[MP-Ryan]

...and how frightening the Italian legal system can apparently be.

For the sake of bringing everyone up to speed, here's a Wikipedia article on the case:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher

What has me shaking my head here is not so much a problem with Italy's inquisitorial justice system, but rather the fact that the DNA evidence and collection procedures were quite obviously botched by international standards, meaning that any conclusions they yielded are useless.  In the absence of that information, there appears to be no concrete evidence of Knox or Sollecito's guilt.

Not that the adversarial system is perfect (it gets a lot wrong too), but it's disconcerting in a system where judge serves also as prosecutor that evidence as severely botched as that would be not only introduced at trial, but used to make a finding of guilt.  That's terrifying.

I won't even get into the prosecution theories about "rage caused by smoking marijuana."  Here's hoping the Appeals court actually looks at the forensic evidence and its credibility before rendering a decision.

Other thoughts?

[Flipside]

I agree with you, the only things that confuse me about Knox are (a) her strange behaviour during the initial stages of the investigation and (b) The fact that her parents have openly stated that if the appeal is succesful, they will pull her out of the country so that she, and they, can avoid a re-appeal as well as charges for slander from the Italian police for accusing them of coercion. That, to my mind, is not the behaviour of someone determined to prove their innocence, but will also readily agree that there is absolutely nothing there that is admissable in court as evidence.

The problem is, the hearing has been made into a show, it's more about the perception of Knox than the facts of the case. It's odd, because I was reading an American report claiming that Knox was being painted as an 'evil murderer' in the UK, which just goes to show all the more how media is defining this case, because whilst it is true that papers like The Mail have been acting as they usually do, I think most people in the UK are more interested in Justice for Meredith than putting Knox in jail, they just want whoever is guilty to be proved as such. Running away from the third appeal will do nothing but leave a pall of suspicioun over her.

Personally, I have a lot of questions over the evidence, but then, I also have a lot of questions over the behaviour of the suspect.

[Herra Tohtori]

Why should she need to prove her innocence?

Burden of proof is on the prosecution. Notwithstanding her actual guilt or innocence on the matter, it's up to the prosecution to collect and present condemning evidence, and it seems to me that they have failed to do so; that alone would be grounds for mistrial in my opinion.

Not even going to get to the obvious problematic rhetoric used by the prosecution. Describing her as "diabolical" and "witch of deception" is not what I would call factual or relevant - it stinks of just trying to lower the public opinion of Knox and doesn't have a place in a fair trial.

I don't know why someone wasn't screaming bloody OBJECTION! when the prosecution blurted those things out, though maybe they didn't say that in court session.



Seriously, though, I don't know if she did it or not, but if the prosecution cannot secure sufficient evidence to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, then she should go free and that's as simple as it is.

Considering all the hubbub around the case I definitely think there might have been something fishy going on, but actual proof of her involvement in the murder itself seems flimsy and lacking at best, and totally inconclusive at worst. Add to that the alleged statements from that one drug dealer that Knox and Sollecito were innocent and that a third, un-named person was the killer, and the obfuscation around the case is just too high to make anything definitive out of it.

[StarSlayer]

The problem is, the hearing has been made into a show, it's more about the perception of Knox than the facts of the case. It's odd, because I was reading an American report claiming that Knox was being painted as an 'evil murderer' in the UK, which just goes to show all the more how media is defining this case, because whilst it is true that papers like The Mail have been acting as they usually do, I think most people in the UK are more interested in Justice for Meredith than putting Knox in jail, they just want whoever is guilty to be proved as such. Running away from the third appeal will do nothing but leave a pall of suspicioun over her.

:I Why would you continue to submit yourself to some draconian legal system in a foreign country?  I could see sticking it out if you felt you were getting a fair shake with an impartial trial but continuing rolling the dice in Italy seems foolhardy.

[MP-Ryan]

I agree with you, the only things that confuse me about Knox are (a) her strange behaviour during the initial stages of the investigation and (b) The fact that her parents have openly stated that if the appeal is succesful, they will pull her out of the country so that she, and they, can avoid a re-appeal as well as charges for slander from the Italian police for accusing them of coercion. That, to my mind, is not the behaviour of someone determined to prove their innocence, but will also readily agree that there is absolutely nothing there that is admissable in court as evidence.

But that's a cultural matter.  As people primarily exposed to the American judges system, Knox and her parents aren't concerned with proving her innocence, they are more interested in the finding of "not guilty."  There's the rub between North America and Europe (including Britain) - we don't refer to verdicts as "proven innocent," we refer to "not guilty" and there is a massive difference between the two.  Britain and Canada are kind of in the middle; while Canada still uses "not guilty," our judges are triers of fact with an objective of finding the truth.  Britain goes even more that way - you fellows allow refusal to testify to be used against an accused (which is not allowed in North America).  The US system anticipates that truth comes out of the process, while most European courts seek truth above all else (including admissibility).

