Meredith Kercher murdered in Perugia, Amanda Knox convicted #3

[SleuthyGal]

If innocent NO need to keep silent about what you were doing that night at that time period.

The problem I have with these kind of statements is that this presumes the burden of proof is on AK and RS and that's not the way it is (or should be) in a court of law or during any legal situation. The prosecution has the burden of proof. It doesn't matter if a defendant testifies or not (and often it's better to not). The burden solely lies upon the prosecution to prove the evidence rises to the standard of that court.

It troubles me that this basic legal right is so misunderstood. AK doesn't have to prove she didn't do this murder...the prosecution has to prove their case (and successfully defend it during appeal).

 

[kemo]

Sleuthy,
It's not that simple now. I'm not sure about the Itallian legal system but, if its anything like the American system, the presumption of innocence is gone once the jury finds you guilty. Now, the burden is on the defense to establish that there was a "flaw" in the initial proceedings.

I personally am primarily concerned with Justice for everyone, including Meredith. I find it hard to believe Amanda was "hands on" involved in the killing, but she and Raffaele clearly told a number of significant lies to investigator. In addition, A knife in Raffaele's flat had Meredith's DNA on it and there is compelling evidence that both of them altered, i.e. stagged, the crime scene. If their actual involvement was something less than participation in the murder; say something like "Accessory after the fact" time is running out to come clean.

 

[dgfred]

The problem I have with these kind of statements is that this presumes the burden of proof is on AK and RS and that's not the way it is (or should be) in a court of law or during any legal situation. The prosecution has the burden of proof. It doesn't matter if a defendant testifies or not (and often it's better to not). The burden solely lies upon the prosecution to prove the evidence rises to the standard of that court.

It troubles me that this basic legal right is so misunderstood. AK doesn't have to prove she didn't do this murder...the prosecution has to prove their case (and successfully defend it during appeal).

Well the prosecution DID prove they were not doing what they said as far as the jury is concerned... they were convicted and given a form of a life sentence.

At appeal the defendents need to SHOW where the prosecution was wrong... which they can not/have not been able to do. Not just proclaiming 'I am innocent' and the 'judges/jury got it wrong' without a shread of evidence showing WHY they got it wrong. If that is the best she can do as far as stating their innocense... they are in a world of trouble no doubt.

 

[SleuthyGal]

At appeal the defendents need to SHOW where the prosecution was wrong... which they can not/have not been able to do. Not just proclaiming 'I am innocent' and the 'judges/jury got it wrong' without a shread of evidence showing WHY they got it wrong. If that is the best she can do as far as stating their innocense... they are in a world of trouble no doubt.

Have they had the actual hearing yet? I don't mean the 10 min one where they delayed the appeal. I mean the full-fledged appeal in court?

If no, then why is A.K. being criticized for what she didn't do or say?

And, it's her attorneys who need to try the case. She herself doesn't HAVE TO get on the stand.

 

[dgfred]

Have they had the actual hearing yet? I don't mean the 10 min one where they delayed the appeal. I mean the full-fledged appeal in court?

If no, then why is A.K. being criticized for what she didn't do or say?

And, it's her attorneys who need to try the case. She herself doesn't HAVE TO get on the stand.

The prosecution presents it's 'case' on the 18th against new witnesses and testing. Should have an answer that very day from the judge.

She is criticized for what she DOESN'T say...
*Do you notice any differences in her statements now as compared to the trial? Do you notice any behavioral and attire differences? If she wants to make statements that is totally up to her. I welcome it myself... tends to put her in a even deeper hole IMO. Seems her defense team realized that she didn't come off to well in the trial with what she did say, and are trying to mend everyone's view of her.
*Wonder why RS didn't have anything to say :waitasec: ?
*It also seems (per PMF) that one of the posters contacted a reporter that was at the trial and NONE of the jurors showed ANY emotion at her speech... which is in stark contrast to what has been said by her step-father, friend and pro-innocent sites... wonder why they would spread false information? :waitasec:

 

[SleuthyGal]

She is criticized for what she DOESN'T say...

and hence the problem I have. Lack of statement is not evidence.

And it appears to not matter what she said (or could have said). She spoke? Lies. She didn't speak? covering up. She testified in court? Lies.

There is literally nothing she could say or not say that would placate someone who is determined to find her guilty regardless.

A defendant shouldn't have to say anything. Ever. That is a legal right.

In the U.S. (which yes, I realize this is not the U.S.) a jury is not to infer guilt from a defendant not testifying. And that is a very important part of our constitution.

I don't know the laws in Italy, but a defendant not talking or not taking the stand has no bearing on my opinion in a case. I want to examine evidence. If there are statements, I want to see those statements. Interrogations? Get it on tape and/or video. Wait...no tape recordings? No video? FAIL!

 

[Steely Dan]

The prosecution presents it's 'case' on the 18th against new witnesses and testing. Should have an answer that very day from the judge.

