The whole thing stinks, from what I've heard...ur, smelt.
|
Italian Trials have an eight man panel, made up of six laypersons and two judges. I would also note that the Italian legal system, being quite different to British and American legal systems, is open to misunderstanding.
From what I've seen on the news, while there was no 'smoking gun' that proved beyond any doubt who did it, the idea that there was some sort of stitch up is a bit far fetched. Lets not forget Knox's family and supporters have been smearing the prosecutor for a long time, with the aid of a PR firm.
|
Italian Trials have an eight man panel, made up of six laypersons and two judges. I would also note that the Italian legal system, being quite different to British and American legal systems, is open to misunderstanding.
From what I've seen on the news, while there was no 'smoking gun' that proved beyond any doubt who did it, the idea that there was some sort of stitch up is a bit far fetched. Lets not forget Knox's family and supporters have been smearing the prosecutor for a long time, with the aid of a PR firm.
Okay, I must have misheard the report that I heard then. Like I said, there is nothing I have seen that screams to me that she is innocent, but as I understand it there is also nothing that definitaively ties her to the crime either.
Isn't it the Napoleonic system? God bless common law.
The guy who did the killing in several interviews said he acted alone but the prosecutor decided to convict the other two anyway.
Also of interest the prosecutor has been under investigation for abuse of power about his handling of Knox case and was allowed to continue the trial anyway.
Two things to remember, according to Dateline. First, she did not recieve a Jury trial, in Italy all cases are heard by a three person panel. Second, in Italy you don't have the burden of "beyond reasonable doubt." Instead it only has to be shown that it is the most likely possibility.
Actually, Miss Knox did have her case heard by a jury, or giudici popolari. This Jury deliberates in combination with a panel of judges. They offer their verdict to the judges who are ment to take it into consideration before pronouncing guilt or innocence. The system has its advantages and disadvantages. For instance, you tend not to get mistrials based on attempts to bias the jury on lines race.
Two things to remember, according to Dateline. First, she did not recieve a Jury trial, in Italy all cases are heard by a three person panel. Second, in Italy you don't have the burden of "beyond reasonable doubt." Instead it only has to be shown that it is the most likely possibility.Actually, Miss Knox did have her case heard by a jury, or giudici popolari. This Jury deliberates in combination with a panel of judges. They offer their verdict to the judges who are ment to take it into consideration before pronouncing guilt or innocence. The system has its advantages and disadvantages. For instance, you tend not to get mistrials based on attempts to bias the jury on lines race.
Even so, there appears to have been something "less then kosher" with this trial.
|
Even so, there appears to have been something "less then kosher" with this trial.Two things to remember, according to Dateline. First, she did not recieve a Jury trial, in Italy all cases are heard by a three person panel. Second, in Italy you don't have the burden of "beyond reasonable doubt." Instead it only has to be shown that it is the most likely possibility.Actually, Miss Knox did have her case heard by a jury, or giudici popolari. This Jury deliberates in combination with a panel of judges. They offer their verdict to the judges who are ment to take it into consideration before pronouncing guilt or innocence. The system has its advantages and disadvantages. For instance, you tend not to get mistrials based on attempts to bias the jury on lines race.
Because an American was found guilty?
Given how extremely touchy the US gets about anybody criticisng your judicial system and the many miscarriages of justice it perpetuates, perhaps there should be an element of removing the plank in your eye before you complain about the stye in other peoples?
|
Given how extremely touchy the US gets about anybody criticisng your judicial system and the many miscarriages of justice it perpetuates, perhaps there should be an element of removing the plank in your eye before you complain about the stye in other peoples?
If you ask most Americans, the main fault with our judicial system is that it tends to go too easy on those who are guilty. Or at least whenever I have heard my fellow countrymen complaining, thats what they have been complaining about since I was a wee lad.
I am curious though about these many miscarriages of justice. What is meant by it? Are you talking about the guilty being found innocent or the innocent being found guilty. Both happen (and always will) but it does not seem to be happening in any great amount in the country I have lived in most of my life.
I haven't followed the Knox story very closely but one thing I have observed all my life is that family members tend to always think that their relatives got a bad deal in court. Even when they are as guilty as sin, family members seem to think that their relatives should be the ones treated with kids gloves and those rascals that led them astray should get the book thrown at them. Thus I always take the accounts of the family of the acused with a large grain of salt.
