General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Amanda Knox will again go before an Italian court [View all]DanTex
(20,709 posts)The police claim this: They offered her a lawyer, and she said no. And she was also offered water, food, bathroom, etc. At that time she was still a witness, not a suspect, so it was OK to question her without a lawyer. But the lack of the lawyer made her statements inadmissible. When she became a suspect, the interrogation was stopped so she could be then interrogated with a lawyer.
I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm saying that's what the police say happened. Maybe I'm wrong. But if I'm not wrong, and the police actually said that, then it's her word versus the police's. That's why I keep saying that the claims about being denied a lawyer and being interrogated harshly aren't established facts. Being "denied a lawyer" to me indicates that Amanda asked for a lawyer and the police said no. If the police have admitted that this happened, I haven't heard that. And, of course, if that actually did happen, that's horrible.
As far as reasonable doubt, I already have reasonable doubt. When I say I'm "leaning guilty" that means that I think the chances are at least 51% that she's guilty. On the other hand, I haven't seen all the evidence, so I really just have to guess at whether, if I actually saw all the evidence, would I then be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.
Thanks for the link, again. Maybe I'll read about it. Or maybe she'll be found innocent next week or whenever they decide, and this will just all go away.
Also, thanks for the civil discussion, and sorry about being so insistently wrong about the 50 hours thing.