You (and I) bring some cultural baggage to the table when we view Knox's open admission that she'll return to the US as suspicious; by the rules of the justice system they know, accepting the "not guilty" and refusing to stick around for round 3 of the inquisitorial process is perfectly normal.  As for her initial behaviour, while I do think it is strange and that she may not be completely innocent of any and all involvement, I do think that there is nowhere near enough evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt... but in Italy, that's not what their process is set out to actually do.

I don't blame Knox for saying she'd leave; given the events of the first trial and the sorry state of the evidence (if you can call it that, it sure wouldn't be in many other countries) presented, I'd be getting the hell out of Italy as quickly as possible.

Herra, as for shouting objection to certain evidence - it's an inquisitorial court.  They can't.  Italy's defence process doesn't work the same way as an adversarial system, and admissibility appears to mean very, very little to their courts.

[Herra Tohtori]

That is pretty scary thought.

On the other hand, they did win the appeal and were acquitted of the murder charges and their convictions overturned.

[Colonol Dekker]

Killer or not, innocent or guilty.



I'd still tap Amanda Knox.

[karajorma]

Innocent or not I have no symapthy for someone who would put an innocent man through the same hell she now expects us to feel sorry for her about.

That said I want to see justice done which causes problems when the case has obviously been botched but the defendant seems as obviously guilty as Knox does.

[Herra Tohtori]

Innocent or not I have no symapthy for someone who would put an innocent man through the same hell she now expects us to feel sorry for her about.

If we are to put any stock in her word, she made those statements accusing Patrick Lumumba of the murder under duress by the Italian police. While it's obviously a stinky thing to do, I don't really have enough information about what exactly she said and how the police interpreted it, and it is a well known fact that, ehm, creatively interrogated people are liable to saying what their tormentor wants to hear, or what they think their tormentor wants to hear, or what they think will get them out of the situation.

That said I want to see justice done which causes problems when the case has obviously been botched but the defendant seems as obviously guilty as Knox does.

I wouldn't say she seems obviously guilty; the appeal court certainly doesn't seem to have thought so, while in the initial trial she and her boyfriend were found guilty and convicted.

I don't know if the whole truth will ever see the light of day, but the whole thing does seem more than a little bit strange and not at all clear to me, regardless of whether one assumes guilt or innocence on her part.

[karajorma]

Innocent or not I have no symapthy for someone who would put an innocent man through the same hell she now expects us to feel sorry for her about.

If we are to put any stock in her word, she made those statements accusing Patrick Lumumba of the murder under duress by the Italian police. While it's obviously a stinky thing to do, I don't really have enough information about what exactly she said and how the police interpreted it, and it is a well known fact that, ehm, creatively interrogated people are liable to saying what their tormentor wants to hear, or what they think their tormentor wants to hear, or what they think will get them out of the situation.

The Italian police beat a confession out of the witness of a crime? One where she claims she was in the house during the murder when she says she was actually at her boyfriends house? I always knew they were ****s but it's a little hard to buy that argument.

I wouldn't say she seems obviously guilty; the appeal court certainly doesn't seem to have thought so, while in the initial trial she and her boyfriend were found guilty and convicted.

I don't know if the whole truth will ever see the light of day, but the whole thing does seem more than a little bit strange and not at all clear to me, regardless of whether one assumes guilt or innocence on her part.

The appeals court found that there wasn't enough evidence to convict her beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not the same thing as her appearing to be not guilty. Look at the Casey Anthony trial as an example where someone everyone is sure committed the crime went free for lack of evidence.

[Mars]

The whole point is that we can't PROVE that she did, and especially after all that happened to Amanda Knox, they can't prove **** either. If its possible that someone did not commit a crime, the American system is inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, and innocent people STILL get locked up.

I can't imagine how many people jailed in Italy are totally innocent of any wrong doing.

[karajorma]

Which is why I said that it does give me problems to see someone who is probably guilty of a crime go free because the police managed to **** up the investigation so badly. Especially when someone who definitely DID commit a crime and deservedly served 3 years for it is probably going to be treated as a victim/hero when she gets back to the States.

[MP-Ryan]

Which is why I said that it does give me problems to see someone who is probably guilty of a crime go free because the police managed to **** up the investigation so badly. Especially when someone who definitely DID commit a crime and deservedly served 3 years for it is probably going to be treated as a victim/hero when she gets back to the States.

