Discussion in 'Amanda Knox' started by wasnt_me, Jan 9, 2012.
Why can't both be true? Have you been to the police station?
Book sales are not going well and Amanda just doesn't seem to understand the importance of remaining silent duriing an ongoing criminal prosecution.
"Not only have American sales of Waiting to be Heard fallen far short of expectation – only 36,000 copes have sold from an announced initial print run of 750,000 – but any hopes for a global bestseller have evaporated."
"Meanwhile there are at least six outstanding cases or complaints in the Italian courts and at least two more being drafted by incensed Perugia officials who read online – or via Italian media accounts - what Knox had written in her book. Some of those complaints are defamation - alleging her remarks have damaged reputations - but there are also calumny cases, in which Knox is charged with having accused someone else of a crime."
There are over 7 billion people in the world.
All of us - including you and me - at some time will either act badly, act in someway that others disprove of or do something that some people will think inappropriate.
What does that have to do with anything?????
Again we come back, over and over and over and over again - to the same thing: there is no evidence against Amanda - so it must be her shifty eyes or something that someone doesn't like that makes her a murderer - whether she is or isn't.
There's no reason to argue with that type of thinking. It's not logical, not relevant and it doesn't have anything to do with criminal justice. It's just bashing. ...I personally stopped doing that in the first grade (when my father kicked my butt for it). Sure others still do it - but that's not anyone else's problem but the person who does it.
As for Wendy Murphy, I don't know her, never listened to her, don't read anything she might write, and don't see any relevance to the evidence in this case. If a personality wants to believe that a person is guilty because they say so - well - that's their prerogative. Mine is to care whether an innocent person's life is being destroyed by clearly false allegations.
"Millions of supporters" and only 36,000 books sold. Something is wrong here.
The topic was Knox's tv performances. She doesn't come across as an honest innocent person. Nobody said this has anything to do with the evidence.
There is a legal argument that Knox is guilty of murder and she was convicted. Although that verdict is still under appeal, there is evidence that she is guilty.
I felt very uncomfortable watching her interview. I don't know what it was about her that caused me to feel uncomfortable ... perhaps it was that she was fully scripted, perhaps it was that she was so emotional ... hard to say. If others picked up on that uncomfortable sense, then many people will run from her and her book.
Not sure why you are comparing a bomb attack to a knife attack. There is no self defense possible against a bomb attack. I can find plenty of cases where a person tried to defend themselves against a knife. It is not logical to think that due to shock Meredith would stand there and let herself being stabbed. The evidence of the strangling and the scream witnesses show that she wasn't in shock and screamed. I don't know where you get the idea Meredith was on all fours.
No idea. I don't agree with that either. Massei went out of his way in showing that the murder was not premeditated. The evidence shows that the kitchen knife was used in the murder so it must have gotten there somehow.
None of that would have ruled out a single attacker. You need direct evidence to rule something out, like a video recording. Guede tried that line of reasoning because you can't rule out that he wasn't involved in the murder, but the evidence shows how unlikely that is so he was convicted. I gave 5 quotes from the judges explaining how improbable a single attacker is. It makes no sense to keep repeating you can't rule something out.
Well, aside from the fact that some people don't' like her and she kissed her boyfriend and did some type of exercise - what exactly is the evidence against her?
According to the first trial - she confessed: without a lawyer, in a language she didn't speak, in an interrogation that by law has to be taped but wasn't, prior to any DNA or print evidence analysis, and allegedly after being told by investigators that she was really suffering from amnesia from shock and had to believe their version of the crime until she was able to remember. She recanted the confession right after she was given a chance to sleep There is not a court anywhere in North America that would even look at that and call it evidence.
There was a reason she was acquitted. It wasn't just that 2 judges and a jury were celebrating national Italian Acquittal day.
The supreme courts decision to overturn the acquittal is a common format of Italian justice - not a commentary on guilt or innocence.
In the Canadian Justice system (and I believe this is true also for America) - an acquittal is final. You can't retry a person unless there is new evidence. It's called "double jeopardy".
Italy also has a "double jeopardy" rule - but a system that works beyond and around it, by not actualizing the original conviction until all appeals and re-appeals are concluded.
What happened here - in this case - is difficult to understand if you don't read up a bit on the Italian justice system. It's so completely different.
The Supreme Court can overturn an appeal decision:
1. Because there was a technical issue with the appeal case (standard)
2. Because there was a problem with the original verdict.
What's so utterly different is that #2 is used as a reason to retry with no new evidence, and the prosecutor can request #2 if a subsequent appeal didn't fall in his favor.
While the court hasn't published the reason for overturning it - they did order a new original trial, which is generally understood as meaning the prosecutor requested that the original guilty verdict be rejected so that he could retry it.
This particular prosecutor has already been convicted and appealed and had the original conviction overturned and moved to a different jurisdiction for a new trial - so it's not something new or unheard of in Italy. It's just confusing for the rest of the democratic world who have no similar system to relate to.
