Amanda Knox Found Guilty

Pages

This has been a whole huge thing in Italy and Britain, but essentially, an American student studying abroad in Italy was convicted of helping her boyfriend and another man murder her roommate, Meredith Kercher.

Given that I've only heard snippets here and there about the trial, I can't really pretend to have a serious opinion on it, but I was surprised to find out that, in a trial like this where there was so much in the way of salacious rumors going around in the press, that the jury was not sequestered at all until they began deliberations yesterday.

It's a complicated situation, first and foremost because the Italian system of justice is essentially "guilty until proven innocent;" in other words, if you're charged with a crime, chances are in the eyes of the jury pool there's a good reason why you were. Second, from what I heard from a Vanity Fair writer speaking on CNN (her opinion, mind you), the Italian prosecutor was hell-bent on getting a conviction because he believed that because Amanda actively had sex with her boyfriend (apparently he found the idea of her carrying condoms in her purse shocking) and did drugs that she had to be guilty, that because her behavior was so deviant in his eyes that she was already a criminal and it was logical for him to go from seeing her as a drug and sex addict to a murderer. Throw out that there was no clear motive in the killing and that the DNA evidence essentially pointed against her being involved in the murder that the prosecutor convinced the trial judge to exclude from the proceedings. They wanted, to paraphrase The Merchantman of Venice, their pound of flesh and they got it. There isn't a damn thing Amanda Knox or her lawyers can do about it and short of proving gross misconduct on the part of the prosecution and/or the trial judge, she's going to serve out her term in full.

Yeah, hard evidence didn't seem to have much impact on the jury. The only DNA evidence of her they had was from a knife they couldn't prove was the actual weapon.

What did her in (besides the fact that she's a young American woman) was her erratic behavior after the murder. She said she was at the scene of the crime, and blamed her boss for the murder only to recant that testimony soon after and say she wasn't there. And then she was seen doing cartwheels and such when her then boyfriend was brought in for questioning... basically not looking like she was too disturbed her friend and roommate was just brutally murdered.

None of that is proof of guilt, and I personally think she's innocent, but she didn't really help her case at all with her behavior.

Yeah, from the snippets i've read, i'm leaning towards "innocent" but again, I honestly have no idea.

Rat Boy wrote:

There isn't a damn thing Amanda Knox or her lawyers can do about it and short of proving gross misconduct on the part of the prosecution and/or the trial judge, she's going to serve out her term in full.

From the small bits I've read, an acquittal on appeal isn't out of the question. Apparently that's pretty common in Italy because of their general "guilty until proven innocent" attitude that you mentioned. Also the judge refused to let forensic experts for the defense testify on the shaky DNA evidence which seems pretty suspect. I wouldn't put her chances at high, but there has been some precedent set.

Of course I'm basing all of this on CNN reports and the like, so who knows what the actual situation is.

It's not good, it's official US State complaint level, but the Italians aren't some third world nation, so we can't be accusing them of a bullsh*t archaic legal system that, while inept against criminals like the organized ones in the south, slams smaller people and the mentally disturbed ( I think it's been pretty clear that Knox, while probably not a killer, is 50 cards short of a deck)

I'm not sure I'd characterize the Italian legal system as "archaic". I was intrigued to discover that the Italian jury system is comprised of six peers and two judges, meaning every jury has a small educated element. There's also the issue of the appeal, which will no doubt take a while to go through but tends to lead to a much more lenient retrial (from what I've read).

As to her behavior, I don't pretend to know all the facts of the case, but any time there's mind-altering drugs flying around it gets damn hard to take anyone at their word. Whenever I heard anything about this trial through CNN, it seemed there was an "innocent" bias in the way facts were reported; when I read about it on the BBC site, that bias seemed less present. But at the end of the day, I have to admit to being woefully underinformed about the whole thing.

