This is an issue that I have had with the jury system for some time. Because I have an LLB I am prohibited from serving on a jury ever. I am not sure if the same is true in the States for people with law degrees but I expect that it is. That is ridiculous. The idea that we should allow people with no education who are too stupid to get out of jury duty to be the final arbitrator of guilt makes no sense.

My issue with the Italian system is that even though all the evidence from the first trial and this trial were to be considered the majority of the time and attention is given to the items that are in dispute. The rest is given very little time and it is just expected that the jury will put in the effort. As we can see from the pro-Amanda side laughing at the idea of reading a 400 page report before forming an opinion I would not be surprised if the jury was the same way. As such they tend to give a much stronger weighting to the evidence that was in contention than to the stuff that the defence choose to not challenge. In fact at appeal the defence has an incentive to not challenge items that it can't refute and much was ignored.

I am pretty confident if this gets appealed it will lead to her re-conviction. I am not at all confident that there will be an appeal.

That is logically consistent. We don't have to dig too deep where the well-reasoned answer differs from what the jury finds - O.J. is one that most people will relate to on this point.

Legally, not guilty. By the rules of the game, he won. However, I have not seen much that would begin to convince me that O.J. did not kill Nicole and Goldman.

Observations:

1. This is probably going to prove to be a case where the prosecution overplayed its hand and didn't know when to stop (that being where they have made the case). Instead, they pushed some marginal evidence and gave the defense an opportunity to concentrate its attack on a weak area of the case. Just like the Leather Glove from O.J.

2. Most of the Knox supporters had a two-pronged attack: 1) she is being railroaded; 2) the Italian justice system is entirely incompetent

Yet, it seems, now that if it is their opinion that the justice system is incompetent, they would have to reject this verdict as a statement as to whether AK had anything to do with the murder. Yes, she is no longer guilty in the eyes of Italian law, but most AK supporters already made it clear that they believe the Italian justice system is incapable fo actually deciding this issue correctly.

3. A lot of internet posters are going to have to start looking for new jobs. The funny thing is that those riding the PR team gravy train should have hoped for the verdict to be upheld to keep them employed for the next 18 months.

4. I am convinced Knox was involved in the murder, but as I stated before, I don't really care. I was most disturbed about the disparagement of the Italian legal system and the "ugly American" approach to it. Nothing has changed in that regard.

The Italian system is considerably less likely to convict innocent people than the US or Canadian system. It is also much more likely to allow guilty people to go free. The defence of the Italian system was not in that it was more reliable but that the system's redundancies make it next to impossible for an innocent person to be convicted. They also make it very easy to guilty people to walk.

The family only talk to sources that guarantee pro-Amanda coverage. And it's pants, because everyone relies pretty heavily on the media to get and stay informed: If that's the information they're giving, then it must at the very least be based on something other than one family's personal stake. Access is everything, and once the seeds of OMG bra clasp 46 days later and the brutal 53-hour interrogation are planted, then mysterious things like the disappearing interpreter* or the police brutality bloom.


* "Donnino said that Knox had been "comforted" by police, given food and drink, and had at no stage been hit or threatened"

Yep, just like how the pro-Knox crowd was espousing what a joke the Italian courts are.

I don't believe that 100% true. There are two main issues:

1. Can they get the result "right." I think most people, no matter which outcome they favored or believed, had sincere reasons to doubt the Italian system was particularly adept at this. Of course, it is all relative, but I think that the consensus would be that people would have more faith in certain other systems if given the choice.

2. Is the system "fair?" I think the Knox camp was misguided in their argument along these lines as they focused on how they believed the system was unfair and draconian to the defendant (which was certainly colored by their support of the defendant in this case). I believe it was consistently pointed out that the Italian system takes great care to ensure a fair process for defendants, especially when the statistics show their prosecution rate for murder is significantly lower than that of the U.S. and other developed countries.

I am reading the 400 page deal now but I am pretty well convinced that the italian prosecutor going on a gut feeling is the real problem here. Amanda Knox had nothing to do with this murder. I will see in the reading if there is something that will change my mind. Isn't the prosecutor himself under indictment?

Look at the mother's emotions. Large amounts of worry and guilt constantly flowing across her face as plain as day after the verdict came out. They only make sense if she knows her daughter did it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d_wLRQE7PI

That the mother changed her story when she realized that Amanda was lying to support Amanda's version was when it was obvious that the mom knew.

When the dad told her to shut up and never talk about being at the house when the murder happened was when it was clear that dad knew.

not saying i think she is innocent or guilty, but this seems like a pretty obvious thing to do in this situation, no?

like only talking to a lawyer so that you don't say anything stupid that could be misconstrued? just shut your mouth unless spoken to...am i right?

I don't see Amanda's mother anywhere in this video. Am I crazy?

Are you familiar with the conversation?

It was a private conversation between the family that the police were intercepting. Knox said that there was no point in lying because the police knew she was there. Telling her to not talk about anything without a lawyer is one thing. Telling her to lie about being at the murder scene is very different.

This may have already been addressed somewhere in this huge thread, so forgive me if my question is redundant, but can anyone verify whether its required by Italian law to record interrogation interviews and supply a link for a source substantiating whatever the case may be?

