RE: Amanda Knox retrial?

RE: Amanda Knox retrial? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

eulero83 -> RE: Amanda Knox retrial? (3/28/2013 5:34:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Double jeopardy and the death penalty are very different. Plus the US is using the term "acquitted" but she actually wasn't. This is all still one trial process in Italy, so double jeopardy has not attached. That's it! she's been released but not acquitted as the verdict was not definitive, in italian law double jeopardy is not allowed, article 649 of criminal procedure code guarantee the "Ne bis in idem" principle. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD example A canadian citizen crosses the border blows up a school killing 100 people, 85 of them children. If Canada refuses to extridite because of the death penalty. Hasn't this person gotten away with murder because he is a Canadian citizen. as soon as the american prosecutor asks for a lifetime sentence instead capital punishment this person is sent back in the usa to answer what you wrote before the example, as I wrote before it's since the roman repubblic time in italy there is a principle against double jeopardy, so this would mean impose a different criminal procedure and a different way to deal with defendant freedom during trial, article 3 of US costitution guarantee a jury trial, so an american citizen can get away from murder in any country who has a bench trial system? Anyhow another thing the review court can't say if evidence where not good enough for a resonable doubt, but just that judges broke some laws during the appeal in favor of the defendants, so that evidence's examination was affected, this doesn't mean there is not a reasonable doubt, so she is free to go where she wants and come back as actually supposed (not for sure) innocent.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Amanda Knox retrial? (3/28/2013 5:44:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh then she accused a totally innocent black african guy of tha murder There is something to add about this, in italy there are not many black people, mostly are african immigrants working and don't hang out with students, so she had a lot of good luck accusing the only other person she knew that could be confused with Guede by a witness that saw him running away from the scene... yup good point. that was a clever thing to do.

eulero83 -> RE: Amanda Knox retrial? (3/28/2013 5:57:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh then she accused a totally innocent black african guy of tha murder There is something to add about this, in italy there are not many black people, mostly are african immigrants working and don't hang out with students, so she had a lot of good luck accusing the only other person she knew that could be confused with Guede by a witness that saw him running away from the scene... yup good point. that was a clever thing to do. Also another thing Guede was Amanda's friend (and not a close one) and not meredith's I think it's hard to belive agirl comes back home from a party she's alone at home, during the night person she barely knew (as her room mate's drug provider) pops up at her door, invites him to come in so he can poo in her bathroom and get high with some weed, and maybe have some sex.

tj444 -> RE: Amanda Knox retrial? (3/28/2013 6:56:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Questioning regularly takes place for that long, everywhere. As for being in a foreign country, with a different language, laws, etc. If you are going to live in a foreign country, don't you think it behooves you to know their laws? obviously the longer you interrogate someone, the more likely they will crack and confess to anything just for it all to stop.. and then they frequently recant afterwards.. How many Americans know all the laws in the US? there are tens of thousands of laws and unless you are a lawyer and well versed in the law, few people actually know them all.. so imo its unreasonable to expect travellers & temporary residents to know all the laws and how it works in each country they visit.. but that is why she has a lawyer, which i expect she did not have at the time when she was being interrogated..