I read today in my Belgian newspaper that they both confessed to murder. Was this not mentioned by CNN?

sarcasm
Or were they coerced by the incompetent Italian judicial system into a false confession?
/sarcasm

dejanzie wrote:

I read today in my Belgian newspaper that they both confessed to murder. Was this not mentioned by CNN?

sarcasm
Or were they coerced by the incompetent Italian judicial system into a false confession?
/sarcasm

CNN[/url]]On the day Knox was arrested, Mellas was flying to Italy to be with her daughter, to comfort her and help her find a new place to live since her home was still a crime scene.

But Mellas' plane was diverted to Switzerland, where she switched on her phone and learned that Knox had been charged with murder.

"I felt physically ill, I went to the bathroom to throw up. I was stuck [in Switzerland] for five hours," Mellas recalled, beginning to cry.

By the time she reached Italy and was allowed to see her daughter, Mellas had already heard news reports that Knox had confessed. She was flabbergasted and confused.

See the evidence against Amanda Knox

"It was horrible. We cried most of the time," Mellas recalled of the first meeting. "But we held each other and it all made sense. She told me what happened in the interrogation, how they asked her to imagine the possibilities. She talked about being hit, screamed at, threatened; it was the most horrible thing she had ever been through in her entire life."

Is there any evidence that the Italian police beat or coerced the confession out of Knox?

Weren't they trying to paint her as an assassin? A murder of one foreigner by another is a little different than the assassination of one by another.

It is really hard to get good information here in the US. I do remember hearing on NPR that at first she said she was home during the murder and actually heard the screams of her roommate...then she changed her story to say she was gone at the time. Ummm that makes me really suspicious. I would like to know more but the way the media handles stories we probably won't really know much until someone researches and publishes a book about it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/eur...

The only thing that seems clear is that the woman has not brought all of her sandwiches to the picnic. Whether this predates the murder or is a result of the ensuing legal and press pressures is hard to say. Were her actions afterwards those of drug addled nymphomaniac psychotic as the prosecution have portrayed, or simply a young woman breaking down due to confusion and fear?

I don't know whether she is innocent or guilty, but I'm sure the Italians would prefer people think that an American student murdered a British one rather than a native Italian murdering a tourist. That doesn't look so good in the brochures.

That a pretty far fetched claim to make, Darktan. There is no evidence pointing to that conclusion apart from a claim made by one of the suspect (OJ, anyone?). I'm interested in this because apart from some accusations and hear-say there is nothing to indicate that Knox isn't guilty.

I'm open to all possibilities but as of now but I think many in this thread are operating on an emotional level and not a rational one. Up to now we've had ad hominem attacks on the entire Italian judicial system and even the vague notion that because she was American she was found guilty which is a weird one considering two other Italians are in prison for the crime as well. Frankly, unless someone can come up with a serious insight I'm chalking this one up to tribalism or nationalism.

Oh and the Perugian police have sued Knox's parents for defamation, a case they started in 2008. The claim that they beat a confession out of Knox didn't go down well, it seems.

Axon wrote:

Frankly, unless someone can come up with a serious insight I'm chalking this one up to tribalism or nationalism.

One guy who has been blogging at the NY Times lays out the problems with the case here. I haven't followed the case closely and don't have an opinion on her guilt or innocence, but simply dismissing any objections as "tribalism" sounds like pan-european tribalism itself.

Axon wrote:

I'm open to all possibilities

I'm not dismissing objections, I'm looking for the basis of the appeal and the errors in the trial. Thanks for the link, I'll give it a read.

I feel like this is all about nationalism and her prettiness and gender - for Americans. There are hundreds of cases in the US of people railroaded by the justice system but we hardly hear about them at all. Just do some digging and they are easy to find. So why is this story so important. The only thing that makes any sense is nationalism. It is another way for people to bolster the idea that America is somehow better than every other country. Look at their backwards legal system! Look how they make this innocent American suffer! Is must be because they hate America. etc. etc.

Don't get me wrong in the US she probably wouldn't have been convicted (because she is a white woman with money to get a good attorney) but that isn't something to really crow about since we have more than enough cases where people were convicted with less evidence. Will this encourage US citizens to look more closely at our own justice system and work to improve it? Or will it just be another reason everyone else in the world is wrong?

