Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL* #2

[redheadedgal]

Amanda Knox IS NOT a victim -- MEREDITH KERCHER is the VICTIM !

if amanda is not guilty of murdering MK --as many believe-- then yes, she too is a victim of the italian justice system... a victim who has every right to get the truth out, even using a PR firm to assist.

 

[rashomon]

It will indeed be interesting to see what Sollecito does. His father has said he will be attending, and he himself seems to be hiding in the US.

Would Sollecito have the right not to attend the trial?

 

[sherlockh]

Would Sollecito have the right not to attend the trial?

I think so, but he recently said in an interview that he will attend. We will see in a few more weeks.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

The recent Supreme Court of Cassation decision has now been translated into English :

The link can be found at :

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=141747#p141747

Perugiamurderfile.org translation of the Supreme Court report
v1.0 - September 9, 2013.pdf
English translation of the Supreme Court's judgment

 

[otto]

if amanda is not guilty of murdering MK --as many believe-- then yes, she too is a victim of the italian justice system... a victim who has every right to get the truth out, even using a PR firm to assist.

Knox is not a victim. She has been convicted of criminal activities and she has spent three years in jail. Patrick Lumumba and his family are Knox's known victims. Meredith Kercher is another of her victims. Knox was convicted of murder, and the appeal that resulted in her release from jail has been annulled. The repeat of her appeal could result in an affirmation of her conviction.

She is no victim. Innocent people do not find themselves in the heap of trouble that Knox brought on herself.

 

[Tugela]

:twocents: Not a lawyer and Not familiar with extradition ...

However, considering the most recent high profile extradition case in the news [Snowden], the U.S. should comply with other countries if the U.S. wants other countries to comply with them ...

WHEN Italy files the extradition for Knox to return to Italy, the U.S. will need to comply ... cannot have a "double standard" ...

All JMO ...

No they wont. In order to request an extradition, the requesting country would have to submit a statement of facts which would be examined by a US judge first. If that judge found that the facts did not support the verdict or the charge, there would be no extradition. That would be part of the treaty as well.

There being an extradition treaty does not mean the US *has* to extradite.

 

[Tugela]

Knox is not a victim. She has been convicted of criminal activities and she has spent three years in jail. Patrick Lumumba and his family are Knox's known victims. Meredith Kercher is another of her victims. Knox was convicted of murder, and the appeal that resulted in her release from jail has been annulled. The repeat of her appeal could result in an affirmation of her conviction.

She is no victim. Innocent people do not find themselves in the heap of trouble that Knox brought on herself.

She was also acquitted of the accusation. The final judgement has not been made yet, so you cant say she is guilty.

In the second review trial the court is still going to be confronted with the issue of lack of evidence that the last court faced. In the first trial it was essentially the prosecutions case that was presented, independent analysis of the evidence wasn't allowed. The appeal was the defence's case, and after that she was acquitted. The next trial will essentially be a repeat of that. The flaws in the evidence gathering is not going to go away.

 

[redheadedgal]

Innocent people do not find themselves in the heap of trouble that Knox brought on herself.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

 

[otto]

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

I'm not sure what that link has to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher. Is the point that the US has a flawed justice system ... and on that basis, generally speaking, it is customary for US citizens to be suspicious of justice systems in Europe?

 

[otto]

She was also acquitted of the accusation. The final judgement has not been made yet, so you cant say she is guilty.

In the second review trial the court is still going to be confronted with the issue of lack of evidence that the last court faced. In the first trial it was essentially the prosecutions case that was presented, independent analysis of the evidence wasn't allowed. The appeal was the defence's case, and after that she was acquitted. The next trial will essentially be a repeat of that. The flaws in the evidence gathering is not going to go away.

BBM

If, with suggesting that Knox was acquitted of the "accusation", you mean the conviction for the slander against Patrick Lumumba, I think that requires a link.

The information that I have contradicts that claim:

"The court has 90 days to write their "motivation," explaining in detail why they overturned the acquittal and upheld Knox's slander conviction."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/amanda-knox-shocked-court-ruling-murder/story?id=18809434

 

[Sonata]

I don't really have a massive point about the case itself to make here, but I do find it absolutely shocking that anyone could possibly say that getting into trouble means that you are the cause of that trouble. That's just flawed logic.
That is an argument based on rhetoric and not insight.

If that has been the case in anyone's life, they are extremely lucky and I am jealous.

The same for the PR team = guilt argument. I just don't follow the logic. It's an assumption. Not a reasoned argument.

