Amanda Knox convicted...

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

All the "evidence" against her was completely circumstancial, that any good defense attorney could stab a whole through.

Without getting to the issue of whether Amanda Knox was properly convicted or not, I'll just note that in the vast majority of cases, all of the evidence is circumstantial. Circumstantial =/= bad or weak.

Originally Posted by federico

Well, then try to rember that the idea of "legal system" itself was created in rome (a lots of legal terms are still in latin) and be thankful to our fathers too.

And you can try to remember that the American legal system was based on the English legal system, and the English legal system, for the most part, was not based on the Roman legal system, the use of Latin notwithstanding.

[rufio]

America....F*CK YEAH!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by federico

1) the jurors in america are not sequestred 99% of the times. It happens only if they are threatened.

Actually, no. I'm sure it depends on the state, but in a high-profile case like this where the media is absolutely saturated with stuff which would have been inadmissible at trial, a sequestration order would very possibly be granted. Criminal procedure does vary from state to state though, so I can't talk about anyplace but Oklahoma.

2)in italy you can blame the defendant, but you can also pray him. And most importantly the jurors are watched by 2 judges that control that they don't convict anyone just because they don't like him .

I'm sure Italian jurors are just like American jurors. You never know what the hell they're going to do. I'm young and actually working right now on what'll likely be my first jury trial, but I've been to law school, heard about 9,000 war stories from ancient lawyers and feel like I have a grasp on the fact that you don't know what's going to happen in deliberations.

I do know this -- once inadmissible evidence has been seen by a jury, an order by the judge to disregard it is going to amount to niente. The jury will consider what it wants to consider, arrive at the conclusion it wants to and jury instructions and evidence are often disregarded.

I did have a little bit of experience with a jury in law school. We had a mock trial where the jury consisted of students from a local university (criminal justice majors, I think). We tried a murder case in the ceremonial courtroom (big place) at the federal courthouse. Our guys were alleged cop killers. We won the case when I did my cross-examination of the state's eye-witness who was sitting not 25 feet away from a police car when our 'clients' walked right up and unloaded their guns into the cop's car. I tore her story apart on cross using assumptions about human nature, i.e. that she just sat there and watched and didn't try to run. When the jury came back with the innocent verdict, despite a mountain of evidence against our guys, THAT was the fact that led them all to acquit. Juries are just weird.

)The knife sequestered from Raffaele Sollecito’s apartment is in fact compatible with the deep puncture wound on Meredith’s neck. This was a point that even the defence forensic experts conceded.The american media are saying lies about this.

In the U.S., the standard for guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt. That a knife matches a deep puncture wound and appeared in the apartment of a co-conspirator isn't close to enough to get you there.

The tests on the DNA found on the blade of the knife were not inconclusive. Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni testified at the trial that the DNA on the blade of the knife has been reliably identified as Meredith’s

The 'evidence' appeared under highly questionable circumstances and was very possibly tampered with. Again, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

There were five instances of Amanda Knox’s DNA mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations in the cottage, including in Filomena’s room where the break-in was staged.

I'm not intimately familiar with the facts of the case, but a roommate's DNA turning up on the other roommate is likely pretty common and doesn't get you to beyond a reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, there was a woman’s bloody shoeprint compatible with Knox’s foot size on a pillow in Meredith’s room. This bloody shoeprint was not compatible with Meredith’s own foot size.

Knox's expert blew the footprint testimony out of the water as I understand. The footprint would have properly been attributed to Guede.

4) someone tried to wash the knife with a very powerful soap , and amanda buyed that soap exactly that morning, after searching the net for a soap that was able to clean blood (doh)

I wash knives with powerful soap all the time... I must be a murderer.

5)Amanda changed her story 4 times, because story n.1 and n.2 and n. 3 where proved lies.

This is the easiest thing of all to debunk. While to the lay person, this sounds pretty bad, I guarantee you 100% that if you talk to a good police detective for long enough regarding a crime you did or did not commit, he can probably get you to change your story several times. This is why just about every criminal lawyer in the world (where you have a right against self-incrimination) will tell you to NEVER talk to the police even if you're innocent.

So, who thinks she is innocent and our legaly sistem sucks now???

I don't know whether she's innocent. I don't think your legal system is as good as ours is when it comes to these high profile media circuses because your legal system hasn't had near the opportunity to deal with and learn from these things. I also find it shocking that the prosecutor can get away with saying so many unfounded, highly provocative, irrelevant and prejudicial things.

And let me repeat... I LOVE Italy. Truly a beautiful country. I know we've had some recent issues with your country, but I don't think that affects our relations one way or the other. Also, thanks for participating here. Your grammar is 100000% better than most of our new [American] members.

[ASUADPi]

Originally Posted by federico

Well, then try to rember that the idea of "legal system" itself was created in rome (a lots of legal terms are still in latin) and be thankful to our fathers too.

Guys, a fair trial is something that all democracies try to have, but is not easy.And the media are a big problem for the justice everywhere , not just in italy. Just like the stupid politicians (like cantwell) are a big problem for the friendship among countries.

And italy and america are really two friend countries, that is why many of the speeches a lot of americans are doing about this are just stupid.

