Kercher murder Trial

[Big Phil]

I remember a criminal professor here in Sweden who once said that any normal and innocent person will generally give conflicting statements when they get mixed up in a major investigation all off the sudden. While real criminals generally give straighter stories because they have been making plans for their possible arrest in the back of their mind for some time already.

Usually conflicts in statements are minor things anyway. Getting some irrelevant fact wrong, a date or a time wrong. As you say, real criminals give straighter stories - when they even talk at all, and usually they don't. Any criminal lawyer worth the dollars you pay him will tell you, do not talk to the police. They can't use silence against you; they'll say they can, but they really can't.

Of course, every innocent person doesn't expect to be accused. It's something of a shock to the system.

The problem is Amanda Knox (apparently) didn't give slightly conflicting statements. Supposedly she once said she was there and heard Meredith Kercher's screams, and another time said she was at Sollecito's house that night. Those aren't minor discrepancies, so either she told two wildly different stories, or the police are flat out lying (I wouldn't be surprised by either).

At the end of the day, however, the lesson to take away is not to be so criminally naive and stupid about talking to the police. 40 hours of interviews and she didn't insist on an attorney? WTF? After more than an hour or so I'd have shut my mouth and demanded an attorney (this is assuming that the police weren't actually torturing her, and I assume in Italy they don't generally do that).

[CaptainChewbacca]

What sort of Miranda rights or due process do you get in Italy? Do you even have the RIGHT to not answer questions over there?

[Thanas]

Of course. What do you think this is, Somalia? :rolleyes:

People should take a step back and think about how this would look if this would be an american court and the accused would be Italian. I bet there would be a lot less outrage over this.

[Questor]

Of course. What do you think this is, Somalia? :rolleyes:

ETA (because I hit sent too fast) That's not actually a stupid question, even though it should be. The American media and school system does not educate about the rights around the world. And I also believe I read an article in a British newspaper saying that the exercise of silence can be used against you in court. In America, that is generally considered to be part of the right of silence.

People should take a step back and think about how this would look if this would be an american court and the accused would be Italian. I bet there would be a lot less outrage over this.

While you might be right, I don't know exactly how much outrage there actually is in the general public. It's certainly not at the level of the OJ trial, Arlen Spector, or even Polanski. That's just my impression, but the MSM seems to mostly be giving the story a wide berth.

As for the reaction where the situations reversed, I'd say that in the segment of the population that cares, it would be the same, except that here, I doubt it would get more than local coverage. You might also get a few crackpots who try to use it to score political points, but there's still the possibility of that here, too.

Edit Again: Fixed quote and spelling. Bad day.

[Liberty]

I remember a criminal professor here in Sweden who once said that any normal and innocent person will generally give conflicting statements when they get mixed up in a major investigation all off the sudden. While real criminals generally give straighter stories because they have been making plans for their possible arrest in the back of their mind for some time already.

Usually conflicts in statements are minor things anyway. Getting some irrelevant fact wrong, a date or a time wrong. As you say, real criminals give straighter stories - when they even talk at all, and usually they don't. Any criminal lawyer worth the dollars you pay him will tell you, do not talk to the police. They can't use silence against you; they'll say they can, but they really can't.

Of course, every innocent person doesn't expect to be accused. It's something of a shock to the system.

The problem is Amanda Knox (apparently) didn't give slightly conflicting statements. Supposedly she once said she was there and heard Meredith Kercher's screams, and another time said she was at Sollecito's house that night. Those aren't minor discrepancies, so either she told two wildly different stories, or the police are flat out lying (I wouldn't be surprised by either).

At the end of the day, however, the lesson to take away is not to be so criminally naive and stupid about talking to the police. 40 hours of interviews and she didn't insist on an attorney? WTF? After more than an hour or so I'd have shut my mouth and demanded an attorney (this is assuming that the police weren't actually torturing her, and I assume in Italy they don't generally do that).

First point: She was smoking pot that night. Is it possible that she really doesn't remember for sure where she was?

