Kercher murder Trial

[Korgeta]

It has been a case that shocked italy, a young british student Meredith Kercher was horrificly subjected to sexual abuse and death in what was apprently a sex game forced on her. As the trial progressed, it even affected social sites like facebook, with groups proclaiming that Amanda Knox. was innocent.

However, American student Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend have been found guilty by an Italian court of the murder of British student Meredith Kercher.

Knox, 22, bowed her head and burst into tears as she was jailed for 26 years for murder and sexual violence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8394750.stm

Your thoughts on this case, the evidence presented that led to the conviction of know to be without fault or flawed given the controversies that came about the claims of 'tainted evidence'

[Big Phil]

I think it was an appalling show trial, not all that different from the OJ Simpson case here. The police work was incompetent, the prosecution driven by politics, and the media was acting like it was a feeding frenzy. The evidence was questionable, analysis was contradictory, and it's unclear to me what exactly was introduced as actual evidence versus what was put forward by the media, the prosecution, or the defense as "hypotheses."

The prosecution told one story, their star witness told a different story, the defense told three or four different stories, and in the end a woman is dead, three people are in prison, and who the fuck knows what really happened. Based on the evidence, I don't see how the jury could have found Knox and Sollecito guilty; of course, this being Italy, saving face and politics are just as important as actual evidence.

My best guess; they'll be found not guilty on appeal, or else they'll be paroled in five years or so and Knox will be told to get the fuck out of Italy and never come back.

[Big Orange]

They've been found guilty:

American student Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend have been found guilty by an Italian court of the murder of British student Meredith Kercher.

Knox, 22, bowed her head and burst into tears as she was jailed for 26 years for murder and sexual violence.

Italian Raffaele Sollecito, 25, looked impassive as he was given 25 years.

Miss Kercher, 21, a Leeds University student from Surrey, was found with her throat slit in Perugia in 2007. Knox had denied killing her in a sex game.

But prosecutors said Sollecito held her down while Knox stabbed her to death.

Knox buried her head in her lawyer's chest, sobbing, after the judge read the verdict to a hushed court.

Her sister Deanna wept uncontrollably as Knox was led out of court crying.

Miss Kercher's family lawyer, Francesco Maresca, said they were satisfied with the verdict.

'Media lies'

He said: "They got the justice they were expecting. We got what we were hoping for.

"With what we got with the Guede sentence last year, we have obtained truth and justice for this tragic event."

The Kercher family are due to hold a press conference at a hotel in Perugia at 1000 GMT.

Knox's family, meanwhile, left court in tears, fighting through the crowds of journalists gathered outside. Her father, Curt, told the BBC "we will fight on".

Relatives and friends in Knox's home city of Seattle clasped hands as they waited for the verdict.

Her uncle, Mick Huff, cried "Oh God, no" when it was announced and other friends buried their faces in their hands.

Her grandmother, Elisabeth Huff, added: "They didn't listen to the facts of the case. All they did was listen to the media's lies."

The court ordered Knox and Sollecito to pay one million euros to Miss Kercher's mother and the same amount to her father.

Her siblings would each receive 800,000 euros, the court ruled.

Knox was told she must also pay 40,000 euros compensation to local barman Patrick Lumumba, for falsely accused him of the murder.

The pair committed the killing with small-time drug dealer Rudy Guede, 22, who was jailed for 30 years for murder and sexual violence last October.

Police are still not certain why Knox, Sollecito and Guede were all at the house together, although they suspect it involved a drugs transaction.

Miss Kercher's semi-naked body was found in a pool of blood with her throat slit in her room.

She had been sharing a house with Knox, also a student, on her year abroad in the Umbrian hilltop town.

The trial of Knox and Sollecito started on 16 January this year.

[Simon_Jester]

I think it was an appalling show trial, not all that different from the OJ Simpson case here. The police work was incompetent, the prosecution driven by politics, and the media was acting like it was a feeding frenzy. The evidence was questionable, analysis was contradictory, and it's unclear to me what exactly was introduced as actual evidence versus what was put forward by the media, the prosecution, or the defense as "hypotheses."

Could you outline this in a bit more depth, or provide links to someone who does?

[Korgeta]

They've been found guilty:

[/quote]

The link was already posted on the starting topic.

[Big Orange]

Oops.

But here's a BBC video on the subject and the murder victim showed up in this music video.