LafayetteLady -> RE: Amanda Knox retrial? (3/28/2013 1:03:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Questioning regularly takes place for that long, everywhere. As for being in a foreign country, with a different language, laws, etc. If you are going to live in a foreign country, don't you think it behooves you to know their laws? obviously the longer you interrogate someone, the more likely they will crack and confess to anything just for it all to stop.. and then they frequently recant afterwards.. How many Americans know all the laws in the US? there are tens of thousands of laws and unless you are a lawyer and well versed in the law, few people actually know them all.. so imo its unreasonable to expect travellers & temporary residents to know all the laws and how it works in each country they visit.. but that is why she has a lawyer, which i expect she did not have at the time when she was being interrogated.. A tourist doesn't need to know all the laws, however, murder is a pretty big one. Tourists need to know basic laws, and any travel expert will recommend the same. For instance, in Poland, jaywalking is a HUGE deal. You cross in the cross walks, with the "walk" sign lit, or face a substantial fine, payable immediately since you are a tourist. If you are there, you need to know that law, or at least should. It may be your opinion, however, the various countries don't agree with you. Some perspective: In the US, female genital mutilation/circumcision is not legal, it is considered assault. By your theory, someone from a country where this happens regularly should be able to do that here, because they don't know better. The reality is that ignorance of the law is never a defense, which makes your opinion irrelevant. As for your theory/opinion that hours of interrogation could get someone to admit to anything (I believe you used admitting to taking part in Kennedy's assassination as an example), is simply your opinion. It wouldn't matter how long I was interrogated, as long as I wasn't being tortured, I'm not admitting to a crime I didn't commit. Amanda Knox was questioned for hours, not tortured.

YN -> RE: Amanda Knox retrial? (3/28/2013 2:08:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Questioning regularly takes place for that long, everywhere. As for being in a foreign country, with a different language, laws, etc. If you are going to live in a foreign country, don't you think it behooves you to know their laws? obviously the longer you interrogate someone, the more likely they will crack and confess to anything just for it all to stop.. and then they frequently recant afterwards.. How many Americans know all the laws in the US? there are tens of thousands of laws and unless you are a lawyer and well versed in the law, few people actually know them all.. so imo its unreasonable to expect travellers & temporary residents to know all the laws and how it works in each country they visit.. but that is why she has a lawyer, which i expect she did not have at the time when she was being interrogated.. Do you know of a country on this world where a deliberate unlawful homicide isn't a crime? Can you name a tribe of Aborigines that does not sanction the crime you call murder? She was not charged with violating Italy's tax code.

eulero83 -> RE: Amanda Knox retrial? (3/28/2013 3:26:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YN quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Questioning regularly takes place for that long, everywhere. As for being in a foreign country, with a different language, laws, etc. If you are going to live in a foreign country, don't you think it behooves you to know their laws? obviously the longer you interrogate someone, the more likely they will crack and confess to anything just for it all to stop.. and then they frequently recant afterwards.. How many Americans know all the laws in the US? there are tens of thousands of laws and unless you are a lawyer and well versed in the law, few people actually know them all.. so imo its unreasonable to expect travellers & temporary residents to know all the laws and how it works in each country they visit.. but that is why she has a lawyer, which i expect she did not have at the time when she was being interrogated.. Do you know of a country on this world where a deliberate unlawful homicide isn't a crime? Can you name a tribe of Aborigines that does not sanction the crime you call murder? She was not charged with violating Italy's tax code. I can suppose (but I can't read minds) tj444 was talking about accusing Patrick Lumumba, that she didn't know defamation is sentenced up to 3 years conviction, and when questioned by police she had not a lawyer telling her that could incriminate her if found false. About the language she had an interpreter and I'm sure any prosecutor in italy can speek english if needed, it's english not urdu language. Said this, when Meredith's british friend arrived to the house and police was there Amanda told them about her finding meredith's body "in the closet", it was in two depositions collected in the days just after the murder (and one of meredith's friend confirmed, telling she remembered it as closet souded odd to her being wardrobe is the british word), but meredith was on the bed and her room's door locked from outside, police had to slam the door, then meredith's autopsy showed when deadly stabbed her body hit one shelf in her closet and in a second time the body was moved, the bra cutted to simulate a rape and then she was covered, also the itruder thing was all a set up, so maybe interrogation went so long because police was asking help with her psychic ability. I mean how long would I be questioned in the usa if I knew the original position of a body moved after the murder and I go on claiming I was not even there? p.s. you can violate italian tax code as much as you want it's kind of sport activity here.

