BREAKING: Amanda Knox cleared of murder charges

[Stofsk]

Anyone who sits in the dock should be judged on the evidence presented, not on whether they're on their best behaviour.

Sure. 'Should.' I think we all know that 'should' is kind of the irrelevant part. The road to the conviction of the innocent might well be paved with a reliance upon how things 'should' work.

Yeah. I know.

[Ekiqa]

Regarding Italian trials, apparently 50% or so of results are overturned upon appeal, and the original trials are viewed as a joke.

Regarding evidence, the police apparently destroyed the boyfriends' computer, which was a main part of his defence.

And regarding the media, the US media is guilty of convicting before trial with the woman in Florida who was accused of killing her child and has to live in fear of her life.

[SVPD]

And regarding the media, the US media is guilty of convicting before trial with the woman in Florida who was accused of killing her child and has to live in fear of her life.

Yes. So what? Does this somehow excuse the behavior of the Italian media in this case?

[LaCroix]

"an otherwise uninformed person", but reasonable. The average 20 year old has no experience with courtroom procedure, especially not in the United States, and is NEVER taught etiquette today. I know how to act around Judges, Senators, etc, because my father was a politician and a military officer and still had a bit of aristocratic bearing, so I was educated in these things. But the average American kid, especially from the laid-back Pacific Northwest, simply does not know these things. Furthermore remember the American attitude--she is innocent, so she is utterly convinced the court will find her such, and she is not worried about her behaviour because, to her, as an innocent person, the trial is a severe inconvenience and derailment of her life. I believe she simply thought it was 100% impossible that she could be found guilty when she knew she wasn't, so she was just trying to keep herself distracted until the entire charade was over. We're all adults and cynics here, but a 20 year old going to a school close enough to home she probably still lived with her parents and raised in the rather cushy Dr. Spock parenting culture of the US west coast? I am quite sure that until the moment the verdict was pronounced she had literally never even thought once that anything she did short of killing a guard in the proceeding could get her convicted of murder.

So she was sitting there, after being arrested, handcuffed, interrogated, being told that others confessed that she did it, and all the police tricks, and she is not intimidated the slightest? So if a teacher wanted something of her she just ignored them, if someone at university wanted something, she just kicked her feet up a desk?

I had people at school who lived in seriously coddled and seriously fucked conditions, both, but each of them knew to stay quiet and to keep their head down when they were in the vicinity of an authority figure, even if innocent, just in case.

I can believe that she was a special case, but to say that the average 20 year old would have behaved like her is a far stretch.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So she was sitting there, after being arrested, handcuffed, interrogated, being told that others confessed that she did it, and all the police tricks, and she is not intimidated the slightest? So if a teacher wanted something of her she just ignored them, if someone at university wanted something, she just kicked her feet up a desk?

I had people at school who lived in seriously coddled and seriously fucked conditions, both, but each of them knew to stay quiet and to keep their head down when they were in the vicinity of an authority figure, even if innocent, just in case.

I can believe that she was a special case, but to say that the average 20 year old would have behaved like her is a far stretch.

The average 20 year old has had some kind of teaching figure in their life who has given them some idea of how the world works, perhaps, but it's quite possible to escape that notion, especially when you've never done anything that would get you in trouble. Being guilty provides an easy way for teenagers to reform their behaviour -- they can directly connect what is happening to them to something they did, and therefore understand Not Doing That will result in a cessation of repeated incidents of the negative attention received from authorities. Being accused of something while innocent provides no obvious connection, and without someone--Lawyers, parents (and her parents have handled this whole thing really terribly badly), padre, whatever--sitting down and telling her to STFU and fly straight in court, yes, I think it's quite typical. "otherwise uninformed".. Quite a substantial number of even spoiled middle class American kids do at least have a perfunctory education in propriety, but in particular this is something very lacking culturally in my neck of the woods since I think the entire idea of social propriety is slightly rejected here. Anyhow, that's all neither here nor there, the only point I wanted to make is that Amanda Knox was under no obligation to behave in a certain way, and it was the goddamned responsibility of her defence lawyer to actually tell her it was important. That's why we have defence counsel in the first place.