She is criticized for what she DOESN'T say...
*Do you notice any differences in her statements now as compared to the trial? Do you notice any behavioral and attire differences? If she wants to make statements that is totally up to her. I welcome it myself... tends to put her in a even deeper hole IMO. Seems her defense team realized that she didn't come off to well in the trial with what she did say, and are trying to mend everyone's view of her.
*Wonder why RS didn't have anything to say :waitasec: ?
*It also seems (per PMF) that one of the posters contacted a reporter that was at the trial and NONE of the jurors showed ANY emotion at her speech... which is in stark contrast to what has been said by her step-father, friend and pro-innocent sites... wonder why they would spread false information? :waitasec:

The pro-Amanda groups are doing anything they can to get her released. They are painting the Italian legal system like some third world dictatorship where conclusions are made before trial and stuck to. JMO

and hence the problem I have. Lack of statement is not evidence.

And it appears to not matter what she said (or could have said). She spoke? Lies. She didn't speak? covering up. She testified in court? Lies.

There is literally nothing she could say or not say that would placate someone who is determined to find her guilty regardless.

A defendant shouldn't have to say anything. Ever. That is a legal right.

In the U.S. (which yes, I realize this is not the U.S.) a jury is not to infer guilt from a defendant not testifying. And that is a very important part of our constitution.

I don't know the laws in Italy, but a defendant not talking or not taking the stand has no bearing on my opinion in a case. I want to examine evidence. If there are statements, I want to see those statements. Interrogations? Get it on tape and/or video. Wait...no tape recordings? No video? FAIL!

I think that by lack of a statement she means a story that makes sense and fits the evidence. As far as taping the interrogations I agree with you. Interrogations should be taped in all circumstances.

 

[dgfred]

It is easy to see, if you take her early statements, her email home, and the evidence proving she was NOT where she said she was... that she was more interested in deflecting the investigation instead of the truth.

This was proven to the jury, so in reality her statements at appeal mean nothing either way. Still doesn't prevent one for being critical or doubtful of what she is claiming now.

 

[Maznblu1]

and hence the problem I have. Lack of statement is not evidence.

And it appears to not matter what she said (or could have said). She spoke? Lies. She didn't speak? covering up. She testified in court? Lies.

There is literally nothing she could say or not say that would placate someone who is determined to find her guilty regardless.

A defendant shouldn't have to say anything. Ever. That is a legal right.

In the U.S. (which yes, I realize this is not the U.S.) a jury is not to infer guilt from a defendant not testifying. And that is a very important part of our constitution.

I don't know the laws in Italy, but a defendant not talking or not taking the stand has no bearing on my opinion in a case. I want to examine evidence. If there are statements, I want to see those statements. Interrogations? Get it on tape and/or video. Wait...no tape recordings? No video? FAIL!

All of what you say here is factually true. But in reality, most people believe that an innocent person isn't going to sit quietly if they are on trial for their life. Even in our U.S., the jury isn't supposed to infer guilt from a defendant not testifying - but I think we'd be naive to think most juries don't consider it in their decision making.

 

[SleuthyGal]

most people believe that an innocent person isn't going to sit quietly if they are on trial for their life. Even in our U.S., the jury isn't supposed to infer guilt from a defendant not testifying - but I think we'd be naive to think most juries don't consider it in their decision making.

I know. And that disgusts me because there are specific jury instructions by the judge in every case contrary to what juries might be doing. That a jury would disregard a judge's instructions on this very important point (heck, on any point) causes me to not trust the jury system (even while acknowledging it's the best one we have).

 

[For The Kids]

To my knowledge there's no book on how to behave when one's daughter is accused of murdering someone else's daughter. Sometimes the survivors of a crime victim consider any contact by the "other side" offensive.

It is inconceivable to me that the victim's father sold that article to a tabloid, but I haven't been in his shoes. Nor the Knox's.

Where does it say they sold the article? I think her father just wanted to remind people that his daughter was the victim..and not Amanda Knox. Another thing...I am British and can tell you there has been hardly anything in the media from the Kercher family..can you honestly say that Amandas parents havent been in the media a lot? I am sorry but it seems to me that her family have tried to become minor "celebrities" out of the TRAGEDY that has occured to the Kercher family.

 

[Nova]

and hence the problem I have. Lack of statement is not evidence.

And it appears to not matter what she said (or could have said). She spoke? Lies. She didn't speak? covering up. She testified in court? Lies.

There is literally nothing she could say or not say that would placate someone who is determined to find her guilty regardless.

A defendant shouldn't have to say anything. Ever. That is a legal right.

In the U.S. (which yes, I realize this is not the U.S.) a jury is not to infer guilt from a defendant not testifying. And that is a very important part of our constitution.

I don't know the laws in Italy, but a defendant not talking or not taking the stand has no bearing on my opinion in a case. I want to examine evidence. If there are statements, I want to see those statements. Interrogations? Get it on tape and/or video. Wait...no tape recordings? No video? FAIL!

Very well put. I've been on several juries over the years, but at this point, I've read enough about aggressive interrogations that I'm not sure I would consider any evidence from an interrogation that had not been taped.

Recording equipment just isn't that expensive these days.