YN -> RE: Amanda Knox retrial? (3/28/2013 5:01:15 PM)
We work under the Civil laws here, and I have worked for both the Interior and the Justice Ministries. Saying that, if she was foolish enough to lie to the police or worse to one of the magistrate's investigators in regards to a criminal homicide, she was foolish indeed. After falsely swearing an innocent person committed the crime, what do you think her other statements value would be? And I think normal United States citizens know that a criminal homicide investigation is a serious matter, and that lying about the facts regarding the death to the investigators will cause them great trouble world wide.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Amanda Knox retrial? (3/28/2013 5:58:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh then she accused a totally innocent black african guy of tha murder There is something to add about this, in italy there are not many black people, mostly are african immigrants working and don't hang out with students, so she had a lot of good luck accusing the only other person she knew that could be confused with Guede by a witness that saw him running away from the scene... yup good point. that was a clever thing to do. Also another thing Guede was Amanda's friend (and not a close one) and not meredith's I think it's hard to belive agirl comes back home from a party she's alone at home, during the night person she barely knew (as her room mate's drug provider) pops up at her door, invites him to come in so he can poo in her bathroom and get high with some weed, and maybe have some sex. most likely place that would happen in is a porno film. all thats missing is tha pizza delivery.

tj444 -> RE: Amanda Knox retrial? (3/28/2013 6:56:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady A tourist doesn't need to know all the laws, however, murder is a pretty big one. Tourists need to know basic laws, and any travel expert will recommend the same. For instance, in Poland, jaywalking is a HUGE deal. You cross in the cross walks, with the "walk" sign lit, or face a substantial fine, payable immediately since you are a tourist. If you are there, you need to know that law, or at least should. It may be your opinion, however, the various countries don't agree with you. Some perspective: In the US, female genital mutilation/circumcision is not legal, it is considered assault. By your theory, someone from a country where this happens regularly should be able to do that here, because they don't know better. The reality is that ignorance of the law is never a defense, which makes your opinion irrelevant. As for your theory/opinion that hours of interrogation could get someone to admit to anything (I believe you used admitting to taking part in Kennedy's assassination as an example), is simply your opinion. It wouldn't matter how long I was interrogated, as long as I wasn't being tortured, I'm not admitting to a crime I didn't commit. Amanda Knox was questioned for hours, not tortured. FFS.. That is not what I said.. stop putting words in my mouth & trying to twist what I said.. I never said it was acceptable to murder someone, that is illegal in every country around the world, at least I expect it is.. but few people would know if they have a right to a lawyer when being interrogated in Italy (cuz few people would ever expect to be in that situation).. here in the US you do, there who knows.. of course not eveyone cracks when interrogated but many do.. it depends on how strong they are, not everyone is an untouchable emotional rock.. in the US people are not tortured either yet the major reason for wrongful convictions are false confessions during interrogation.. "In the past two decades, hundreds of convicted prisoners have been exonerated by DNA and non-DNA evidence, revealing that police-induced false confessions are a leading cause of wrongful conviction of the innocent." http://www.jaapl.org/content/37/3/332.full.pdf+html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/false-confessions-and-interrogations/

tazzygirl -> RE: Amanda Knox retrial? (3/28/2013 6:58:00 PM)
quote: Also another thing Guede was Amanda's friend (and not a close one) and not meredith's I think it's hard to belive agirl comes back home from a party she's alone at home, during the night person she barely knew (as her room mate's drug provider) pops up at her door, invites him to come in so he can poo in her bathroom and get high with some weed, and maybe have some sex. rofl... Not only is that not hard to believe, it happens all the time.