Even so, there appears to have been something "less then kosher" with this trial.Two things to remember, according to Dateline. First, she did not recieve a Jury trial, in Italy all cases are heard by a three person panel. Second, in Italy you don't have the burden of "beyond reasonable doubt." Instead it only has to be shown that it is the most likely possibility.Actually, Miss Knox did have her case heard by a jury, or giudici popolari. This Jury deliberates in combination with a panel of judges. They offer their verdict to the judges who are ment to take it into consideration before pronouncing guilt or innocence. The system has its advantages and disadvantages. For instance, you tend not to get mistrials based on attempts to bias the jury on lines race.Because an American was found guilty?
Given how extremely touchy the US gets about anybody criticisng your judicial system and the many miscarriages of justice it perpetuates, perhaps there should be an element of removing the plank in your eye before you complain about the stye in other peoples?
The fact that another person confessed to the crime and stated several times that Knox and her boyfriend weren’t involved is the reason the trial was "less then kosher".
Because an American was found guilty?
Given how extremely touchy the US gets about anybody criticisng your judicial system and the many miscarriages of justice it perpetuates, perhaps there should be an element of removing the plank in your eye before you complain about the stye in other peoples?
Yes because the enlightened Brits would never react against the conviction of one of their countryfolk in a dodgy court >case<.
|
|
Yes because the enlightened Brits would never react against the conviction of one of their countryfolk in a dodgy court >case<.Because an American was found guilty?
Given how extremely touchy the US gets about anybody criticisng your judicial system and the many miscarriages of justice it perpetuates, perhaps there should be an element of removing the plank in your eye before you complain about the stye in other peoples?
No. Absolutely not. We also certainly wouldn't protest about an autistic computer hacker being extradited on terrorism charges or three corrupt bankers being prosecuted either. Ok, obviously we would, and have, and are doing all of that. I don't think I ever claimed we were better and certainly not enlightened. I was just annoyed at the extremely vague "something's not kosher" remark. Well, what isn't? Why isn't it kosher? Where is the evidence for it and why wasn't it introduced into the trial?
Xabulba,
And that's a very good reason for having suspicions about the trial. But vague "something's not quite right" just comes off as "of course an American can't be found guilty by some slimy foreign court. They must be wrong". And as a slimy foreigner, that pissed me off.
I don't think I ever claimed we were better and certainly not enlightened.
No you just claimed that the American judicial system perpetrates many miscarraiges of justice, and that people were reacting just because she was an American convicted in a foreign nation.
As a slimy American, that pissed ME off.
Even so, there appears to have been something "less then kosher" with this trial.Because an American was found guilty?
Given how extremely touchy the US gets about anybody criticisng your judicial system and the many miscarriages of justice it perpetuates, perhaps there should be an element of removing the plank in your eye before you complain about the stye in other peoples?
If you would like a point by point, as it has been reported in the United States (at least)
So, I am going to stand by my "less then kosher" statement.
|
|
Even so, there appears to have been something "less then kosher" with this trial.Because an American was found guilty?
Given how extremely touchy the US gets about anybody criticisng your judicial system and the many miscarriages of justice it perpetuates, perhaps there should be an element of removing the plank in your eye before you complain about the stye in other peoples?
If you would like a point by point, as it has been reported in the United States (at least)
The Knife does not match the wounds on the victim.
The DNA from said knife was not handled properly, so comes across as "inconclusive" at best. Nor was the sample on the Brassier collected in a timely manner - so contamination is very hard to rule out.
The Italian media did not help, as they seemed to go out of their way to "sensationalize" the case and "demonize" Amanda Knox. This does tend to make one doubt that she could get a fair trial.
Thank you. Those are all very valid reasons for having doubts (although the last happens a lot in other countries, including the US as well. Did the media circus surrounding OJ Simpson or Michael Jackson prevent their fair trial?). However, they were also all raised at the trial, AFAIK. If the jury considered this evidence and still found her guilty, is there anything else they heard that we didn't that persuaded them?
Thank you. Those are all very valid reasons for having doubts (although the last happens a lot in other countries, including the US as well. Did the media circus surrounding OJ Simpson or Michael Jackson prevent their fair trial?). However, they were also all raised at the trial, AFAIK. If the jury considered this evidence and still found her guilty, is there anything else they heard that we didn't that persuaded them?
I know that such things happen ALL THE TIME in the U.S. as well.
Kevin Mack brings up some strong evidence against her. Yes, she did "change her story" part way through the investigation (which rightly casts doubt on their version of events).
Were those changes made in a 40 hr interrogation period in which she was allowed no counsel?
|
|
Were those changes made in a 40 hr interrogation period in which she was allowed no counsel?