Thx

i remember seeing a 48 hours on this, being outraged knox was an innocent victim held captive by evil italians, then spending a whole day actually reading about the case and being pretty certain she was involved. not 99.999%, but enough that a guilty verdict seemed warranted. i understand people who think there's sufficient doubt to make it not guilty, especially if you discount circumstantial evidence and place high priority on determining motive. but lol at the millions of americans posting "JUSTICE SERVED" on their facebook when their only exposure to the case is through a biased 1 hour primetime show that only interviews the defense team. so many parallels between this case and the casey anthony one in that it relies on circumstantial evidence, defendant exhibits a completely bizarre / inhuman reaction to the victim's death, inconsistent stories, falsely accusing a phantom/person detached from the situation of being the real killer, uncertainty as to what happened in the final moments before death, etc. Both get released, but Casey gets death threats and Amanda will get welcomed home with "USA USA" and "Italians are morans" banners.

Anyway, it's been a while since I spent time reading about the case. What's the story with Guede's implication of Knox & BF? My understanding is he initially said he acted alone, but later implicated them. If he confesses to doing the crime himself why at any point would he try absolving the other two?

link? Is this in the judges report? If not, why is it considered relevant? (not being contentious, serious q)

What's really a shame about cases like this (and other cases with high profile defendants and controversial verdicts) is that the focus becomes the alleged perpetrator rather than on the victim and the crime. How many people know Knox's name but can't recall the name of her (alleged) victim?

The Nicole Simpson case became about OJ, rather than on the two people who were butchered; the West Memphis 3 refers not to the three 8 year old boys who were variously beaten, sexually mutilated, and drowned, but to the three men who were convicted and recently released on an Alfred plea. All this case proves is that a media circus and mistakes made by the police/prosecution are not just an American phenomenon (although of course this case was picked up by both the British and American media), but a worldwide one, although that should be obvious to anyone who follows spectacular criminal trials around the world.

My opinion on this case is that Knox is almost certainly guilty of something (given her ridiculously inconsistent statements and behaviors), but that given the mishandling of the DNA evidence and lack of other strong direct evidence, a legal finding of "not guilty" is probably correct. Remember that "not guilty" doesn't equal "innocent" (et tu, OJ?), and that many justice systems are (theoretically) predicated on the notion that it is better to let 10 guilty people go free than one innocent be wrongfully convicted.

I just wish there was less fixation on the alleged criminals and more on the victims. Of course this isn't a recent phenomenon - can you name any victims of Jack the Ripper? Manson? Gacy? Bundy? The Green River Killer? BTK? - but in cases where the outcome is controversial, and the real killer or killers escapes justice, I just think it's a shame.

Sounds like the media and many others are chomping at the bit to get interviews with Amanda and send her on the talk show circuit, but given the fact that the prosecution can still appeal this recent verdict, one would think we won't be hearing from her publicly until that final appeal is dead.

Is there ever a point when the possibility of an appeal is dead and this case is 100% closed?

Anyone with better insight have any comments on this issue?

yimyammer,

See post #2035. Poker Reference posted the transcript of the conversation.

thx, is this from the judges report? If not, where did she get the transcript of this conversation?

I can't remember when I first heard it but it was discussed at the Friends of Amanda conference at some university in Seattle. The video if this available online and starts with some ex-FBI gut on a stage with I believe a blue table.

The intercept conversations had just become public knowledge a few days before that and so this was discussed there. Friends of Amanda don't deny the conversation took place but claim that Amanda was talking about Raf's house and not the crime scene. Reading the transcript though that makes absolutely no sense.

This is the kind of thing that bugs me most. Not you, but just these kinds of statements.
Like, you can't get Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp (for example) without it coming from somewhere on Raffaele, but they were on opposite sides of a locked door beginning 2 November. Mishandled how? At the site? At the lab? In the interpretation? Bad equipment? If contamination, what was the donor source? Is there are realistic explanation for how it could have been transferred between A and B? Can this explanation be tested in some way? And so on.

If this case was truly a slam dunk are you guys angry that Megnini was allowed to prosecute this case?

He inserts doubt for many where there might not otherwise be doubt.

I see little anger towards him while in reality his history contributed largely to the perception of this case.

Honestly, I have no idea, but given the reports by forensics experts that the evidence wasn't handled properly, I'm not sure what else to think. Nothing I've seen suggests it was planted or anything stupid like that, but if a lot of forensics people are saying the evidence wasn't handled properly, that (to me) suggests that anything that results from that evidence shouldn't be considered against her.

Edit: I should point out that I haven't been following this case as closely as some appear to have, this is just based on what I've read in both recent and previous reports on the case. I think the whole thing just stinks to high heavens, and I also think that the locating of the bra clasp 45 days after the original search, even if the door was locked, was a pretty egregious error on the part of the crime scene investigators. Understandable error (everyone makes mistakes), but a significant problem in using that piece of evidence, IMO.

I'm not trying to be contentious by asking this but since its been repeatedly stated here that the best way to evaluate the evidence in this case is to look at the judges report, why are we allowed to consider a conversation that was not part of that report?

Because no one denies it happened. The question of did this conversation take place is not in question. The only debate is over what "there" means. Amanda supporters claim Amanda was referring to Raf's house while people who are not ******ed realize the only way the conversation make sense is if "there" means Amanda's house.

Since everyone agrees this happened that I can't at this moment find the documentation for how it first became public isn't really important. I know the case well but there is a lot of evidence and a lot of stuff that was leaked to the public but never used in court. I can't remember if this was ever official evidence or just a leak but the authenticity of the transcript is not in question. Amanda's team and family admit it happened but challenge the interpretation.