tj444 -> RE: Amanda Knox retrial? (3/28/2013 7:19:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 I can suppose (but I can't read minds) tj444 was talking about accusing Patrick Lumumba, that she didn't know defamation is sentenced up to 3 years conviction, and when questioned by police she had not a lawyer telling her that could incriminate her if found false. About the language she had an interpreter and I'm sure any prosecutor in italy can speek english if needed, it's english not urdu language. Said this, when Meredith's british friend arrived to the house and police was there Amanda told them about her finding meredith's body "in the closet", it was in two depositions collected in the days just after the murder (and one of meredith's friend confirmed, telling she remembered it as closet souded odd to her being wardrobe is the british word), but meredith was on the bed and her room's door locked from outside, police had to slam the door, then meredith's autopsy showed when deadly stabbed her body hit one shelf in her closet and in a second time the body was moved, the bra cutted to simulate a rape and then she was covered, also the itruder thing was all a set up, so maybe interrogation went so long because police was asking help with her psychic ability. I mean how long would I be questioned in the usa if I knew the original position of a body moved after the murder and I go on claiming I was not even there? p.s. you can violate italian tax code as much as you want it's kind of sport activity here. I was referring to if a person has the right to a lawyer when being questioned by the police.. It surprises me that slander gets a fairly long jail sentence in Italy.. I guess you cant say someones cooking tastes bad without also risking 3 years in jail??? [8\|] I dont see how the body could have been moved by Knox or she was involved, since none of her dna was on the body or in the room.. my main reason for believing she had nothing to do with it was the dna, fingerprints, evidence thing, none of her boyfriend's dna, etc was there either.. Guede seems very strange, from the wiki, he had a habit of breaking into several places and one time being found asleep in a bathroom.. his dna & fingerprints were all over the place.. Regardless of what Knox supposedly told anyone.. if she was involved, where is the dna & other evidence on the girl and her bedroom?

LafayetteLady -> RE: Amanda Knox retrial? (3/28/2013 7:30:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady A tourist doesn't need to know all the laws, however, murder is a pretty big one. Tourists need to know basic laws, and any travel expert will recommend the same. For instance, in Poland, jaywalking is a HUGE deal. You cross in the cross walks, with the "walk" sign lit, or face a substantial fine, payable immediately since you are a tourist. If you are there, you need to know that law, or at least should. It may be your opinion, however, the various countries don't agree with you. Some perspective: In the US, female genital mutilation/circumcision is not legal, it is considered assault. By your theory, someone from a country where this happens regularly should be able to do that here, because they don't know better. The reality is that ignorance of the law is never a defense, which makes your opinion irrelevant. As for your theory/opinion that hours of interrogation could get someone to admit to anything (I believe you used admitting to taking part in Kennedy's assassination as an example), is simply your opinion. It wouldn't matter how long I was interrogated, as long as I wasn't being tortured, I'm not admitting to a crime I didn't commit. Amanda Knox was questioned for hours, not tortured. FFS.. That is not what I said.. stop putting words in my mouth & trying to twist what I said.. I never said it was acceptable to murder someone, that is illegal in every country around the world, at least I expect it is.. but few people would know if they have a right to a lawyer when being interrogated in Italy (cuz few people would ever expect to be in that situation).. here in the US you do, there who knows.. of course not eveyone cracks when interrogated but many do.. it depends on how strong they are, not everyone is an untouchable emotional rock.. in the US people are not tortured either yet the major reason for wrongful convictions are false confessions during interrogation.. "In the past two decades, hundreds of convicted prisoners have been exonerated by DNA and non-DNA evidence, revealing that police-induced false confessions are a leading cause of wrongful conviction of the innocent." http://www.jaapl.org/content/37/3/332.full.pdf+html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/false-confessions-and-interrogations/ FFS is right. Since everyone in the US knows they are entitled to an attorney, and Knox is a US citizen, logically she would have asked about that, wouldn't she? US citizens, especially, think that their law is the law everywhere, so that is not even a valid excuse. As for your article, it states that 15-20 percent of those exonerated were from police-induced confessions. Could you explain how that becomes a "leading" cause? The author is doing a bit of speculation. The two very important facts you can't seem to grasp is that she was never acquitted, it was simply the term the reporter used as not really understanding the Italian Justice System, and there are quite a few bizarre things that occurred from Amanda Knox herself, which makes her innocence questionable at best.