[Big Phil]

I think it was an appalling show trial, not all that different from the OJ Simpson case here. The police work was incompetent, the prosecution driven by politics, and the media was acting like it was a feeding frenzy. The evidence was questionable, analysis was contradictory, and it's unclear to me what exactly was introduced as actual evidence versus what was put forward by the media, the prosecution, or the defense as "hypotheses."

Could you outline this in a bit more depth, or provide links to someone who does?

This is as unbiased and non-sensational a source as I've been able to find. I'm not going to copy all the text here, but it basically lays out the evidence against Knox and argues the pros and cons of each piece.

http://clintvanzandt.newsvine.com/_news ... r-innocent


My biggest gripe with the case is that the jury is not secluded, meaning that they are influenced by the media and the comments by the prosecution to the media. In the media, the argument basically boils down to: "Amanda Knox is a drug and sex crazed sociopath who hated Meredith Kercher, stole her money, and raped/killed her to cover it up because she hated her." That's motive that the prosecution/media has put forth, but there really has never been evidence for such a motive, or that Amanda and Meredith didn't get along. In an American court, that "evidence" wouldn't be allowed and the jury would likely/hopefully be sequestered so they wouldn't hear it. In Italy, that doesn't happen.

The other gripe is cultural; in Italy, the prosecutors and judges lose face if they lose cases, and the more fantastic the claim the greater the risk, and the greater the payoff. In Mignini's case, he has a history of making outlandish claims in his cases (he seems to see Satanists, sociopaths, and sex addicts everywhere), but once he made the claim, he couldn't really back off of it without looking foolish. In Italy, the system tends to protect its own, so the courts are somewhat inclined to favor the prosecutor to keep him from looking like the dildo he is. That's just unfortunate and not a very good system. On top of a biased court system, there is a culture that recognizes (and disapproves of) American college students come to Italy to go beserk, have lots of sex, drink lots of booze, and generally act like slightly more cultured douchebags at Spring Break. Notice most of the media coverage about the American Amanda Knox contrasts how "wild" she was, how many guys she had sex with, how much pot she smoked, etc., with the demure English Meredith Kercher who would never act like a whore or demean herself by smoking pot or screwing hordes of Italian guys.


On the plus side, I do think the Italian system of having some professional jurors is a good idea; I wish we had that here in the US, at least as an option.

[LMSx]

Knox might be an asshole for putting the Congolese guy behind bars for two weeks, but I kept scanning through Sanchez's link and even the most convincing evidence for me, the knife blade, that would account for crime scene contamination or random clues from innocent walking around the apartment was inconclusive with regards to DNA. (Actually unless I'm mistaking something, even that blade.....is freely admitted by both sides not to have been the exact murder weapon.)

Everything else sounds somewhat suspicious, but inconclusive.

[Netko]

This is as unbiased and non-sensational a source as I've been able to find. I'm not going to copy all the text here, but it basically lays out the evidence against Knox and argues the pros and cons of each piece.

http://clintvanzandt.newsvine.com/_news ... r-innocent

I hardly find an article presenting every single piece of evidence ending in "Point.Counterpoint." even when the evidence clearly favors the prosecution non-sensational. And an article ending in

There is one thing for certain though; something said by Amanda Knox’s mother, Edda Melias. She said the biggest mistake she made was not getting Amanda on a plane from Italy to America when Kercher’s body was initially found. Knox, like so many other Americans, has found that while there is much to criticize about our criminal justice system, if you are a U.S. citizen you do not want to be arrested for a crime outside of the USA.

is hardly unbiased.

My biggest gripe with the case is that the jury is not secluded, meaning that they are influenced by the media and the comments by the prosecution to the media. In the media, the argument basically boils down to: "Amanda Knox is a drug and sex crazed sociopath who hated Meredith Kercher, stole her money, and raped/killed her to cover it up because she hated her." That's motive that the prosecution/media has put forth, but there really has never been evidence for such a motive, or that Amanda and Meredith didn't get along. In an American court, that "evidence" wouldn't be allowed and the jury would likely/hopefully be sequestered so they wouldn't hear it. In Italy, that doesn't happen.