Anyway, if you really want to know, what we really think in italy now is:"If they really want the evil bitch back, they can have her!!!".

But then we rember of meredith.

Okay if we (Italy and America) are such "friends" why are you jumping down our throats because we don't agree with Italy's pennial system, how the courts are run or what prosecuters can say about a defendent?

Basically your implying, "oh we can all be friends, but you can't say anything bad about our country".

I'm sorry no country is perfect. I may be an American, but the United States is FAR from perfect (look at the major recession we are in right now).

Also how does it help our "friendship" by saying that we can have "the evil bitch back". Nice. If you "Italians" don't want the "evil bitch" there, why the hell did you convict her? Oh wait, you don't know because you didn't sit on the trail, as none of us did. You are, like all of us are, making your assumptions based on what the news is reporting. Yet, I'm sure our news is reporting slightly different than Italian news. (I say this because it's probably true, the media totally filters things).

I never once said in my original post that I was "anti-Italy" and if you got that assumption, I am sorry. But I stand by my opinion that I think your legal system needs some work and that there are some "issues" within it that need to be worked out. Now, it's not to say that ours is perfect (again going back to that), because it's not.

You mentioned OJ Simpson in a previous post, as for him, yes, I think the man is guilty as sin. He got away with murder (IMPO). The thing is, that jury (which I was not on, all I heard was what was reported via the news), made their decision based on the evidence presented to them. Obviously, the defense was able to "poke enough holes" in the prosecutors theories to leave enough reasonable doubt in their minds and they therefore didn't convict.

The whole thing is, like Kevin said earlier, she deserved a fair trial. I feel that no matter where you are and what citizenship you are, you deserve a fair trail. I don't think evidence should be admitted that isn't conclusive. I don't think bashing of a defendent should be allowed. But that is just my opinion. Doesn't mean that the world is going to change, because it won't. But I can still have my opinion.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by Kevin

As a life-long Oklahoman, I'm going to have to take a little bit of offense to that.

And it's not anti-Americanism I suspect. It's much simpler. You have an out of control prosecutor who doesn't give a damn about the guilt or evidence of the accused, she'll just do anything, including lie and cheat to win a conviction. And that sort of prosecutor, unfortunately isn't only found in Italy. We have them in Oklahoma also. Even so, there's no way in hell even our worst would attempt, much less get away with what the prosecutor in the Knox case has apparently done. Not even in the most backwater, rural, redneck part of this fine state would that happen.

Apparently, Italy's Code of Evidence allows prosecutors to bring in irrelevant, prejudicial and speculative character evidence to bolster their case. If that had been attempted in an American court (even an Oklahoman court as that's where I'm a licensed and practicing attorney), not only would much of what the prosecutor said about Knox have been thrown out, it also would have caused a mistrial.

It's also alleged that the prosecutor leaked false details to the media for the jury's consumption (as the jury wasn't sequestered).

And of course, you don't really have a case where the theory fit the facts and evidence.. (what little actual evidence there was).

I do hope this case is overturned on appeal and Ms. Knox is afforded a fair trial, which is probably impossible in Italy due to the absurd publicity. Every person charged with a crime deserves a fair hearing and Knox didn't get that.

And I guess I'd better stay out of Italy.. now that I've made some harsh comments regarding this prosecutor, I may be charged with defamation as it seems just about everyone connected to Ms. Knox has been. Anyone know what the statute of limitations for defamation is? Italy is a nice place and I'd like to visit again someday.

While I agree with the idea behind your points I must say it is inaccurate at best to claim that the underlined things would not happen in the US as they have happened and are currently happening. Have you seen American Violet? There are a plethora of cases that go on every single day in America that make the Knox case look fair and just.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

While I agree with the idea behind your points I must say it is inaccurate at best to claim that the underlined things would not happen in the US as they have happened and are currently happening. Have you seen American Violet? There are a plethora of cases that go on every single day in America that make the Knox case look fair and just.

Some of the stuff the prosecutor said would *definitely* not be allowed in an American courtroom and would even possibly lead to a mistrial and/or sanctions for the prosecuting attorney -- at least if the things the ABA Journal articles I've read are true.

[Munchkin03]

I don't know what to think about this case at all. I've read about it for some time now, and I feel like I'm looking at a wide range of sources, but the only thing I know for sure is that she didn't get a fair trial. I can't even develop an opinion about whether or not she did it.

[Psi U MC Vito]

I missed something. Is Guday black?

[RU OX Alum]

that seems like a lot of cash to be awarded.....

[ASUADPi]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

that seems like a lot of cash to be awarded.....

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

In the article I clicked on it mentioned that each of her parents were awarded a sum, and then each sibling in a different amount. I just thought it was very strange to mention how it went to each person, instead of just to the family as a whole. Especially since the siblings were adults. is the defendant expected to pay that?

[ASUADPi]

Oh okay.

I'm not sure who's supposed to pay that. As if Amanda has any money like that, she hasn't even graduated from college yet and her parents have spent most of their money flying to and from Italy and mounting her defense. Now they are mounting her appeal.

[Psi U MC Vito]

That's interesting that she has to pay what seems like a weregild.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Max, don't you have anything better to do?

[ASUADPi]

The decision for the appeal should be coming down soon.