[Thanas]

^You really think she was a coddled spoiled brat who just was not intelligent enough to get it? I really doubt her entire defence team was so careless as to not tell her to STFU.

Well, if she believed she was innocent, and would be found not guilty it might not occur to her that she was acting inappropriately. It is also possible that given the high pressure situation, flirting with her boyfriend acted as a way for her to cope with it. She was very young and a murder trial isn't something you get prepared for in school. Her defense attorney should have coached her far better on things of that nature.

If she obeyed him. That has got to be the most incompetent defence council I have ever witnessed then because every lawyer I know always talks to his clients about strategy. That over the whole trial nobody ever told her to behave in a certain way is pretty much idiotic.

Fair enough. However, while you aren't implying that she deserved to be found guilty, It has been widely noted that the Italian Jurors were influenced by this in making their decision during the first trial. And it wasn't merely her behavior at the trial, but things that many young adults her age do portrayed in the worst possible light - out of context photos, quotes from her facebook page etc built into stories by muck racking reporters. Since Jurors in Italy aren't sequestered from "news reports" this was very much a trial by the media.

Doubtful, considering sequestering judges is a practice no country in Europe follows.

And I don't buy the notion that they are being glorified as heroes or role models. Maybe some minority of people feel that way, but for the most part I think the majority just felt like it was an injustice for her to have been convicted in the first place given the absolutely shitty "evidence" used against her.

Are you kidding me? A whole freaking movie was produced. On lifetime of all sorts. How the heck is that not glorification. "Foreigners doing bad things to our little girl. Hurr Durr".

They wanted to see a trial on the evidence not on sensationalism in the Italian and other media.

I'd like you to identify the places in the original verdict which were based on sensationalism in the media.

Regarding Italian trials, apparently 50% or so of results are overturned upon appeal, and the original trials are viewed as a joke.

Source ?

[TheHammer]

^You really think she was a coddled spoiled brat who just was not intelligent enough to get it? I really doubt her entire defence team was so careless as to not tell her to STFU.

Well, if she believed she was innocent, and would be found not guilty it might not occur to her that she was acting inappropriately. It is also possible that given the high pressure situation, flirting with her boyfriend acted as a way for her to cope with it. She was very young and a murder trial isn't something you get prepared for in school. Her defense attorney should have coached her far better on things of that nature.

If she obeyed him. That has got to be the most incompetent defence council I have ever witnessed then because every lawyer I know always talks to his clients about strategy. That over the whole trial nobody ever told her to behave in a certain way is pretty much idiotic.

She was an idiot or she was poorly coached or both. And as noted, youth and inexperience with these matters no doubt played a role. She may have been told to STFU after the fact, or told to change her behavior as the trial wore on, but the damage had been done in many instances. She was clearly much better prepared during the second trial, more or less behaving "as she should" in the courtroom.

Fair enough. However, while you aren't implying that she deserved to be found guilty, It has been widely noted that the Italian Jurors were influenced by this in making their decision during the first trial. And it wasn't merely her behavior at the trial, but things that many young adults her age do portrayed in the worst possible light - out of context photos, quotes from her facebook page etc built into stories by muck racking reporters. Since Jurors in Italy aren't sequestered from "news reports" this was very much a trial by the media.

Doubtful, considering sequestering judges is a practice no country in Europe follows.

What is doubtful? That the media had influence over the decision? That's been the opinion of just about every article I've read that addresses the situation.

As for Europe not sequestering judges, (or jurors?) that is a practice that maybe they should emulate from us over here. It only stands to reason that if you are allowed to have influences outside a court of law, that evidence that otherwise would be inadmissable in court ends up having an impact where it should not.

And I don't buy the notion that they are being glorified as heroes or role models. Maybe some minority of people feel that way, but for the most part I think the majority just felt like it was an injustice for her to have been convicted in the first place given the absolutely shitty "evidence" used against her.