Second point: I read something (don't remember where) saying that she said that about being home and covering her ears when asked to imagine what it would have been like had she been at home at the time. Haven't seen this substantiated elsewhere, though.

Third point: She says the police who were interrogating her told her that asking for an attorney would make things worse.

Fourth point: I think that this specific interrogation session was throne out of court, or was supposed to be.

[Big Phil]

First point: She was smoking pot that night. Is it possible that she really doesn't remember for sure where she was?

Sure, but that's not a good answer whether guilty or innocent, and she probably should have stuck to one story. Either "I was smoking pot and don't remember," which is bad, or "I spent the night at my boyfriend's house," which is much better.

Second point: I read something (don't remember where) saying that she said that about being home and covering her ears when asked to imagine what it would have been like had she been at home at the time. Haven't seen this substantiated elsewhere, though.

It's very confusing which were her answers to real questions and which were to hypothetical questions; that's mostly due to the police and the prosecution releasing conflicting statements and the media repeating the facts, the speculation, and the rumors interchangeably for two years. Regardless, her answer should have been "I have no idea what it would have been like; I wasn't there." Answering questions where the police are asking you to speculate is very bad news.

Third point: She says the police who were interrogating her told her that asking for an attorney would make things worse.

That's my understanding too. Bad decision on her part.

Fourth point: I think that this specific interrogation session was throne out of court, or was supposed to be.

I believe you are correct, but it still was repeated ad nauseum in the media, and with the jury not sequestered, they all knew about the interrogation session and what was supposedly said there.

[Sea Skimmer]

First point: She was smoking pot that night. Is it possible that she really doesn't remember for sure where she was?

Pot is not a drug that ever makes you forgot things like that. Minor details maybe but not what fucking house you are in. Not even remotely. Even someone on meth or heroin would probably remember unless they traveled around a whole lot.

[Big Phil]

First point: She was smoking pot that night. Is it possible that she really doesn't remember for sure where she was?

Pot is not a drug that ever makes you forgot things like that. Minor details maybe but not what fucking house you are in. Not even remotely. Even someone on meth or heroin would probably remember unless they traveled around a whole lot.

I've seen some articles saying she was smoking hashish, not pot. Still don't know if that legitimately could cause memory loss

[Liberty]

Oh, another point - does anyone know how much Italian she knew at the time? I understand that she is fluent now, but how was she two years ago? Is it possible that that tainted the police interrogation? Plus, think how intimidating that would be - interrogated by foreign police in a foreign country in a foreign language. Or was the interrogation in English?

From my experience at university, foreign language programs at public universities in this country are often (usually?) not that great. She was only twenty at the time; had she completed one year or two in the university in Washington? She had no Italian ethnic background, so she wouldn't have picked it up at home. Just how much did she know?

[Big Phil]

Oh, another point - does anyone know how much Italian she knew at the time? I understand that she is fluent now, but how was she two years ago? Is it possible that that tainted the police interrogation? Plus, think how intimidating that would be - interrogated by foreign police in a foreign country in a foreign language. Or was the interrogation in English?

From my experience at university, foreign language programs at public universities in this country are often (usually?) not that great. She was only twenty at the time; had she completed one year or two in the university in Washington? She had no Italian ethnic background, so she wouldn't have picked it up at home. Just how much did she know?

She wasn't fluent; it absolutely affected the interrogation

[Serafine666]

I was being overly cynical, I admit. But it is a problem; the police won't haul you in to investigate you unless they already think you're likely to be guilty, which means that they are virtually guaranteed not to give you a fair hearing. They're not trying to play fair. They're trying to catch criminals, because that's their job. They don't want to throw innocent people in prison... but that doesn't protect you from the possibility that they will be biased or that their powerful interrogation techniques will work too well and wind up extracting a false confession out of you.