LafayetteLady -> RE: Amanda Knox retrial? (3/28/2013 7:32:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 I can suppose (but I can't read minds) tj444 was talking about accusing Patrick Lumumba, that she didn't know defamation is sentenced up to 3 years conviction, and when questioned by police she had not a lawyer telling her that could incriminate her if found false. About the language she had an interpreter and I'm sure any prosecutor in italy can speek english if needed, it's english not urdu language. Said this, when Meredith's british friend arrived to the house and police was there Amanda told them about her finding meredith's body "in the closet", it was in two depositions collected in the days just after the murder (and one of meredith's friend confirmed, telling she remembered it as closet souded odd to her being wardrobe is the british word), but meredith was on the bed and her room's door locked from outside, police had to slam the door, then meredith's autopsy showed when deadly stabbed her body hit one shelf in her closet and in a second time the body was moved, the bra cutted to simulate a rape and then she was covered, also the itruder thing was all a set up, so maybe interrogation went so long because police was asking help with her psychic ability. I mean how long would I be questioned in the usa if I knew the original position of a body moved after the murder and I go on claiming I was not even there? p.s. you can violate italian tax code as much as you want it's kind of sport activity here. I was referring to if a person has the right to a lawyer when being questioned by the police.. It surprises me that slander gets a fairly long jail sentence in Italy.. I guess you cant say someones cooking tastes bad without also risking 3 years in jail??? [8\|] I dont see how the body could have been moved by Knox or she was involved, since none of her dna was on the body or in the room.. my main reason for believing she had nothing to do with it was the dna, fingerprints, evidence thing, none of her boyfriend's dna, etc was there either.. Guede seems very strange, from the wiki, he had a habit of breaking into several places and one time being found asleep in a bathroom.. his dna & fingerprints were all over the place.. Regardless of what Knox supposedly told anyone.. if she was involved, where is the dna & other evidence on the girl and her bedroom? Talk about fucking reaching. Do you even grasp the difference between implicating someone for murder versus saying something bad about their housekeeping? Do you know what slander is? DNA aside, exactly how would she have some idea where the body is is the door is locked and she couldn't get in?

YN -> RE: Amanda Knox retrial? (3/28/2013 8:43:57 PM)
This is like your OJ Simpson case. The Italian Police, being certain she was guilty, due to her falsehood over the "killer," and in various other matters and evidence, did not do their work properly and mishandled several key items of physical evidence, to the point it was legally unusable, and the magistrate allowed this to occur while perfecting the case. After inspecting the case as reported online, and assuming the reports are reasonably accurate, there appears to be what you call "probable cause" to believe a crime occurred and that Knox committed it or was an immediate accessory. But since much of the physical evidence was mistreated and outside any chain of custody in some cases, the body of the victim is only worth use as the evidence of a homicide occurring.

LafayetteLady -> RE: Amanda Knox retrial? (3/28/2013 9:37:26 PM)
I haven't read all that much about the case, but I'm getting the same feeling you are. Although I wouldn't have used the OJ case, I would have compared it to Casey Anthony. Seriously bungled prosecution.

tj444 -> RE: Amanda Knox retrial? (3/28/2013 9:42:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Talk about fucking reaching. Do you even grasp the difference between implicating someone for murder versus saying something bad about their housekeeping? Do you know what slander is? DNA aside, exactly how would she have some idea where the body is is the door is locked and she couldn't get in? its certainly not slander to say that someone is a murderer or committed some other crime here in the US, it happens all the time, thats what tip lines are for.. the investigators and prosecutors did their job extremely poorly.. they were the ones that asked Knox for a list of people that Kercher knew & they would have all been questioned by them, including Lumumba.. and they were the ones that threw Lumumba in jail with no evidence & when he had an alibi.. just cuz someone claims a person committed a crime doesnt mean they actually did.. the investigators/prosecutors certainly should know that.. witnesses are very unreliable, thats why I dont believe what anyone claims unless there is actual evidence to back it up.. this case is full of that and the media reports also are very unreliable..