Basically this - the new trial does not mean there is some evidence of guilt. Just that the prosecutor wants another crack at doing the first case over again and Italy permits that.
US law is different from law in most countries, including England, Australia, Canada and Western Europe. Knox has been found guilty and her case is currently under appeal. It's not over until it's over, regardless of US law and opinions that it should be applied in Italy.
The case of Guy Paul Morin informs the reader about double jeopardy in Canada. Similar to Italy, the prosecution can appeal any verdict based on arguments of law. Canadian law, in this case, is the same as Italian law ... both are based on Roman Law.
"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes provisions such as section 11(h) prohibiting double jeopardy. However, this prohibition applies only after an accused person has been "finally" convicted or acquitted. Canadian law allows the prosecution to appeal from an acquittal. If the acquittal is thrown out, the new trial is not considered to be double jeopardy because the first trial and its judgment would have been annulled." (Ref: wikipedia)
Knox's appeal decision has been annulled, so today ... only the conviction stands and it is under appeal.
You are incorrect.
Unlike the US (and it's constitution) - Canadian law is not based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - AT ALL. Nor is it based on Roman law.
It's a mix of primarily English Common law and French (France) legislative law.
All of which have distinct commonalities with the framework of criminal law found in democratic countries around the world - including the US.
In the Guy Morin case, the acquittal was successfully appealed because, like in any justice system, there was an absolute error in the trial. Had there been no trial errors - the acquittal would stand whether it was just or not.
This bear absolutely NO relationship to what happened in Italy.
In Italy the original guilty verdict (which is NEVER final until all appeals and all appeal levels are complete) was laid aside because the Prosecutor did not accept the decision in the appeal trial.
In Canada and the US and other countries - if there was an error in the appeal trial - the APPEAL TRIAL would be retried - not the original one.
The original conviction of Amanda does NOT stand and it is NOT under appeal. The entire original trial is being retried fresh - as if the first one didn't happen - because the prosecutor didn't agree with the acquittal of a higher court. If you think that's difficult to understand - it's not unusual. The European Union routinely critisizes Italy for their odd and drawn out system of criminal justice. The only way an accused person can get through their life (without bankrupcy from legal fees of multiple, ongoing, never ending series of trials and retrials) is to plead guilty. "Innocent" is not for the faint of heart.
That's a pretty huge difference.
Since the acquitall has been annulled (essentially wiped from the books), the only thing left standing is the guilty verdict, which has not been annulled. The appeal of the guilty verdict will be repeated ... the trial will not be repeated.
""The acquittal of Amanda Knox in the Meredith Kercher murder case was a "violation of the law which must be annulled," a prosecutor told Italy's highest court of appeals on Monday."
"After the Supreme Court of Italy annulled her acquittal last month, Knox now waits to go back on trial."
"Canada has inherited 2 of the world's basic law systems: common law (in the 9 provinces and the territories) and civil law (in Québec). Common law, which originated in England, is unenacted law, as opposed to statutes and ordinances. In theory it is traditional law - that which has always been and still is law, if it has not been overridden by legislation. Civil law, however, is based on ancient Roman law, which, together with laws derived from French custom and legislation, was codified by Napoleon. Most of continental Europe, Scotland, Central and South America, parts of Asia (Taiwan, for example), some of the West Indies and much of Africa now use the civil law system."
I just wanted to ask if the Police in Italy are public servants?
Because I think they might be, I just wanted to say that as a public servant in all of my professional career, I would have been furious if anyone had questioned my actions or behaviour which were in keeping with policy or the law.
All ministers were compelled by law to investigate any misconduct relating to workers.
So if any of my staff had complaints made against them I had to, by law prepare a report for ministerial review.
AK and RS repeatedly make allegations of misconduct by public servants, all of which has to be reviewed by law. They have published their allegations, which ministers are compelled by law to investigate, they have no option.
That means that every single solitary allegation must be addressed and reported to the minister.
It also means that staff will be re-questioned, and must undergo the stress of being considered to be in breach of laws and policy, in an international setting, which has implications for their families, reputations and respectability.
How this insane madness has become the fault of the whole of Italy happening on a world wide stage is monstrously diabolical and fuelled by extremely biased media, but not everywhere.
I'm afraid she has already been convicted of lying and wrecking and damaging.
They both need to be locked away.
I'm still trying to understand what it is about the Knox interviews that made me uncomfortable. Is it possible that she is suffering severe post traumatic stress disorder and that she has not sought help in coping with her emotional turmoil?
Has she sought help?
Regardless of whether she is guilty or innocent, but especially if she is innocent, she should have regular counselling sessions to cope with her experience. I can understand that, if she is guilty, she would not want counselling, as the counsellor would most likely identify her complicity in the murder during that counselling. If she is innocent, unless she receives counselling right now, the remainder of her life will be messed up because of her experience in Italy. I hope she isn't thinking that "all you need is love" to cope with emotionally difficult situations that span several years. If she is innocent, there is no reason for her to accept that one experience defines who she is, but I get the impression that this is how she is handling her experience ... sad, in a way.