Uh, everything I've read about the accusations she leveled at the barkeeper point to statements made under duress, in a second language she didn't speak completely fluently, where no translator was present, and after several days of interrogation and leading/prompting questions about the barkeeper by the authorities (and everything I've just pointed out is documented in the findings between the original trial for murder and the appeal).

I can't speak for Britain, but in North America there is no way in hell she would have been convicted of even slander.  She didn't make any sort of statements against the man spontaneously or without the significant influence of investigators.

In North America, slander/libel are reserved for serious and egregious statements made of a persons own free will against another, and the burden of proof lies on the alleged victim to show the allegations are false, which stands in stark contrast to Britain/Europe where freedom of speech is significantly more limited, particularly in the civil realm (and heavily in the criminal realm when you deal with inquisitorial justice systems).

The fact that she was even convicted of slander should pose serious problems for anyone who thinks that respecting the rights of both victim and accused is an important part of any fair, objective justice system.  It's not just about finding out the truth - it's about doing so fairly.  It is in no way fair or just to charge, convict, and sentence people when the information used to do so is obtained in ways that do not guarantee it's accuracy.  Otherwise, we might as well just start throwing people into jail based on arbitrary random number analysis for all the reliability the courts would have.  There is a reason a lot of countries limit time in custody without charge (which apparently Italy doesn't) - parking someone in a cell or interrogation room for days on end with constant grilling is virtually guaranteed to give the investigator an answer they want to hear, regardless of whether the suspect is actually guilty.

[karajorma]

Uh, everything I've read about the accusations she leveled at the barkeeper point to statements made under duress, in a second language she didn't speak completely fluently, where no translator was present, and after several days of interrogation and leading/prompting questions about the barkeeper by the authorities (and everything I've just pointed out is documented in the findings between the original trial for murder and the appeal).

Feel free to point me at something that says that. I've heard nothing similar in all the stuff I've read on the trial.

[MP-Ryan]

Uh, everything I've read about the accusations she leveled at the barkeeper point to statements made under duress, in a second language she didn't speak completely fluently, where no translator was present, and after several days of interrogation and leading/prompting questions about the barkeeper by the authorities (and everything I've just pointed out is documented in the findings between the original trial for murder and the appeal).

Feel free to point me at something that says that. I've heard nothing similar in all the stuff I've read on the trial.

Citations 36 through 39 and 50 and 51 of the Wikipedia article would be a good start.

Here's the interesting thing:  Knox was convicted of slander because there was no evidence found to prove she had been beaten.  A lack of evidence doesn't mean an allegation is false, it just means there is a lack of evidence.  So in her slander trial, there was actually a presumption of guilt.  She was never proven guilty of slander, the investigation simply couldn't find evidence that what she said was true (surprise).

It is standard operating procedure of many police departments to record interviews at least with audio, and often with audio and video.  Yet it appears no such recordings were made here.  The Italian courts found her rights were violated as police failed to inform her of her legal rights, and failed to provide access to a lawyer, or to an interpreter.  In that context, does the use of her statements made in those interviews sound admissible in any justice proceedings to you? (Ultimately, it wasn't used in the murder trial, but it was used in the other proceedings).

Were I asked to make a statement about a criminal offence in France, after 5 days of interrogation, in a language I hardly speak, without the assistance of an interpreter, without being advised of my legal rights, and without access to legal counsel from the foreign country I'm being interviewed in, just how reliable do you think any statement I would make about ANYTHING would be?

[Flipside]

I think, with regards to slander in Europe, it's an interesting case because the law states that the accuser must prove guilt, but in the case of Slander, both sides are making accusations, she that the Police used illegal methods, and the Police that she is lying, so I think Europe work on the assumption of 'first come, first tried' in that respect.

The weak part about the case is the lack of solid, above-board evidence, and failure to provide interview recordings is just a sample of this, Italy has a little bit of a reputation regarding its Policing methods anyway, though a lot of that is a hangover from 20 years ago.

I suppose the question that occurs to me is 'who am I angrier at?', the Police for failing to follow procedures, or Knox for pulling an OJ because of their incompetence.

[MP-Ryan]

I suppose the question that occurs to me is 'who am I angrier at?', the Police for failing to follow procedures, or Knox for pulling an OJ because of their incompetence.

Speaking as someone who is employed as an investigator in a law enforcement organization... the police.  There is no excuse for ****ing up an investigation that badly and violating the rights of the accused.  Ever.

[Cyborg17]

Speaking as someone who is employed as an investigator in a law enforcement organization... the police.  There is no excuse for ****ing up an investigation that badly and violating the rights of the accused.  Ever.

Agreed.  One of them is bad enough, both are disgraceful.