tj444 -> RE: Amanda Knox retrial? (3/28/2013 10:09:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady FFS is right. Since everyone in the US knows they are entitled to an attorney, and Knox is a US citizen, logically she would have asked about that, wouldn't she? US citizens, especially, think that their law is the law everywhere, so that is not even a valid excuse. As for your article, it states that 15-20 percent of those exonerated were from police-induced confessions. Could you explain how that becomes a "leading" cause? The author is doing a bit of speculation. The two very important facts you can't seem to grasp is that she was never acquitted, it was simply the term the reporter used as not really understanding the Italian Justice System, and there are quite a few bizarre things that occurred from Amanda Knox herself, which makes her innocence questionable at best. lol Even Martha Stewart talked to the cops without a lawyer.. to say that everyone in the US knows you are entitled to a lawyer, doesnt mean they actually think they are.. I have seen a tv show where a person is just a witness (not a suspect) and they ask for a lawyer but are told since they are a witness that they cant have one.. and then there is the whole reading your miranda rights thing, some people may think what they say before that cant be used.. so a scared, confused kid only 20 years old, not knowing what her rights are in another country would be pretty easy to manipulate.. and btw, in the US investigators can lie thru their teeth so who knows if she asked to have a lawyer or was told she didnt need one.. You are misreading the article.. "In 15 to 20 percent of the DNA cases, police-induced false confessions were the primary cause of the wrongful conviction. " Not all of the wrongful convictions were proven wrong using dna, there was other various evidence to prove that in other cases.. "Once detectives misclassify an innocent person as a guilty suspect, they often subject him to an accusatorial interrogation. Getting a confession becomes particularly important when there is no other evidence against the suspect, especially in high-profile cases in which there is great pressure on police detectives to solve the crime, there is no other source of potential evidence to be discovered,19 and typically there is no credible evidence against an innocent but misclassified suspect. It is perhaps not surprising that most documented false confessions occur in homicides and high-profile cases.2,5 Once interrogation commences, the primary cause of police-induced false confession is psychologically coercive police methods.20 Psychological coercion can be defined in two ways: police use of interrogation techniques that are regarded as inherently coercive in psychology and law, or police use of interrogation techniques that, cumulatively, cause a suspect to perceive that he has no choice but to comply with the interrogators’ demands. Usually these amount to the same thing." there are important facts you cant seem to grasp.. there was no dna or other evidence that she was involved.. if there was then that would change my opinion, without it, I am not going to presume she is guilty.. I will stick with the "innocent until proven guilty" premise.

LafayetteLady -> RE: Amanda Knox retrial? (3/28/2013 10:22:53 PM)
Martha Stewart knew she was entitled to a lawyer, she just didn't think she would be prosecuted. The reality is that what you see on a television show is not necessarily an accurate portrayal of the law. You gave a good example. Even witnesses are entitled to an attorney and in the US, the second someone asks for an attorney, the police are no longer allowed to question them, unless or until they waive that right. If the police DO continue to interrogate, they run the risk of anything said after that request being thrown out as poisonous fruit. DNA does not need to be necessary for a person to be guilty. You aren't taking the "innocent until proven guilty" stance on Amanda Knox, you refuse to believe she is guilty because of lack of DNA. This isn't a television crime procedural. In real life DNA and forensic evidence can be hard to come by. Yes, police investigators are allowed to lie to a suspect to get a confession. It doesn't mean the confession is coerced in every instance. Yes, it is a psychological technique, that you apparently don't understand. How a person reacts to that is more telling than the lies themselves. As for no evidence that she wasn't involved, hmmm.......how do you explain her pointing the finger at someone else? Better yet, how do you explain her telling them the body was in the closet when the door was locked? There is a lot more to this crime than what US news has reported, and Amanda Knox is not as clueless as you want to insist that she is. Yep, people accuse others of crimes all the time. However, in this case, the man was accused, arrested and suffered damage to his reputation because of it. Since you obviously don't know the definition: quote: Slander is the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person's reputation. If the statements are proven to be true, it is a complete defense to a charge of slander. Oral opinions that don't contain statements of fact don't constitute slander. Slander is an act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Slander is a subcategory of defamation.