I got a kick out of her description about going to Europe as a "kid" and returning as a "mature woman" ... even this is absurd when you see her post-Europe halloween costume: cat burglar (burglar? after spending time in jail for a murder where money was missing?). She has also been photographed post-prison wearing army boots and other not-so-mature-woman outfits. She seems messed up, but the question is: was she ever not messed up? Was the controlled, scripted woman that sends out "red flags" on camera the same woman that seduced men on trains and at classical music concerts? If so, I suppose it's not PTSD ... it's monster-like, like Arias and Anthony.
Simply put, is the woman we see today a singular expression of her experience in Italy, or was she always like that?
Sorry this is the first time in awhile I've had the chance to catch up here. Basically they find her guilty, than they find her innocent now their re-trying the case? This is absurd to me. This is basically telling me if you're not found guilty, we will do it over and over until you are. This is an expensive way to run the law imo...I wish they had this in the Anthony case.
I thought it was revealed that she was dressed as Roger Levesque, the Seattle Sounders player, hence the team scarf?
Either way I do agree that she should be receiving support, though probably psychotherapy rather than counselling.
The National Forensic Science Technology Center wrote, "The line between screening and identification is not always clear. For example, while examining the clothing of a suspect, a forensic biologist might visually locate a brown stain that presumptively tested positive for blood and was then DNA typed. The DNA type is found to match the victim. Knowing that the loci tested are higher primate specific, what conclusions can be drawn?
The only unqualified conclusion that can be offered is that the stain contains DNA that matches the victim. It has not been proven to be blood.
If asked Could the results have arisen because the material tested was the blood of the victim? then an answer of Yes is justified. However, it would be wrong to report that the material was human blood with a DNA type that matched the victim. The material was not subjected to confirmatory testing for blood or proven to be human in origin."
This issue is the elephant in the room for the prosecution's conjectures about luminol. Without a true confirmatory test, the luminol-positive material cannot be said to be blood. I would also like to comment on the sensitivities of confirmatory tests for blood. The authors of one study, Hurley IP et al., Forensic Science International 190 (2009) 9197, wrote, "Positive results for human IgG were obtained with both formats. The simple direct immunodot assay was able to detect an IgG concentration of 0.1 mg/mL, while the detection limit for the sandwich immunodot assay was 0.01 mg/mL compared with the control (no IgG)...Tokiwa et al. demonstrated a detection limit of 0.022 microgram/mL using an anti-HbA0 ELISA, compared to the limit of 0.01 microgram/mL IgG detected by the present study." Hb A0 is the main form of hemoglobin in the body. Whole blood is about 55% serum and 45% red blood cells (RBCs), although there is some variation. Hemoglobin (Hb) is found in RBCs and immunoglobulin G (IgG) is found in serum. The following calculations of the sensitivities of confirmatory blood tests attempt to normalize to whole blood.
"The concentration of hemoglobin molecules in red blood cells is so high (340 mg_mL, 2.3 mM) that they almost could be said to be on the verge of crystallization." Robert C. Kerber, J. Chem. Education Vol. 84 No. 9 September 2007, 1541. Therefore, the concentration of Hb is 150 mg/mL in whole blood. 150 mg/mL divided by 2.2 x 10-5 mg/mL = 7 x 106. This is the approximate dilution factor for detection of blood by a confirmatory test for hemoglobin. Smith et al., Principles of Biochemistry, Mammalian Biochemistry, seventh edition (McGraw Hill), indicate that the average concentration of IgG is 12 mg/mL in plasma, therefore 6.6 mg/mL in whole blood. This estimate suggests that the test for IgG would detect blood up to a factor of 6.6 x 105. There are other confirmatory tests as well, such as HemaTrace. One article from the Michigan State Police listed its sensitivity as 0.05 µg/mL, and the authors gave its maximum dilution factor of blood that would still allow for its detection as 1:16777216. Another study provides 0.07 µg/mL as the limit of detection.
The values above might be too optimistic by a factor of ten, and yet still they would indicate that confirmatory tests for blood are quite sensitive. One possible problem is that eventually these proteins might denature (lose their biological activity--which implies a change in their three-dimensional shape or other alteration), which could keep the protein from reacting in these experiments. That is why the several-month delay in testing Rep. 199 using a confirmatory test was so unfortunate. The bottom line is that there is no reason that the FP could not have tested the luminol-positive areas with a confirmatory test.
It didn't exactly happen like that. Sollectio and Knox were found guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher. That verdict was successfully appealed, and the pair were released from prison. That appeal decision was appealed and annulled. Now, the conviction stands and is again under appeal ... a re-appeal, so to speak.
It may seem absurd to allow both the defense and the prosecution to appeal a ruling, but many legal systems disagree. Some people think that it's unusual that only the defense can appeal a court decision ... kind of like they can appeal "over and over" until they are found not guilty.
Does Roger Levesque dress in black and wear a curly mustache?
I can't imagine why she would not use some of the $1.5 million that she received to obtain professional assistance in dealing with what appears to be a rather unstable emotional balance.