I understand that working on the assumption of guilt would get you to that argument, but a better debate would consider both possibilities. So it would accept that the need for PR is still strong when assuming Knox's innocence. It isn't really indicative of either guilt or innocence, just a reflection of the context of the situation.

 

[otto]

I don't really have a massive point about the case itself to make here, but I do find it absolutely shocking that anyone could possibly say that getting into trouble means that you are the cause of that trouble. That's just flawed logic.
That is an argument based on rhetoric and not insight.

If that has been the case in anyone's life, they are extremely lucky and I am jealous.

The same for the PR team = guilt argument. I just don't follow the logic. It's an assumption. Not a reasoned argument.

I understand that working on the assumption of guilt would get you to that argument, but a better debate would consider both possibilities. So it would accept that the need for PR is still strong when assuming Knox's innocence. It isn't really indicative of either guilt or innocence, just a reflection of the context of the situation.

Knox lied to investigators during a murder investigation. She changed her story many times. When confronted with her lies, she claimed that she was all drugged up and simply didn't remember what happened on the night of the murder.

Knox, by her own actions, be they murder, falsely accusing an innocent man of murder, perpetuating that false accusation, or lying during a murder investigation, is the master of her own fate. If she was innocent and had been truthful from the outset, none of this would have happened.

The family hired the public relations firm to control the information that was released to the US public. That was done very early in the investigation into Meredith's murder. How often does the family of an innocent person hire a public relations firm to spin information such that the sole objective is to paint a justice system as medieval, unjust, backwards, persecutory and malicious. Is that what innocent people normally do? Had that PR firm been attacking a US justice system, everyone would have rolled their eyes and ignored her as a lunatic - even though there are plenty of unjust convictions in the US. Because the justice system was in a foreign country and it is understood by few in the US, the tactic worked with some (not all, by any stretch of the imagination) segments of the US population. It played into the US perspective that "anything US" is better than everything in the rest of the world. Regardless, the tactic has "fishy" written all over it.

 

[Sonata]

Knox lied to investigators during a murder investigation. She changed her story many times. When confronted with her lies, she claimed that she was all drugged up and simply didn't remember what happened on the night of the murder.

Knox, by her own actions, be they murder, falsely accusing an innocent man of murder, perpetuating that false accusation, or lying during a murder investigation, is the master of her own fate. If she was innocent and had been truthful from the outset, none of this would have happened.

The family hired the public relations firm to control the information that was released to the US public. That was done very early in the investigation into Meredith's murder. How often does the family of an innocent person hire a public relations firm to spin information such that the sole objective is to paint a justice system as medieval, unjust, backwards, persecutory and malicious. Is that what innocent people normally do? Had that PR firm been attacking a US justice system, everyone would have rolled their eyes and ignored her as a lunatic - even though there are plenty of unjust convictions in the US. Because the justice system was in a foreign country and it is understood by few in the US, the tactic worked with some (not all, by any stretch of the imagination) segments of the US population. It played into the US perspective that "everything US" is better than anything in the rest of the world. Regardless, the tactic has "fishy" written all over it.

My only point is that this is an argument based on assumptions about what is 'normal' or 'not normal' in a situation that I am assuming none of us have been in. I think it's naive to think that we can possibly judge what is normal or not in this situation, or even to imagine that there is a 'normal' reaction to such things.

You can't make subjective behavior into something with an objective rule.

It's just not any indication of her conscience.

 

[otto]

My only point is that this is an argument based on assumptions about what is 'normal' or 'not normal' in a situation that I am assuming none of us have been in. I think it's naive to think that we can possibly judge what is normal or not in this situation, or even to imagine that there is a 'normal' reaction to such things.

You can't make subjective behavior into something with an objective rule.

It's just not any indication of her conscience.

I don't need to lie to police during a murder investigation to know that it's not normal.

Teenagers often choose to learn by experience, but adults, like Knox at the time of Meredith's murder, should have been able to learn from others. She should have known that it is not normal, and unacceptable, to do what she did. Because she broke the law in a foreign country, she brought a heap of trouble on herself.

 

[Sonata]

I don't need to lie to police during a murder investigation to know that it's not normal.

Teenagers often choose to learn by experience, but adults, like Knox at the time of Meredith's murder, should have been able to learn from others. She should have known that it is not normal, and unacceptable, to do what she did. Because she broke the law in a foreign country, she brought a heap of trouble on herself.

This is still a totally subjective argument and therefore I am not convinced by it.