Are you kidding me? A whole freaking movie was produced. On lifetime of all sorts. How the heck is that not glorification. "Foreigners doing bad things to our little girl. Hurr Durr".

LOL a movie was made because it was a sensationalized story. I've actually seen the movie, and I assume you have not. Because while it has been rightfully critized for innacuraces, it most certainly did not portray Knox as a "hero" or "role model" in any sense of the word.

They wanted to see a trial on the evidence not on sensationalism in the Italian and other media.

I'd like you to identify the places in the original verdict which were based on sensationalism in the media.

See articles cited above. And maybe one more article. The actual physical "evidence" against Knox and Solicetto that the prosecution presented was shit. They actually only had tangible evidence on one guy - Guede. There was also no motive. So it essentially came down to a question of character, of which was repeatedly subject to assassination in the media during the entire trial.

[Thanas]

As for Europe not sequestering judges, (or jurors?) that is a practice that maybe they should emulate from us over here. It only stands to reason that if you are allowed to have influences outside a court of law, that evidence that otherwise would be inadmissable in court ends up having an impact where it should not.

Only an American could make such a statement and actually believe the US system is in any way better. If you sequester people or jury select them the way you do you end up with 12 idiots more often than not. American juries are probably the worst of the bunch considering in most european juries you have at least one professional judge. (Juries in the European sense are composed of judges and jury members together, unlike the American version where the judge and the jury are seperate pieces of the trial).

LOL a movie was made because it was a sensationalized story. I've actually seen the movie, and I assume you have not. Because while it has been rightfully critized for innacuraces, it most certainly did not portray Knox as a "hero" or "role model" in any sense of the word.

As I have no opportunity to watch the movie I'll just take your word for it. But yes, people see her as a hero. See the drive to get her to be honored during the next seahawks game.

I'd like you to identify the places in the original verdict which were based on sensationalism in the media.

See articles cited above. And maybe one more article. The actual physical "evidence" against Knox and Solicetto that the prosecution presented was shit. They actually only had tangible evidence on one guy - Guede. There was also no motive. So it essentially came down to a question of character, of which was repeatedly subject to assassination in the media during the entire trial.

I've asked you to do a specific thing. Do it, please. Just going "obviously it was only the media that caused the court to have a bad opinion of her character" is pretty unsupported.

[TheHammer]

As for Europe not sequestering judges, (or jurors?) that is a practice that maybe they should emulate from us over here. It only stands to reason that if you are allowed to have influences outside a court of law, that evidence that otherwise would be inadmissable in court ends up having an impact where it should not.

Only an American could make such a statement and actually believe the US system is in any way better. If you sequester people or jury select them the way you do you end up with 12 idiots more often than not. American juries are probably the worst of the bunch considering in most european juries you have at least one professional judge. (Juries in the European sense are composed of judges and jury members together, unlike the American version where the judge and the jury are seperate pieces of the trial).

I never said that the American judicial system was "way better". However, the idea of sequestering people who are juding a case so that they are not unduly influenced by outside sources is better than letting them eat lunch and hob nob with reporters, and read tabloids and news articles while they are doing a major case. Feel free to trumpet the rest of your mighty European legal system, but recognize that this is a major flaw.

LOL a movie was made because it was a sensationalized story. I've actually seen the movie, and I assume you have not. Because while it has been rightfully critized for innacuraces, it most certainly did not portray Knox as a "hero" or "role model" in any sense of the word.

As I have no opportunity to watch the movie I'll just take your word for it. But yes, people see her as a hero. See the drive to get her to be honored during the next seahawks game.

Many people empathaize with her plight, and considering the travesty of justice that happened in the first trial they are no doubt happy she is free. Others may want to go an extra mile to show her kindness because they feel she was wrongly convicted and locked up for four years. But I stand by my statement that the majority do not view her as a "hero" or "role model". You won't find any parents pointing to her and saying "see kids? That's how you should handle yourself!"