Axon wrote:

That a pretty far fetched claim to make, Darktan.

Which part? I'm fairly certain that any society would rather blame "outsiders" for its problems than face the facts that they come from within, if it's possible. I'm not suggesting that Knox has been scapegoated because of her nationality - as you point out, two Italians have also been convicted. I suppose my point is that her role, whatever it might have been, has been given more publicity because of her nationality.

I'm not being particularly clear today, a fact I ascribe at least in part to the fact that the only reason I'm on here is because I am off work with norovirus.

Rat Boy wrote:

It's a complicated situation, first and foremost because the Italian system of justice is essentially "guilty until proven innocent;" in other words, if you're charged with a crime, chances are in the eyes of the jury pool there's a good reason why you were.

I'm not sure that is any different from any other Western country. In theory, in both the UK and the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. However, at least some members of every jury may have the view that there is no smoke without fire, and so on. Personal preconceptions are a difficult thing to quantify, particularly as people are unlikely to consciously own up to making up their minds as to the verdict within ten seconds of seeing the defendant.

Darktan wrote:

I'm not sure that is any different from any other Western country. In theory, in both the UK and the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. However, at least some members of every jury may have the view that there is no smoke without fire, and so on. Personal preconceptions are a difficult thing to quantify, particularly as people are unlikely to consciously own up to making up their minds as to the verdict within ten seconds of seeing the defendant.

Yes, and most people seem to think OJ Simpson killed his wife. In the eyes of the law, he's innocent (of that, at least). The "innocent until proven guilty" thing has a very profound effect on the entire system. I've often heard of police waiting to charge someone with a crime until they have enough evidence to prove it, because they only get one shot at it. The unscientific opinion of the jury is only part of it.

LobsterMobster wrote:

I've often heard of police waiting to charge someone with a crime until they have enough evidence to prove it, because they only get one shot at it.

Ah, the old double jeopardy thang. We quietly ushered that one out of the door a few years back, but you still need "new and compelling evidence" for a retrial. In practice though, I suspect that the same timing issue still applies, as the Crown Prosecution Service is only likely to spring for cases that they have a fighting change of getting a conviction in.

IMAGE(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2759/4166077453_c35a07564d.jpg)

I'd hit it. Guilty.

Axon wrote:

That a pretty far fetched claim to make, Darktan. There is no evidence pointing to that conclusion apart from a claim made by one of the suspect (OJ, anyone?). I'm interested in this because apart from some accusations and hear-say there is nothing to indicate that Knox isn't guilty.

I'm open to all possibilities but as of now but I think many in this thread are operating on an emotional level and not a rational one. Up to now we've had ad hominem attacks on the entire Italian judicial system and even the vague notion that because she was American she was found guilty which is a weird one considering two other Italians are in prison for the crime as well. Frankly, unless someone can come up with a serious insight I'm chalking this one up to tribalism or nationalism.

Oh and the Perugian police have sued Knox's parents for defamation, a case they started in 2008. The claim that they beat a confession out of Knox didn't go down well, it seems.

Well I could care less as I don't find sensational news all that interesting but from what little I have heard it was mostly the Italian media that is going ape over this young lady. I would guess that if it weren't for the amount of coverage it is getting over there you wouldn't probably hear about it at all here in the States. I'm not arguing that responses here aren't as you say they are but I don't think under the circumstances (overly exposed in Europe, barely covered here) that it is very surprising. We aren't the ones making a big deal out of her being an American (general statement, I know) so when it is pointed out I can see people getting defensive or their tribalism kicking in.

*Legion* wrote:

IMAGE(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2759/4166077453_c35a07564d.jpg)

I'd hit it. Guilty.

Something ain't right about that girl.

Ok, I've read the blog that Funken linked. Hardly convincing stuff combined when the fact that his second point has already been refuted. The Perugian police started their case in Sept 2008 and not days before the trial. The first point that theatrics have no place in a court room is a little ironic coming from an American but hardly proof of a mistrial or a miscarriage.