I find this a strange objection considering that just a bit later you mention that you find professional "juries" (actually lay judges) a positive thing - it is hardly strange that the system expects professionals to adhere to their training and ethics codes and consider only the evidence given to them during trial instead of treating them like retards that can't filter out anything (which is, of course, appropriate for US juries since, exaggerated for effect, they often are comprised of retards by the time everyone who can get out of jury duty does, and the prosecution and defense pick off anyone still capable of forming coherent thoughts). Especially since, unlike US juries, they hear many cases and as such can be expected to have an experience advising them of the unreliability and sensationalism of media reporting.

The other gripe is cultural; in Italy, the prosecutors and judges lose face if they lose cases, and the more fantastic the claim the greater the risk, and the greater the payoff. In Mignini's case, he has a history of making outlandish claims in his cases (he seems to see Satanists, sociopaths, and sex addicts everywhere), but once he made the claim, he couldn't really back off of it without looking foolish. In Italy, the system tends to protect its own, so the courts are somewhat inclined to favor the prosecutor to keep him from looking like the dildo he is. That's just unfortunate and not a very good system. On top of a biased court system, there is a culture that recognizes (and disapproves of) American college students come to Italy to go beserk, have lots of sex, drink lots of booze, and generally act like slightly more cultured douchebags at Spring Break. Notice most of the media coverage about the American Amanda Knox contrasts how "wild" she was, how many guys she had sex with, how much pot she smoked, etc., with the demure English Meredith Kercher who would never act like a whore or demean herself by smoking pot or screwing hordes of Italian guys.

Any evidence at all that any of this culture-bashing stereotyping actually happened in this case?

On the plus side, I do think the Italian system of having some professional jurors is a good idea; I wish we had that here in the US, at least as an option.

As is obvious from the earlier exaggeration, I certainly agree.

Generally, not related to your comment, two things bug me with American comments on this case which are used to attempt to make an objective argument for the commentators' "US is the only country with a non-biased justice system" biases:
1) The expectation of perfect evidence ie. the so-called "CSI effect" - real life is not as clear-cut as seen on police procedurals or CSI. The evidence is often ambiguous, degraded, etc. Take the knife example - there are numerous comments that the knife should have been tossed as evidence the minute that there wasn't a positive match. But not even in the US (a country which has to have extremely strict rules of evidence do to populist juries) would that evidence been tossed out. Its not conclusive (because it lacks a full match), but it has circumstantial evidence value. Now, the defense can dispute how the blood got there and if it was truly the victims, but attacking the knife evidence on the basis that the blood there is only similar to the victim's, and not conclusively hers, is a clear example of the "CSI effect" in action.

2) Resorting to biases of Italian culture to explain away legitimate differences of a fair legal system based on civil, rather then common law. One, and a major one in this case, being the fact that in civil law jurisdictions, judges (single, tribunal or lay) are both triers of fact as well as triers of law (compared to common law where they are only triers of law, and the jury is the undisputed trier of fact). This has wide ranging consequences, with two sticking out in this case. The first one is that all evidence, with few exceptions, is admissible in civil law - it doesn't matter how it was acquired, its quality or importance. Because the triers of fact are, in fact, professionals with appropriate training, they are expected to be able to attach appropriate value to each piece of evidence. More importantly, in its ruling the judge, tribunal or court (three different first-instance judicial bodies present in Italy) must offer its own interpretation of the evidence, which can be appealed (unlike the US, where the jury's decision is final and does not have to be explained, as they are the sole triers of fact) - it is, in fact, the most common cause of successful appeals in criminal cases in civil law countries. Secondly, and partly as a consequence of the first, there is a lower barrier for conviction. Since, unlike US juries, the decision of the first-instance body can be reexamined at the higher instances, there is less pressure to be absolutely right the first time, and as such circumstantial evidence (alone or together) can be given higher weight.

There is basically no appreciation for those things in American pro-Knox comments. The "CSI effect" one is especially relevant since there have been numerous convictions in the US based on even flimsier evidence and yet its suddenly a scandal and something worth casting doubt on an entire justice system simply because it happened elsewhere to a US citizen defendant.

[Big Phil]

This is as unbiased and non-sensational a source as I've been able to find. I'm not going to copy all the text here, but it basically lays out the evidence against Knox and argues the pros and cons of each piece.

http://clintvanzandt.newsvine.com/_news ... r-innocent

I hardly find an article presenting every single piece of evidence ending in "Point.Counterpoint." even when the evidence clearly favors the prosecution non-sensational. And an article ending in

There is one thing for certain though; something said by Amanda Knox’s mother, Edda Melias. She said the biggest mistake she made was not getting Amanda on a plane from Italy to America when Kercher’s body was initially found. Knox, like so many other Americans, has found that while there is much to criticize about our criminal justice system, if you are a U.S. citizen you do not want to be arrested for a crime outside of the USA.

is hardly unbiased.