 

[Nova]

Where does it say they sold the article? I think her father just wanted to remind people that his daughter was the victim..and not Amanda Knox. Another thing...I am British and can tell you there has been hardly anything in the media from the Kercher family..can you honestly say that Amandas parents havent been in the media a lot? I am sorry but it seems to me that her family have tried to become minor "celebrities" out of the TRAGEDY that has occured to the Kercher family.

Well, Mr. Kercher was identified as a professional journalist. The article was not written by someone who interviewed Kercher, it was a first-person column reportedly penned by Kercher himself.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume he was paid for his work.

But for the record, I have no problem with his receiving compensation for doing what is essentially his job. That wasn't my point.

I was reacting more to the quality of the tabloid itself. If Kercher was paid, then good for him.

 

[Nova]

I know. And that disgusts me because there are specific jury instructions by the judge in every case contrary to what juries might be doing. That a jury would disregard a judge's instructions on this very important point (heck, on any point) causes me to not trust the jury system (even while acknowledging it's the best one we have).

I think the primary reason for NOT testifying is that nobody is infallible. We all misspeak (and misremember details) every day.

But do so on the stand under oath, and every misstatement is held up as evidence of lying, and therefore guilt.

 

[kemo]

Amanda will have to follow her lawyer's advice as she works her appeal through the Italian Legal System.

The primary reason for NOT testifying is that the Prosecutor gets to cross examine. This can bring out inconsistancies (and outright lies) in statements the defendant has given in the past, prior criminal convictions, expose the jury to the "unpleasant" side of defendant's personality, and perhaps most importantly; "set the table" for the rebutal witnesses by pinning the defendant down to details that subsequent (or occasionally earlier) witnesses will shot down. Because the defense lawyer never knows what the prosecution will ask, they can't be prepared for what might happen.

I, and I suspect most people reading this, are not concerned with the ins and out of the Italian legal system except to the extent that justice is served; i.e. that the guilty are punished and the innocent are freed. We don't have to listen to the judges instructions. We can consider any information we want.

 

[For The Kids]

Well, Mr. Kercher was identified as a professional journalist. The article was not written by someone who interviewed Kercher, it was a first-person column reportedly penned by Kercher himself.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume he was paid for his work.

But for the record, I have no problem with his receiving compensation for doing what is essentially his job. That wasn't my point.

I was reacting more to the quality of the tabloid itself. If Kercher was paid, then good for him.

Actually i doubt he was paid at all. Whilst he may be a journalist..he wrote that as a grieiving father..and not as a tabloid hack. Incidentally there is nothing matter with The Mail either.

 

[dgfred]

Very well put. I've been on several juries over the years, but at this point, I've read enough about aggressive interrogations that I'm not sure I would consider any evidence from an interrogation that had not been taped.

Recording equipment just isn't that expensive these days.

Italian jury?

Statements made by AK when she was a 'witness' were not use against her at trial. Once she claimed to have been in the cottage with Patrick, and heard Meredith scream... she was then a 'suspect'. Anything she said/emailed or wrote COULD be used against her. No need to record a witness in every case IMO. It seems lying to homicide investigators is going to be very expensive for AK, RS and their families.

 

[dgfred]

Amanda will have to follow her lawyer's advice as she works her appeal through the Italian Legal System.

The primary reason for NOT testifying is that the Prosecutor gets to cross examine. This can bring out inconsistancies (and outright lies) in statements the defendant has given in the past, prior criminal convictions, expose the jury to the "unpleasant" side of defendant's personality, and perhaps most importantly; "set the table" for the rebutal witnesses by pinning the defendant down to details that subsequent (or occasionally earlier) witnesses will shot down. Because the defense lawyer never knows what the prosecution will ask, they can't be prepared for what might happen.

I, and I suspect most people reading this, are not concerned with the ins and out of the Italian legal system except to the extent that justice is served; i.e. that the guilty are punished and the innocent are freed. We don't have to listen to the judges instructions. We can consider any information we want.

One thing in Italy to note too is that 'spontaneous' statements made by the accused at trial cannot be cross examined. RS could stand up and say 'so and so evidence is not true, I did not do so and so', and possibly go on to show it by his defense team arguements. Maybe he should :waitasec: .

 

[dgfred]

If RG's verdict is verified, it will be a big blow to AK and RS appeals IMO.

 

[Steely Dan]

Where does it say they sold the article? I think her father just wanted to remind people that his daughter was the victim..and not Amanda Knox. Another thing...I am British and can tell you there has been hardly anything in the media from the Kercher family..can you honestly say that Amandas parents havent been in the media a lot? I am sorry but it seems to me that her family have tried to become minor "celebrities" out of the TRAGEDY that has occured to the Kercher family.

What's worse to me is that they are painting HER as the victim.

I think the primary reason for NOT testifying is that nobody is infallible. We all misspeak (and misremember details) every day.

But do so on the stand under oath, and every misstatement is held up as evidence of lying, and therefore guilt.

I was a juror on a trial that the defendant took the stand and it was a very bad idea.