I'd like you to identify the places in the original verdict which were based on sensationalism in the media.

See articles cited above. And maybe one more article. The actual physical "evidence" against Knox and Solicetto that the prosecution presented was shit. They actually only had tangible evidence on one guy - Guede. There was also no motive. So it essentially came down to a question of character, of which was repeatedly subject to assassination in the media during the entire trial.

I've asked you to do a specific thing. Do it, please. Just going "obviously it was only the media that caused the court to have a bad opinion of her character" is pretty unsupported.

If you are talking about the 400 page " verdict explantion" they released then I'm quite certain I won't find any mention of media coverage. But then I give about as much weight to that as you would probably give to a similar document drafted from a Guatanamo Bay trial. It is a widely held opinion that the media did influence the jurors. It is also a widely held opinon that the explanation given by the judges from the trial was bullshit. I've linked articles on it. Of course they aren't going to admit that. But it doesn't take a whole lot to read between the lines on this one.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Sure. 'Should.' I think we all know that 'should' is kind of the irrelevant part. The road to the conviction of the innocent might well be paved with a reliance upon how things 'should' work.

Yeah. I know.[/quote]

I was wondering how you'd feel about this thread, but thats an awesome one-liner.

[Simon_Jester]

As for Europe not sequestering judges, (or jurors?) that is a practice that maybe they should emulate from us over here. It only stands to reason that if you are allowed to have influences outside a court of law, that evidence that otherwise would be inadmissable in court ends up having an impact where it should not.

Only an American could make such a statement and actually believe the US system is in any way better. If you sequester people or jury select them the way you do you end up with 12 idiots more often than not...

I think you skipped a step. Could you fill me in on your reasoning about why sequestration is bad?

Did you mean that if you sequester jurors, it increases the incentive for intelligent professional types to avoid jury duty, whereas fools with nothing better to do will be fine with it?

Or are your criticisms directed at the jury selection process alone? Because in that case, TheHammer's statement has nothing to do with how jurors are selected, only with their access to the media during the trial. Saying "American jury selection recruits incompetent idiots for juries" does not refute "The American practice of sequestering juries in high-profile cases reduces the risk of tabloid journalism influencing the jury."

The American system being bad at some things, or even many things, does not make it bad at all things.


I will say that if courts are frequently railroaded into delivering absurd verdicts, there's a problem that has to be fixed somehow. This is the same country that's got a bunch of seismologists on trial for failing to warn about the L'Aquila earthquake. There may be a real problem with the Italian judiciary.

[Melchior]

There may be a real problem with the Italian judiciary.

Yes, that the average trial takes decades to reach a final verdict. There is the occasional dumb outcome but to be honest it's not endemic (and people in public administration are on average dumber that people in the judiciary, apparently; so far the "earthquake trial" stuff - which will not probably amount to anything - is posturing on their part).

[Wing Commander MAD]

I'll second Simon Jester's question. Even professionals who know better may be influenced in some way without being sequestered, perhaps without even realizing it, after all they are only human. I'd argue given the severe impact on peoples lives such decisions can have, that it would be better to err on the side of caution and sequester those involved with determining guilt or innocence. Professional ethics are not some magical thing that guarantee someone won't violate them. I would be shocked if you could name a profession with an established code of ethics that wasn't violated from time to time in manners both minor and severe by individuals or groups. I will of course admit that I'm perhaps a bit too cautious in general, and that may be influencing my perception of the issue.

Edit: Spelling & Grammar Corrections

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Sequestration is both bad because it implies you have no ethics--which is a personal insult to the juror who is putting time for very little recompense into the affair, and is absurd because the entire principle of American juries is that you will have 12 rational peers (don't laugh) rationally judging the evidence. Which is why I don't approve of the American system of juries--and also because in long trials it creates distraction and hardship. The jurors are torn away from their homes and families sometimes for several months, suffer serious disruption of their jobs, etc. Expecting someone to be at the top of their game in a life and death matter when they've essentially been conscripted and dragged away from their family is quite stupid. The army's preference in conscription is always to unmarried individuals without children for the same reason. All of this gives enormous weight to any effort by a more intelligent prospective juror to get out of jury duty: They have absolutely nothing to lose and potentially several months of their life to gain.