Dude - read what I said: "as unbiased and non-sensational a source as I've been able to find." That's not the same as "unbiased." Besides which, her mom was right. She should have gotten Amanda the fuck out of Italy the next morning. In 18 years if my son is in the middle of something similar in a foreign country, I'm getting him the fuck out and not relying on the competence and goodwill of the local authorities to treat him fairly. That's a parent talking, not an unbiased author.

My biggest gripe with the case is that the jury is not secluded, meaning that they are influenced by the media and the comments by the prosecution to the media. In the media, the argument basically boils down to: "Amanda Knox is a drug and sex crazed sociopath who hated Meredith Kercher, stole her money, and raped/killed her to cover it up because she hated her." That's motive that the prosecution/media has put forth, but there really has never been evidence for such a motive, or that Amanda and Meredith didn't get along. In an American court, that "evidence" wouldn't be allowed and the jury would likely/hopefully be sequestered so they wouldn't hear it. In Italy, that doesn't happen.

I find this a strange objection considering that just a bit later you mention that you find professional "juries" (actually lay judges) a positive thing - it is hardly strange that the system expects professionals to adhere to their training and ethics codes and consider only the evidence given to them during trial instead of treating them like retards that can't filter out anything (which is, of course, appropriate for US juries since, exaggerated for effect, they often are comprised of retards by the time everyone who can get out of jury duty does, and the prosecution and defense pick off anyone still capable of forming coherent thoughts). Especially since, unlike US juries, they hear many cases and as such can be expected to have an experience advising them of the unreliability and sensationalism of media reporting.

I would hope that a jury (professional or otherwise) would make decisions based on the evidence presented, not scurrilous rumor and hyperbole in the media. By not sequestering this jury, they were exposed to things that were never introduced as evidence, which can't help but affect their judgment.

The other gripe is cultural; in Italy, the prosecutors and judges lose face if they lose cases, and the more fantastic the claim the greater the risk, and the greater the payoff. In Mignini's case, he has a history of making outlandish claims in his cases (he seems to see Satanists, sociopaths, and sex addicts everywhere), but once he made the claim, he couldn't really back off of it without looking foolish. In Italy, the system tends to protect its own, so the courts are somewhat inclined to favor the prosecutor to keep him from looking like the dildo he is. That's just unfortunate and not a very good system. On top of a biased court system, there is a culture that recognizes (and disapproves of) American college students come to Italy to go beserk, have lots of sex, drink lots of booze, and generally act like slightly more cultured douchebags at Spring Break. Notice most of the media coverage about the American Amanda Knox contrasts how "wild" she was, how many guys she had sex with, how much pot she smoked, etc., with the demure English Meredith Kercher who would never act like a whore or demean herself by smoking pot or screwing hordes of Italian guys.

Any evidence at all that any of this culture-bashing stereotyping actually happened in this case?

To have a discussion on Italian culture would take more time than either of us have, and nothing I write in a post here would be sufficient to address the nuances of Italian culture or the Italian justice system. As for evidence, open a newspaper (particularly one of the English or Italian gossip rags) to see how they refer to Amanda Knox and what they say about her; look at Mignini's record; talk to any Italian in a town where lots of American college students (girls) visit.

On the plus side, I do think the Italian system of having some professional jurors is a good idea; I wish we had that here in the US, at least as an option.

As is obvious from the earlier exaggeration, I certainly agree.

Generally, not related to your comment, two things bug me with American comments on this case which are used to attempt to make an objective argument for the commentators' "US is the only country with a non-biased justice system" biases:
1) The expectation of perfect evidence ie. the so-called "CSI effect" - real life is not as clear-cut as seen on police procedurals or CSI. The evidence is often ambiguous, degraded, etc. Take the knife example - there are numerous comments that the knife should have been tossed as evidence the minute that there wasn't a positive match. But not even in the US (a country which has to have extremely strict rules of evidence do to populist juries) would that evidence been tossed out. Its not conclusive (because it lacks a full match), but it has circumstantial evidence value. Now, the defense can dispute how the blood got there and if it was truly the victims, but attacking the knife evidence on the basis that the blood there is only similar to the victim's, and not conclusively hers, is a clear example of the "CSI effect" in action.