I'm not really sure how you are defining 'normal' behaviour. Regardless of your criterion, I still think that is flawed logic.

As someone who frequently works with young adults who are not neurotypical, I have seen first hand numerous times how judging behaviour as 'not normal' results in all sorts of assumptions about that person's motivations which are essentially based only on a sense of their 'otherness'.

There is no magic formula for human behaviour. If that were the case we wouldn't need solid evidence in order to convict. We could simply prosecute on the basis of how 'normal' they were in any given context. Thankfully, this is not the case.

 

[otto]

This is still a totally subjective argument and therefore I am not convinced by it.

I'm not really sure how you are defining 'normal' behaviour. Regardless of your criterion, I still think that is flawed logic.

As someone who frequently works with young adults who are not neurotypical, I have seen first hand numerous times how judging behaviour as 'not normal' results in all sorts of assumptions about that person's motivations which are essentially based only on a sense of their 'otherness'.

There is no magic formula for human behaviour. If that were the case we wouldn't need solid evidence in order to convict. We could simply prosecute on the basis of how 'normal' they were in any given context. Thankfully, this is not the case.

From your above #53 comment: " ... or even to imagine that there is a 'normal' reaction to such things."

My use of "normal" was based on my best understanding of the use of the term in context.

 

[otto]

This seems to be a summary of the current state of affairs for Knox

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Florence_Appeal_Factsheet

 

[redheadedgal]

I'm not sure what that link has to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher. Is the point that the US has a flawed justice system ... and on that basis, generally speaking, it is customary for US citizens to be suspicious of justice systems in Europe?

there is information on forced confessions/false admissions... it happens in the US and i'm sure it happens in other countries... maybe even italy...

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

 

[otto]

there is information on forced confessions/false admissions... it happens in the US and i'm sure it happens in other countries... maybe even italy...

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

That could relate to Knox's false accusations against Patrick, except that after she made the false accusation, she chose to not tell the truth. She had days where she could have told the truth ... claimed that she was stressed, scared and as a result, she blurted out a lie. Instead, she chose to leave the false allegation as her version of the events that led to Meredith's murder. She can't claim that she believed the lie because she told a family member that she lied about Patrick. She knew the truth. Still investigators were not told. Knox made a decision to blame Patrick and to never voluntarily tell the truth.

That is the difference between a forced statement and a blatant lie. When someone is forced to confess, they will shout from the roof tops that what they said was a lie. Knox didn't do that. She kept quiet until investigators confronted her with her lie and charged her for making a false accusation against an innocent man.

 

[Monzoo]

That could relate to Knox's false accusations against Patrick, except that after she made the false accusation, she chose to not tell the truth. She had days where she could have told the truth ... claimed that she was stressed, scared and as a result, she blurted out a lie. Instead, she chose to leave the false allegation as her version of the events that led to Meredith's murder. She can't claim that she believed the lie because she told a family member that she lied about Patrick. She knew the truth. Still investigators were not told. Knox made a decision to blame Patrick and to never voluntarily tell the truth.

That is the difference between a forced statement and a blatant lie. When someone is forced to confess, they will shout from the roof tops that what they said was a lie. Knox didn't do that. She kept quiet until investigators confronted her with her lie and charged her for making a false accusation against an innocent man.

Do you have information as to what is "normal" after a false confession or accusation? Are there studies as to how long it takes a person to recant? I'd love to see some case studies, even -- to see what you base your knowledge of what Amanda Knox should have done if she were forced into making a statement.

If she were to recant within a couple of days, would that be enough for you? Within a few hours? I hope that you are not hold her to an impossibly high standard.






... If you know the history of the case, then you know that hours after her statements... the afternoon of the 6th (the two confession statements were signed approx. 1:30 am and 5:45 am that day) Amanda wrote what has been termed her "gift" note.

In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.

In addition, she wrote a note to the police the next day, the seventh, after her arrest. The only place I have found the text of this note is in her book, Waiting to Be Heard (chapter 13). It was, however, referenced during her testimony.

I'm sorry I didn't remember before and I'm sorry I said I could have been at the house when it happened. I said these things because I was confused and scared. I didn't lie when I said I thought the killer was Patrick. I was very stressed at the time and I really did think he was the murderer. But now I remember that I can't know who the murderer was because I didn't return back to the house.

I'm not sure what you are refencing in regard to telling a family member that she lied about Patrick. Do you have a cite? I have shown you two instances where she recanted within the first day, before she had a chance to talk to a family member or legal counsel. She was in police custody at the time she wrote both of these statements.