. The only places they found Amanda's DNA was mixed with Meredith's blood in footsteps or where she scrubbed blood off and on a cigarette butt.

    This makes the Supreme Court decision to find Amanda not guilty of the murder despite being present in the house even more bizarre. It sets a very dangerous and illogical precedent that unless your DNA is found in the exact location of a crime, you didn't commit it, even if the sum of the other evidence points to that exact conclusion. If someone can live in a small room for months and yet not be detected through DNA sampling then this decision cannot stand.
    That is an unbelievable stretch. In effect you're saying that not finding any evidence is evidence of a crime?

    You find DNA by looking for it. They looked at exactly three items in Filomena's room: The window, the rock and a bloodstain. They weren't likely to find Filomena's DNA on those.


Advertisement