And those techniques makes the police very good at their job- catching actual criminals. Unfortunately, it also makes them good at things that aren't their job, such as catching people who aren't criminals. Which is why I wish it were possible to have a police department that didn't have that problem, even though I don't think it is possible.

There is another dimension to this as well: pure human fallibility. Unless the questioning is recorded (not always the case because a police officer is free to ask questions of you outside interrogation although you are equally free not to answer them), the officer may remember your answer incorrectly--and it becomes your word against his. On the other side, he may remember the question incorrectly while remembering your answer correctly. So he could ask you "What do you know about the shooting murder of this person" and you could reply "Nothing because I don't own a gun." What happens if the officer forgets that he specified, in his question, that it was a shooting murder? You appear to know that it was a shooting when the officer doesn't remember that he told you so. This isn't a product of overt zeal or malice or anything... just a simple mistake. But it is a mistake that is costly to you no matter how innocent and honest you are. I don't know where the two video links that were posted earlier lead but some blogger I read posted a YouTube vid in which a law professor explains how talking to the police is always a bad idea even if the police do nothing wrong.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7 ... r_embedded[/youtube]

[Sea Skimmer]

I've seen some articles saying she was smoking hashish, not pot. Still don't know if that legitimately could cause memory loss

Hashish is just concentrated pot, and isn’t even necessarily any stronger then pot, all depends on the relative quality of the products. It’s all THC (plus ten thousand other toxic chemicals which don't matter in this regard). THC consumption could potentially justify not remembering what someone said or when someone left, but not what house you spent the night in.

[Simon_Jester]

There is another dimension to this as well: pure human fallibility. Unless the questioning is recorded (not always the case because a police officer is free to ask questions of you outside interrogation although you are equally free not to answer them), the officer may remember your answer incorrectly--and it becomes your word against his. On the other side, he may remember the question incorrectly while remembering your answer correctly. So he could ask you "What do you know about the shooting murder of this person" and you could reply "Nothing because I don't own a gun." What happens if the officer forgets that he specified, in his question, that it was a shooting murder? You appear to know that it was a shooting when the officer doesn't remember that he told you so. This isn't a product of overt zeal or malice or anything... just a simple mistake. But it is a mistake that is costly to you no matter how innocent and honest you are. I don't know where the two video links that were posted earlier lead but some blogger I read posted a YouTube vid in which a law professor explains how talking to the police is always a bad idea even if the police do nothing wrong.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7 ... r_embedded[/youtube]

I believe this was already linked recently, and I for one already watched it through the link.

Note that the right to remain silent does not necessarily apply in other countries, so far as I know. If it does not, then it adds a whole new dimension to the problem: not only are you likely to be screwed if you talk to the police and either you or the police have a slip of memory, but you can't avoid that by the only possible method (not saying anything at all).

[Thanas]

First: This was not a real jury trial. The juries at the Italian Corte d'Assise are two judges and six laymen, who make the decision concurrently. So it is not as easy to manipulate them as it is in the USA. Second: You do have the right to remain silent. Otherwise it would be a violation of Italian and European law.

[Big Phil]

First: This was not a real jury trial. The juries at the Italian Corte d'Assise are two judges and six laymen, who make the decision concurrently. So it is not as easy to manipulate them as it is in the USA.

How so? They may not be nearly as moronic as your typical American jury, but seeing evidence not introduced in court has to have an effect on the outcome of a jury trial.

[Thanas]

Because the professional judges are there with them every step of the way. They discuss things together and they write the verdict together. They might be influenced, but the risk is a far lesser one than with american juries, which do not have someone to watch over them every step of the way.

[jcow79]

Because the professional judges are there with them every step of the way. They discuss things together and they write the verdict together. They might be influenced, but the risk is a far lesser one than with american juries, which do not have someone to watch over them every step of the way.

She was demonized and convicted by the local media long before all the evidence was even in. And from what I've been reading there was not even minor measures to keep the jury from any of this information. I don't see how they couldn't be swayed by this.