So after that opening gambit he moves on to the case itself. He makes some serious claims that Knox cannot be linked to the crime which I will counter with another American publication, Newsweek.

Evidence: The knife
Who it hurts: The prosecution
The most contested piece of evidence in this murder case is the "double DNA knife," a six-and-a-half-inch kitchen knife found in Sollecito's apartment that has Knox's DNA on the handle—and, according to Italian forensic police expert Patrizia Stefanoni, Kercher's DNA on a groove on the blade. An officer testifying at the trial said he used "police intuition" when choosing that knife from Sollecito's cutlery. Officers testified that there was a strong smell of bleach in the apartment and that the knife had looked exceptionally clean. Stefanoni testified that it had tiny scratches on the side, compatible with intense scrubbing. According to multiple witnesses for the defense, the knife is compatible with at least one of the three wounds on Kercher's neck, but it was likely too large for the other two. And it does not match a knife print in blood that was left on Kercher's white bedsheet. More troubling for the prosecution is that, while the DNA on the handle is inarguably Knox's, the spot on the blade attributed to Kercher was so small that Stefanoni could not double-test it according to forensic protocol standards. And she did not test it with the defense experts present (they had been offered the opportunity to attend but didn't attend.) If Knox and Sollecito used this knife to kill Kercher, as the prosecution alleges, it is also puzzling why they would bring it back to Sollecito's apartment and put it in a drawer with the regular utensils to be used for cooking.

Evidence: Mixed blood
Who it hurts: Knox
The only forensic evidence against Knox is the presence in her house of five spots where the blood and DNA of the roommates had commingled. Of those five, the most damning is a drop of Kercher's blood with Knox's DNA found (with the aid of Luminol, a substance used in crime-scene investigations to find blood that has been cleaned up) in the bedroom of Filomena Romanelli, one of the two Italian women who also lived in the house. The prosecution alleges that a break-in was staged by Knox and Sollecito in Romanelli's room: the window was broken with a large rock and the room was ransacked, but nothing was taken—even though expensive sunglasses and jewelry were in plain sight. Clothes were pulled from Romanelli's dresser drawers but the glass shards from the broken window were found on top of them, leading police to believe that the window was broken after the ransacking took place, not before. Romanelli testified on the stand that the first thing she thought was "What a stupid burglar." The other mixed DNA spots were found in the bathroom the women shared—on the sink, the bidet, and on the side of a Q-tip box. The defense did not contest any of the lab results, provide a counter scenario to the staged break-in, or offer testimony to explain why Knox may also have been bleeding (except to say that it is common to find mixed DNA from two people who shared a house). Knox originally told police that her pierced ears were infected. Her mother, Edda Mellas, told NEWSWEEK that she was menstruating, though neither scenario was presented to the jury. Knox supporters suggest that Kercher's blood had been dropped by Guede on a spot where Knox's dried blood or DNA already existed, even though Guede's DNA profile was not identified in any of the five spots.

Evidence: Fingerprints
Who it hurts: The prosecution
No fingerprints or DNA belonging to Knox was ever found in the room where Kercher was murdered. In fact, the only fingerprint in the entire house attributed to the Seattle native was on a drinking glass in the kitchen sink. Those who support Knox's innocence say that lack of evidence in the crime-scene room should exonerate her. Those who think she is guilty say the evidence was cleaned up and point out that there are 19 fingerprints in Kercher's room that are unidentifiable because they are partial or smeared, meaning they may have belonged to Knox or Sollecito.