Which is why professional juries make a great deal more sense. I will certainly never be selected for jury duty even though I will show up and go through the vetting, simply because I believe I am not competent to declare someone guilty and thus would always vote innocent--I fundamentally believe lay juries are flawed, are not trained for the task, and should at the least not handle serious criminal cases. I would participate in a civil case, but the standard of evidence for those is lower so I believe I'd be capable of rendering judgement in one.

[LaCroix]

This.

I'm all for a triel with multiple judges for important cases, for obvious reasons. But ceding the decision for harsh or even capital punishment to people who have little(best case) to none(usual case) judical training is ridicculous.

[Simon_Jester]

Again, I think we need to separate "professional jurors versus conscripted jurors" from "sequester the jury during the trial" as concepts. Even if they're both bad ideas, they're still not the same thing.

With professional jurors the arguments for sequestration change. On the one hand, hopefully your selection process chooses people who are immune to bias. I'm a bit skeptical, but perhaps I'm just overly cynical about the power of trade associations to identify the wisest people in the nation. So in theory, sequestration becomes less necessary.

On the other hand, if jurors are professionals who get paid to do their job, then it's not as far out of line to require that they agree to be sequestered from the mass media during cases as a condition of employment. There are more than a few jobs out there which entail being separated from your family for a long time; it's not unheard of. And professional jurors would presumably get paid enough that being on a jury for a long time doesn't mean being financially ruined, the way that an ordinary person who's sequestered for months could be. It's what you're being paid to do in the first place.

Again, I'm not so much trying to say that jury sequestration is a good idea or a bad idea, but it's just plain not the same thing as having or not having professional jurors. Aside from generic "Americans do it, it's stupid!" it's hard for me to see what they have in common at all.

The Italian system, with its hybrid process of mixing judges and random citizens from the ages of 30 to 65 in the Corte d'Assise, doesn't lend itself to sequestration because of the length of the trials, I understand that. But that makes the incorporation of lay judges into the Corte even more of a problem, because there's so much time and opportunity for media frenzies to start and for random silliness on the part of the lay judges. Say what you will about Italian lay judges, they aren't trained to the same professional standards that Thanas seems to have in mind for professional jurors. If it's that professional training and selection we care about, rather than simply relying on the personal honor of the citizen, then that's a problem with the Italian system right there: they bring untrained people into the system but can't take steps to limit the consequences of having verdicts rendered by untrained people.

[LaCroix]

Simon, I think you got it wrong - if you have professional juries, then you don't have to sequester them. They know how to decide and know that public opinion is irrelevant, as they are trained to ignore such influence. Sequestering is only to keep lay people from frollowing public opintion.

[Simon_Jester]

It's mostly a question of how media-proof you can make professional jurors... which depends on how high you set the certification standard, how much you're willing to pay them, and so on. You can probably get them up to an acceptable standard of media-proofing; I hope so, in any case. I think I expect so, although I've been feeling very cynical about that sort of thing for the past few years.

If you had professional jurors and, just to be safe, wanted to sequester them for high-profile cases, it would be a bit less onerous because they volunteered for a job in which they knew that might happen- it's what they're paid for, much as people in the military are paid to take their chances with long overseas deployments.

The catch is, it's a moot point. Italy doesn't have an all-professional juror force; it has lay judges who can't be sequestered because the trials are so long, which gets them the worst of both worlds.

[The Yosemite Bear]

well the most famous case in the US in a pre-trial by media would be the late Dr. Sam Sheppard case. where he was largely convicted on made up "evidence" the state still refuse to re-open the case, even after DNA showed that the DNA of the third person who bled in the house on the night of the murder is not a member of the sheppard family....