American media is claiming most of the forensic evidence either doesn't fit the prosecutions assertions (the knife found doesn't match the wounds, doesn't fit a bloody outline on the bedding and the Kercher "DNA" might not even be human DNA) or actually points to the OTHER suspect, Rudy Guede.(The bloody footprint is a closer match to Guede than Raffaele Sollecito). So really they convicted her primarily on her bizarre behavior and inconsistent stories. PBS(at least I think it was PBS) had a really good piece on this Friday night.

Why would Rudy Guede, who was convicted first, invent a fake robber for his story and Knox accuse the night club owner for her story. Both stories were easily disproven. Neither Knox or Guede seemed to have any loyalties for one another and forensic evidence would have more closely pointed at the real culprits. Seems a better defense would have just been to point at each other and claim it was all them.

And why such a short sentence? This should probably have carried a life sentence if the "jury" really believed it happened the way the prosecution claims. It sounds to me like they didn't feel comfortable convicting but did so anyway. Perhaps they felt more comfortable passing the buck to the appeal, or figured the evidence would be sorted out better later on but didn't feel right allowing a possible murderer to walk free in the meantime.

One question I do have about Italian law, one article I read said that the case could be appealed if she was convicted OR acquitted. I wasn't sure if this was a misstatement or if they don't have any kind of double jeopardy laws in Italy. Can the prosecution appeal an acquittal?

[Thanas]

She was demonized and convicted by the local media long before all the evidence was even in. And from what I've been reading there was not even minor measures to keep the jury from any of this information. I don't see how they couldn't be swayed by this.

You will of course gladly point me to the parts in the written decision that prove your point?

And why such a short sentence? This should probably have carried a life sentence if the "jury" really believed it happened the way the prosecution claims. It sounds to me like they didn't feel comfortable convicting but did so anyway. Perhaps they felt more comfortable passing the buck to the appeal, or figured the evidence would be sorted out better later on but didn't feel right allowing a possible murderer to walk free in the meantime.

Sentences in Europe are very short compared to american ones. This is nothing out of the ordinary.

One question I do have about Italian law, one article I read said that the case could be appealed if she was convicted OR acquitted. I wasn't sure if this was a misstatement or if they don't have any kind of double jeopardy laws in Italy. Can the prosecution appeal an acquittal?

Yes, as in all European nations.

[Liberty]

She was demonized and convicted by the local media long before all the evidence was even in. And from what I've been reading there was not even minor measures to keep the jury from any of this information. I don't see how they couldn't be swayed by this.

You will of course gladly point me to the parts in the written decision that prove your point?

Look, they don't have ANY evidence actually pointing at Knox, not real, legitimate evidence. They do have a shitload of evidence pointing to Guede. If Knox and her boyfriend had been involved in the murder, their DNA would have been all over the murder scene just like Guede's was. However, none of their DNA was actually found. The only thing they have on them is their odd behavior and changing statements, which I would argue are natural in such a situation (especially for Knox, who was in a different country and didn't have complete command over the language).

So why would she be convicted? The only reason is the massive character assassination that took place.

[Thanas]

I am glad that you have such a complete command of the case. Now will you point me to the parts in the written decision that outlines the arguments made and that supports your assertion that they convicted her on nothing but incomplete evidence and conflicting statements?

[Surlethe]

That's a great idea, Thanas. Why don't you go ahead and post a link to the written decision with an explanation of what, exactly, the evidence is linking Knox to the murder and why the arguments the prosecution made hold water. After all, the burden of proof is on the party making the positive assertion, in this case the prosecution.

[jcow79]

She was demonized and convicted by the local media long before all the evidence was even in. And from what I've been reading there was not even minor measures to keep the jury from any of this information. I don't see how they couldn't be swayed by this.

You will of course gladly point me to the parts in the written decision that prove your point?

I said convicted by the media. It’s a common phrase in the U.S. indicating the public at large has already formed a conclusion based on preliminary and highly biased media reports prior to a trials conclusion. I don't think media and news articles are typically used in official decisions. It would be highly suspect if they were.