Evidence: Footprints
Who it hurts: Sollecito
Knox's bare footprints were found in the corridor outside Kercher's room after officers used Luminol. Because she lived in the house, these footprints are easily justifiable, even though the officers testified that they were likely left in blood (Luminol detects prints left in blood, bleach, and certain acidic juices). She testified that she had taken a shower and then seen blood on the floor, meaning she could have easily stepped in it and tracked it around unknowingly. A footprint in Kercher's blood on a blue bathmat is another story. It was attributed to Sollecito by the prosecution and what appeared to be a doctored version of the print was attributed to Guede by the defense. Several sneaker footprints in Kercher's room were attributed to Guede. A bloody footprint from a smaller shoe was found on the pillow beneath Kercher's head but it could not be positively identified as a match to any of the suspects.

Evidence: The bra clasp
Who it hurts: Nobody
Unlike Knox, Sollecito's DNA was found at the crime scene on the tiny metal clasp of the bra Kercher was wearing when she was murdered. The bra had been cut from her body by the assailants and the clasp and white material around it were separated from the rest of the bra. If the sample had been treated properly, the DNA would have damaged Sollecito's defense. But after the clasp was identified on a video of the original sweep of the crime scene, it was not collected into evidence until the third visit to the house, nearly six weeks after the murder. The prosecution maintains that the house was sealed the entire time and that contamination was impossible, since "DNA does not fly around the room." But Sollecito's lawyers have cast much doubt on the sanctity of this sample by focusing on the six weeks the clasp was left unattended in the house. In several videos taken during the investigation phase, the clasp appears to have been moved more than a meter from its original location. The only other DNA belonging to Sollecito found in the house was on a cigarette butt in another room.

Evidence: Circumstantial
Who it hurts: Unknown
Kercher's murder remains a mystery. There is not much forensic evidence, no clear murder weapon, no motive, and no confession as to what really happened the night of Nov. 1, 2007. So circumstantial evidence will have unusual influence on the judges' decision. The prosecution presented witnesses who testified about Knox and Sollecito's strange behavior after the crime. Phone records show that Knox and Sollecito both turned off their cell phones at the same time the night of the murder and turned them back on again within a few minutes very early the next morning, even though they maintain they woke up late that day. But it's not all bad for Knox. Forensic specialists have testified that the investigators made grave errors in collecting evidence—including not changing gloves between samples. And there are significant questions about some of the lab work.

Still, there are many anomalies that simply don't make sense. For instance, Knox testified that she came home the morning after the murder and found the door to the house open but went in and took a shower anyway. Then she testified that she saw blood on the rug and the floor in the bathroom. "I thought it was odd that she'd had a shower when there was blood all over the place," the women's roommate Romanelli told the court. "I really don't think that's normal." But this case has never been normal.

Again, I'm not going to say that this is an open or shut case. I do have grave concerns about relying upon forensic and circumstantial evidence too much. However, Knox has not at any point in this trial done herself any favours by either shifting alibi's, naming an innocent man or getting caught out in lies that harm her version of events.

Podunk wrote:

Something ain't right about that girl.

That's why I'm gone, right after I hit it.

We need Mex in here, to determine whether she is or is not hittable and whether there is or is not something that ain't right about her.

LobsterMobster wrote:

We need Mex in here, to determine whether she is or is not hittable and whether there is or is not something that ain't right about her.

I'm sure there was something similar said in the court room.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Darktan wrote:

I'm not sure that is any different from any other Western country. In theory, in both the UK and the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. However, at least some members of every jury may have the view that there is no smoke without fire, and so on. Personal preconceptions are a difficult thing to quantify, particularly as people are unlikely to consciously own up to making up their minds as to the verdict within ten seconds of seeing the defendant.

Yes, and most people seem to think OJ Simpson killed his wife. In the eyes of the law, he's innocent (of that, at least).

FWIW, I thought he was convicted in his civil trial on the basis of having killed his wife even though he was declared innocent in the criminal trial.

*Legion* wrote:
Podunk wrote:

Something ain't right about that girl.

That's why I'm gone, right after I hit it.

This thread is going places!

I'd hit it. At the airport, right after she passed through the metal detector.

LobsterMobster wrote:

We need Mex in here, to determine whether she is or is not hittable and whether there is or is not something that ain't right about her.

I'm feeling unappreciated.

Pages