Whether the knife should be included or not, it's a questionable piece of evidence because it wasn't the murder weapon. It was "similar" to the murder weapon. Well fuck, any of a thousand knives could be "similar" to the murder weapon. That's a pretty shitty standard.

My understanding, too, is that there wasn't blood on the knife, but a minute quantity of DNA, and how it got there is in dispute.

2) Resorting to biases of Italian culture to explain away legitimate differences of a fair legal system based on civil, rather then common law. One, and a major one in this case, being the fact that in civil law jurisdictions, judges (single, tribunal or lay) are both triers of fact as well as triers of law (compared to common law where they are only triers of law, and the jury is the undisputed trier of fact). This has wide ranging consequences, with two sticking out in this case. The first one is that all evidence, with few exceptions, is admissible in civil law - it doesn't matter how it was acquired, its quality or importance. Because the triers of fact are, in fact, professionals with appropriate training, they are expected to be able to attach appropriate value to each piece of evidence. More importantly, in its ruling the judge, tribunal or court (three different first-instance judicial bodies present in Italy) must offer its own interpretation of the evidence, which can be appealed (unlike the US, where the jury's decision is final and does not have to be explained, as they are the sole triers of fact) - it is, in fact, the most common cause of successful appeals in criminal cases in civil law countries. Secondly, and partly as a consequence of the first, there is a lower barrier for conviction. Since, unlike US juries, the decision of the first-instance body can be reexamined at the higher instances, there is less pressure to be absolutely right the first time, and as such circumstantial evidence (alone or together) can be given higher weight.

There is basically no appreciation for those things in American pro-Knox comments. The "CSI effect" one is especially relevant since there have been numerous convictions in the US based on even flimsier evidence and yet its suddenly a scandal and something worth casting doubt on an entire justice system simply because it happened elsewhere to a US citizen defendant.

That's a good point, and I understand and to some extent agree. Mind you, I don't necessarily think Amanda Knox was completely innocent; I think her behavior after the crime, even taken in the best light, is evidence that at a minimum she had some knowledge of the crime (perhaps she knows who killed Meredith and why; maybe it was Rudy Guede and she had something to do with it; maybe Amanda was there when it happened), and perhaps even played a role, but I think it's unlikely that she actually held the murder weapon. However the whole of the evidence in this case, in my opinion (motive, physical evidence, timeline of the crime, etc.) was insufficient to convict.

[Liberty]

Here's what gets me:

Guede's DNA was all over the room, all over Kercher, and his DNA was even in her vagina. One thing is sure: Guede killed Kercher. Now, there is no evidence at all that there were more than one murderers, and no DNA from either Knox or her boyfriend was found in the room (with the exception of the boyfriend's DNA on a broken bra strap that had been kicked around room and at high risk of contamination for two months before being taken and tested). If Knox and her boyfriend had been involved, THEIR BLOOD WOULD HAVE BEEN ON KERCHER. It wasn't.

So why accuse them in the first place? Well, they were some of the first ones to the scene, and they did act a bit suspicious during the days after the murder, and once they were brought in to talk to the police, they did change their stories a number of times.

However:
1. Seriously, how would you act if that'd happened to your roommate? I imagine I'd probably respond weirdly too. Seriously. But this isn't actual evidence.
2. Knox was interrogated by the police for long LONG hours without an attorney. She was told that asking for an attorney would make things worse. And she says she was struck by the interrogators.
3. She has said many times that she was smoking pot with her boyfriend on the evening of the murder. Smoking pot. Wouldn't this confuse someone? So she may legitimately not be sure where she was or what all she did that evening.

The police came out fairly early on with the bizarre claim that Knox, the boyfriend, and a third guy named Patrick had involved Kercher in a sex game and killed her when she resisted. When Patrick came up with an airtight alibi, they let him off, and when the DNA evidence came back implicating Guede, a drifter, they added him to the sex scenario. No evidence of a sex game at all. The only fact is that Kercher was sexually assaulted by Guede.

So come on people. Yes, Knox acted weirdly after the murder, yes, she's changed her story, but there is NO REAL EVIDENCE that she was involved. And honestly, the lack of her DNA in the room with Kercher is VERY persuasive to me.