My point was that the media shit-storm that ensued right after the murder AND during the trial can be fairly pointed at being a source of bias for the jury if there was in fact no attempt to sequester the jury from these sources.

I’ll admit to not knowing how juries are handled outside the U.S. but the claim across a lot U.S. media is that all the members were highly exposed to the onslaught of local and European media that painted a damning picture of Knox and her boyfriend from the onset of the investigation. I don’t see why anyone would assume that these reports couldn’t lead to an unfair bias if they’re true.

Are the jurors restricted from reading articles or watching media programs about the cases they’re supposed to weigh in on? Can a juror’s admitted level of exposure to media during juror selection disqualify them from being a juror?

According to CNN

The jury reached its verdict after deliberating nearly 11 hours on the 11 counts. Jurors must submit an explanation of how they reached their decision to the judge within 90 days, and this "jury motivation" will be made public.

It will surely make for an interesting read and could shed some light on whether media reports swayed any of their decisions. It will also be interesting to see how they weighed forensic evidence vs. character evidence.

[Thanas]

That's a great idea, Thanas. Why don't you go ahead and post a link to the written decision with an explanation of what, exactly, the evidence is linking Knox to the murder and why the arguments the prosecution made hold water. After all, the burden of proof is on the party making the positive assertion, in this case the prosecution.

C'mon Surlethe, you know as well as I do that there is no written decision yet, which is why all those claims of "she was convicted on media hearsay alone" and "they don't have any evidence at all" are unproven until the decision airs. I for one am rather willing to trust that the Italian police and the judges are not involved in some kind of giant "let's lock up the american" scheme until there is a shred of evidence to back it up.

[Surlethe]

So how about this rephrasing of the position? None of the evidence presented in public hearings reasonably indicates that Knox is guilty. Then we must explain why a guilty verdict was handed down. Barring evidence presented in private hearings, being influenced by a media narrative becomes a reasonable explanation for why a guilty verdict was handed down. That doesn't demand a vast Italian conspiracy to lock her up, any more than right-wing US media bias demands a vast Republican conspiracy.

[Liberty]

That's a great idea, Thanas. Why don't you go ahead and post a link to the written decision with an explanation of what, exactly, the evidence is linking Knox to the murder and why the arguments the prosecution made hold water. After all, the burden of proof is on the party making the positive assertion, in this case the prosecution.

C'mon Surlethe, you know as well as I do that there is no written decision yet, which is why all those claims of "she was convicted on media hearsay alone" and "they don't have any evidence at all" are unproven until the decision airs. I for one am rather willing to trust that the Italian police and the judges are not involved in some kind of giant "let's lock up the american" scheme until there is a shred of evidence to back it up.

Weird that your tone with Surlethe is so much more friendly than your tone with me...

And yes, it will be good to have the actual report to read. However, the actual evidence that has been presented (knife, bra clasp, her DNA in the bathroom, the idea that it must have been an inside job because no one could have climbed up to the broken bedroom window) does not convict Amanda Knox. There are questions about whether the knife was actually the murder weapon and the bra strap was contaminated and left for months before being taken as evidence. Similarly, Knox's bathroom DNA was not blood, and it makes sense that her DNA should be there because it was HER bathroom. Similarly, it has been demonstrated that an intruder could climb to the window, and Guede has been linked to robberies involving such feats before.

For me, though, what is most convincing is not the quality of the evidence that has been presented but rather what evidence has NOT been presented. Why was Knox's DNA found NOWHERE in Kercher's room? Why is there no motive? Why is there not a shred of evidence that there was some sort of elaborate sex game being played (aside from evidence that Guede, and Guede alone, had sex with Kercher)? Why is there no link between Guede and Knox and her boyfriend? The evidence is simply not there.

And I am ready to admit that I'm an amateur here, and that I don't know everything about this case. I would be glad to change my mind were I given a compelling reason to. Do you have one?