[TheHammer]

If you had professional jurors and, just to be safe, wanted to sequester them for high-profile cases, it would be a bit less onerous because they volunteered for a job in which they knew that might happen- it's what they're paid for, much as people in the military are paid to take their chances with long overseas deployments.

I think that is the key here. Even in the US, Jurors aren't sequestered for every case, only ones in which it seems likely that outside influence could affect the outcome.

Link with more details.

Courts view sequestration as a great burden on the personal lives of the jurors as well as the cost involved, and it is used, therefore, only if the lawyer for the defense is able to show the judge there is prejudice in the surrounding community against the defendant, or that news reports would prevent members of the jury from being impartial...

I would think given the sheer volume of media coverage on the Kercher murder, and Knox/Solicceto, that this trial is an a very good example of a situation where sequestration absolutely would have made sense.

[Thanas]

Say what you will about Italian lay judges, they aren't trained to the same professional standards that Thanas seems to have in mind for professional jurors. If it's that professional training and selection we care about, rather than simply relying on the personal honor of the citizen, then that's a problem with the Italian system right there: they bring untrained people into the system but can't take steps to limit the consequences of having verdicts rendered by untrained people.

Man, you just gotta love this statement right here.

Here's how jury selection generally works. The "untrained people" are usually people that are quite smart. For example, in the German courts judging employment disputes both the worker's assciation and the capitalist organization each sent one juror to the trial to join the judge. These then form the jury together with the judge of three people. In all proceedings, they are supervised and advised by the judge as to how to judge evidence. This influence is supposed to be informative, not directive in nature.

(BTW I have more faith in one professional acting professionally if he faces serious consequences otherwise than in that of 12 people who face no serious consequences whatsoever for being racists or biased).

In criminal cases, the jury itself is also supervised and advised by the judge, who is a member of the jury. They can overrule him of course - for example, a 2-1 decision in a jury composed of one judge and two lay members - but the point is that you already have a professional presence in the jury room present during proceedings which already has a vote.


This is why sequestering is both unnecessary and idiotic, especially in such highly publicized cases where the people would already have heard about the case simply via the morning news.

[Simon_Jester]

Would you happen to know whether Italian lay judges are selected the way German non-professional jurors (like the union representative you give as an example) are? Or is the process different, without such a rigorous attempt to select for people involved in and knowledgeable about the issues at stake in the case?

I haven't said a thing about the German judiciary, because it's not being looked at here. However, if the Italian judiciary runs along the same lines, and those lines work so well... then I don't understand why others in this thread talk about these trials in Italy as if they're widely regarded as jokes and so frequently overturned on appeals. One would expect higher quality, if the Italian lay jurors are trustworthy and reliable.

[Thanas]

Italian juries are selected at random among lists of eligible people and form jury together with the judge.

[Simon_Jester]

Right.

The only criteria I know of that you need to serve on an Italian 'jury' (Corte d'Assise) as a lay judge are that you have to be between 30 and 65, have a junior high school education, and not be a member of the judiciary, clergy, police, or armed forces.

The Italian system for picking the lay jurors sounds a lot like the American system for picking jurors. All that changes is that it weeds out people with less than a ninth-grade education (small, in a state with compulsory education), and refuses to allow anyone below the age of thirty to sit on a jury.

Hopefully, having two actual judges in the Corte d'Assise along with the six lay judges would help, but the lay judges outnumber the professionals in the Italian system by a big enough margin that a lot of cases could be decided over the professionals' judgment.

So it doesn't sound to me like the Italian system is going to be all that much better than the American system, if you're worried about the lack of professionalism in juries and the vulnerability of the jury to media bias.

[Thanas]

So it doesn't sound to me like the Italian system is going to be all that much better than the American system, if you're worried about the lack of professionalism in juries and the vulnerability of the jury to media bias.

You are telling me that having two professionals in the room telling the jury member in the room on how to interpret the evidence and who the others have to explain their thought process to does not make a difference?