Actually she apparently changed her story a few times after the questioning from police one of her original statements was
I don't remember if my friend Meredith was already there or whether she came later. What I can say is that the two of them (Meredith and Patrick) went off together... Patrick and Meredith went off together into Meredith's room while I think I stayed in the kitchen. I can't remember how long they were in the bedroom together, I can only say that at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming and I was so frightened I put my fingers in my ears. I don't remember anything after that, my head is really confused. I don’t remember if Meredith called out or if I heard thuds because I was upset, but I can imagine what was happening...I'm not sure whether Raffaele was there too that evening but I do remember waking up at his house in his bed and that in the morning I went back to where I lived, where I found the door open.
Which as mentioned before is at complete odds with what one of the others said (Ie confessing to killing)
|
|
If the jury considered this evidence and still found her guilty, is there anything else they heard that we didn't that persuaded them?
Paul, as was pointed out up thread, under the Italian system Amanda Knox's "jury" was an eight person panel that included the judges in the case. Unlike the U.S. system, and presumably the U.K. as well, the jury does not have to reach a unanimous verdict, noe do they have to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt as in the U.S. In Italy the majority only has to decide that the balance of probability is that she commited the crime and if the panel is tied, the senior judge gets a second vote.
Were those changes made in a 40 hr interrogation period in which she was allowed no counsel?
Not to mention she was roughed up during the interogation also.
Frankly, I don't think anyone can really question the validity of the court unless s/he has been present for all the testimony. The small amounts of info made public through the media were selected for headline grabbing and are nowhere close to comprehensive coverage.
Whatever the failings of the prosecution's case, I don't think it's much of a point of principle that Italy has different rules for operating juries. The jury itself is an intensely suspect element of any criminal justice system, so far as I can tell. Why should a bunch of nobodies selected more or less randomly and parachuted into the judicial system be a competent trier of fact? Give me a judge any day.
We only have her word on that.Were those changes made in a 40 hr interrogation period in which she was allowed no counsel?Not to mention she was roughed up during the interogation also.
I tend to believe her version just because of the violent history of Italian police.
I tend to believe her version just because of the violent history of Italian police.We only have her word on that.Were those changes made in a 40 hr interrogation period in which she was allowed no counsel?Not to mention she was roughed up during the interogation also.
Actually, the "40hr" period where she was allowed no council would tend to be documented.
And, nearly two full days in someone else's power (the police in this case), with no one to help you, would tend to make one very confused and scared.
Even so, there appears to have been something "less then kosher" with this trial.Two things to remember, according to Dateline. First, she did not recieve a Jury trial, in Italy all cases are heard by a three person panel. Second, in Italy you don't have the burden of "beyond reasonable doubt." Instead it only has to be shown that it is the most likely possibility.Actually, Miss Knox did have her case heard by a jury, or giudici popolari. This Jury deliberates in combination with a panel of judges. They offer their verdict to the judges who are ment to take it into consideration before pronouncing guilt or innocence. The system has its advantages and disadvantages. For instance, you tend not to get mistrials based on attempts to bias the jury on lines race.
I am not forming an oppinion on the specifics of the case, merely pointing out a counter argument with regards to the nature of the Italian court system.
From what little i have read and heard of the evidence against Miss Knox, would not be enough to convict if the standard were reasonable doubt. However, italian courts do not require that standard of proof, and when you travel to another country, like it or not, you are held to task by its system of justice.
|
|
Interesting title for this thread, could easily have been "Sollecito found guilty." or you could have run with the BBC headline: "Meredith Kercher's Family 'pleased' at Guilty Verdict."
Of course, we've all followed the case much more closely than Meredith's family and while the rotten Italian media have pulled the wool over their eyes we have been lucky to see the whole thing framed for us by entirely impartial media and can discern the truth.
|
Interesting title for this thread, could easily have been "Sollecito found guilty." or you could have run with the BBC headline: "Meredith Kercher's Family 'pleased' at Guilty Verdict."
Of course, we've all followed the case much more closely than Meredith's family and while the rotten Italian media have pulled the wool over their eyes we have been lucky to see the whole thing framed for us by entirely impartial media and can discern the truth.
lol!
I tend to believe her version just because of the violent history of Italian police.We only have her word on that.Were those changes made in a 40 hr interrogation period in which she was allowed no counsel?Not to mention she was roughed up during the interogation also.
I once had the privilege of seeing The Accidental Death of an Anarchist by Dario Fo. I must admit that having seen that I would tend to believe allegations that the police were not only rough with her, but that they terrified utterly. Stupid me perhaps. Having had no experience with police much less Italian interrogators, I'm sure the girl could be gotten to sing like a canary in 40 hours, if she's the naive girl I suppose her to be anyway.