tj444 -> RE: Amanda Knox retrial? (3/28/2013 11:35:44 PM)
people will accuse others when interrogated here in the US all the time, they are not charged with slander, you can even call a tip line anonymously and claim someone murdered someone else.. here in the US you are encouraged to rat on your neighbor, and a certain percentage of those will be false.. that is why investigators are supposed to investigate (competently).. I explain her pointing the finger at someone else cuz she was being asked by the investigators to give them a list of people, her being young, intimidated, pressured, in fear.. its along the same lines as giving a false confession.. why did it take someone independent & from another country to retest the evidence and prove that only Guede's dna was found? It was not the italian investigators that did the retesting.. and yet, that was the impetus for Knox being released by Italy.. "The Idaho Innocence Project, a non-profit investigative organization dedicated to proving the innocence of wrongly convicted people through the use of DNA testing, volunteered to work for the Knox defense. On May 23, 2011, Dr. Gregory Hampikian, director of the project, announced that, based on its independent investigation and review, DNA samples taken at the crime scene all pointed to African drifter Rudy Guede and excluded Knox and Sollecito" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Knox Just because Kerchers british friend claimed Knox told her the body was in the closet doesnt mean Knox actually said that to her... kerchers friend could also have made a false accusation.. again, witnesses (& media reports) are notoriously wrong too often.. I know here in the US people can be convicted of murder even without a body... to me, to not have any actual evidence (dna, fingerprints, etc, etc) & to simply go on so called circumstantial "evidence" doesnt cut it for me (but then I come from a country with different laws than you).. I expect more than just supposition & wild accusations/guesses by a prosecutor to consider someone guilty.. so until there is more than that, I will presume her innocent.. you can believe whatever you want.. quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady Martha Stewart knew she was entitled to a lawyer, she just didn't think she would be prosecuted. The reality is that what you see on a television show is not necessarily an accurate portrayal of the law. You gave a good example. Even witnesses are entitled to an attorney and in the US, the second someone asks for an attorney, the police are no longer allowed to question them, unless or until they waive that right. If the police DO continue to interrogate, they run the risk of anything said after that request being thrown out as poisonous fruit. DNA does not need to be necessary for a person to be guilty. You aren't taking the "innocent until proven guilty" stance on Amanda Knox, you refuse to believe she is guilty because of lack of DNA. This isn't a television crime procedural. In real life DNA and forensic evidence can be hard to come by. Yes, police investigators are allowed to lie to a suspect to get a confession. It doesn't mean the confession is coerced in every instance. Yes, it is a psychological technique, that you apparently don't understand. How a person reacts to that is more telling than the lies themselves. As for no evidence that she wasn't involved, hmmm.......how do you explain her pointing the finger at someone else? Better yet, how do you explain her telling them the body was in the closet when the door was locked? There is a lot more to this crime than what US news has reported, and Amanda Knox is not as clueless as you want to insist that she is. Yep, people accuse others of crimes all the time. However, in this case, the man was accused, arrested and suffered damage to his reputation because of it. Since you obviously don't know the definition: quote: Slander is the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person's reputation. If the statements are proven to be true, it is a complete defense to a charge of slander. Oral opinions that don't contain statements of fact don't constitute slander. Slander is an act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Slander is a subcategory of defamation.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875