She sure put herself into a tight spot if she's innocent. And if not, wow, what a b#!~%.
"We would not put someone on trail who is not guilty."
If one is so sure the person is guilty, why have trials? Just let the police be judge and executioner on the spot.
"We would not put someone on trail who is not guilty."If one is so sure the person is guilty, why have trials? Just let the police be judge and executioner on the spot.
In fairness italy does not have the death penalty so no executioner needed, which puts them a step up on the american legal system on at least one moral measure :P
Meh. I heard they're not very good at executing anyway. Everything is always broken there.
|
|
Quick question as far as I am aware there was forensic evidence (knife with DNA and fingerprints) but the defence said it was A to small an amount of DNA and B the blade was the wrong size. So my question is did the defence make any real attempt to prove both these points or did they just say these things?
Quick question as far as I am aware there was forensic evidence (knife with DNA and fingerprints) but the defence said it was A to small an amount of DNA and B the blade was the wrong size. So my question is did the defence make any real attempt to prove both these points or did they just say these things?
The court (Judges) rejected any new evidence saying what was presented by the prosecution was enough. Link
|
|
Quick question as far as I am aware there was forensic evidence (knife with DNA and fingerprints) but the defence said it was A to small an amount of DNA and B the blade was the wrong size. So my question is did the defence make any real attempt to prove both these points or did they just say these things?The court (Judges) rejected any new evidence saying what was presented by the prosecution was enough. Link
This is a good example of the "not quite kosher" things that many people are concerned with. In the U.S. it is thelaw that the defense be allowed to perform it's own independent tests. It is designed to keep the police and the prosecution honest. It is also part of the ideal that we have the right to confront our accusers. I'm sorry, but any system that doesn't have this protection built in doesn't seem very "moral" regardless of their position on the death penalty.
|
|
The guy who did the killing in several interviews said he acted alone but the prosecutor decided to convict the other two anyway.This isn't true from any of the reports that I've heard. The other man convicted of the killings is Rudy Guede and if I recall correctly his story is that Meredith was killed while he was in the bathroom, apparently by some unknown Italian man. I'm not aware of him implicating Amanda Knox at all, but he denies guilt over the killing. There's actually an appeal going on at the moment I believe related to his own case.
It's more accurate to say that he is the only person who can be forensicly linked to the crime.
|
|
In fairness italy does not have the death penalty so no executioner needed, which puts them a step up on the american legal system on at least one moral measure :P"We would not put someone on trail who is not guilty."If one is so sure the person is guilty, why have trials? Just let the police be judge and executioner on the spot.
While at the heart of the matter I feel that the death penalty is an unjust and many times improperly put into practice.
There are exceptions to every rule and some people should not be given the option, having given it up as a due course of their actions.
In fairness italy does not have the death penalty so no executioner needed, which puts them a step up on the american legal system on at least one moral measure :P"We would not put someone on trail who is not guilty."If one is so sure the person is guilty, why have trials? Just let the police be judge and executioner on the spot.While at the heart of the matter I feel that the death penalty is an unjust and many times improperly put into practice.
There are exceptions to every rule and some people should not be given the option, having given it up as a due course of their actions.
I'm all for expanding the death penalty to include rape, child molestation, defrauding the public trust and all white collar crimes involving amounts more than 1 million dollars.
I'm all for expanding the death penalty to include rape, child molestation, defrauding the public trust and all white collar crimes involving amounts more than 1 million dollars.In fairness italy does not have the death penalty so no executioner needed, which puts them a step up on the american legal system on at least one moral measure :P"We would not put someone on trail who is not guilty."If one is so sure the person is guilty, why have trials? Just let the police be judge and executioner on the spot.While at the heart of the matter I feel that the death penalty is an unjust and many times improperly put into practice.
There are exceptions to every rule and some people should not be given the option, having given it up as a due course of their actions.
... and really, really bad puns. ;D
|
|
... and really, really bad puns. ;DI'm all for expanding the death penalty to include rape, child molestation, defrauding the public trust and all white collar crimes involving amounts more than 1 million dollars.In fairness italy does not have the death penalty so no executioner needed, which puts them a step up on the american legal system on at least one moral measure :P"We would not put someone on trail who is not guilty."If one is so sure the person is guilty, why have trials? Just let the police be judge and executioner on the spot.While at the heart of the matter I feel that the death penalty is an unjust and many times improperly put into practice.
There are exceptions to every rule and some people should not be given the option, having given it up as a due course of their actions.
Amen Brother =P