They've already got the killer - Guede. So let Amanda off already! She is immature and naive, but not a killer.

NOTE: I've done a lot of research on the internet on this case in the past few days (which I will be the FIRST to admit does NOT make me an expert in any sense), and I've tried to read arguments on all sides. All of the information I provided above can be found on news sites with very little searching. If I'm wrong on any point, feel free to let me know. I started my research without any feelings on whether or not Knox was guilty, and I just feel like I've looked at the evidence and used my common sense. Now of course, this has been a huge long process in Italy with reams and reams of information. So, I don't claim to know everything here, by a long shot.

[Serafine666]

I would hope that a jury (professional or otherwise) would make decisions based on the evidence presented, not scurrilous rumor and hyperbole in the media. By not sequestering this jury, they were exposed to things that were never introduced as evidence, which can't help but affect their judgment.

While true, at the same time, the judgement and opinions of the jury can be affected by the closing statements or the behavior of the defendant or practically anything that can subtly influence someone's opinion. There's no sense in sequestering the jury until after the full presentation of evidence because while the opinion of the jury about the defendant and the evidence is going to be pushed one way or the other by things beyond anyone's control, the most critical thing is that a jury deliberate shut off from any outside influences (which is why there is no further trial after the completion of both side's cases) and it is at that stage that jury sequestering is the most useful and logical.

Whether the knife should be included or not, it's a questionable piece of evidence because it wasn't the murder weapon. It was "similar" to the murder weapon. Well fuck, any of a thousand knives could be "similar" to the murder weapon. That's a pretty shitty standard.

My understanding, too, is that there wasn't blood on the knife, but a minute quantity of DNA, and how it got there is in dispute.

So a knife that is not alleged to be connected to the murder is found with a minute quantity of inconclusive DNA on it and is admitted as evidence? A court SERIOUSLY regarded something unrelated to the case as EVIDENCE?

That's a good point, and I understand and to some extent agree. Mind you, I don't necessarily think Amanda Knox was completely innocent; I think her behavior after the crime, even taken in the best light, is evidence that at a minimum she had some knowledge of the crime (perhaps she knows who killed Meredith and why; maybe it was Rudy Guede and she had something to do with it; maybe Amanda was there when it happened), and perhaps even played a role, but I think it's unlikely that she actually held the murder weapon. However the whole of the evidence in this case, in my opinion (motive, physical evidence, timeline of the crime, etc.) was insufficient to convict.

Is the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard universal among justice systems that use a jury trial? Because if the evidence was as shaky as your citation and comments suggest, there's no legitimate means by which it could meet the burden of proof that is generally required of the state.

[Simon_Jester]

Sanchez, a question inspired by one of the comments on the Clint van Zandt article:

Purely hypothetically, if Knox and Sollecito were proven to have been involved in the cleanup and possible staging of a crime scene, how would this affect the likelihood that they were guilty of the murder in your eyes?

The other gripe is cultural; in Italy, the prosecutors and judges lose face if they lose cases, and the more fantastic the claim the greater the risk, and the greater the payoff. In Mignini's case, he has a history of making outlandish claims in his cases (he seems to see Satanists, sociopaths, and sex addicts everywhere), but once he made the claim, he couldn't really back off of it without looking foolish. In Italy, the system tends to protect its own, so the courts are somewhat inclined to favor the prosecutor to keep him from looking like the dildo he is. That's just unfortunate and not a very good system.

I have seen systems like that before, though not law systems.

On the plus side, I do think the Italian system of having some professional jurors is a good idea; I wish we had that here in the US, at least as an option.

It's good if it produces good results; I have no idea whether or not it does. Literally none- it's not a subject where I know enough to have a qualified opinion.

I find [the nonseclusion of the jury] a strange objection considering that just a bit later you mention that you find professional "juries" (actually lay judges) a positive thing - it is hardly strange that the system expects professionals to adhere to their training and ethics codes and consider only the evidence given to them during trial instead of treating them like retards that can't filter out anything... Especially since, unlike US juries, they hear many cases and as such can be expected to have an experience advising them of the unreliability and sensationalism of media reporting.

Yes, but nonseclusion can still be a problem; it is better for the jurors to be isolated from the media's take on the case, even if it is not as much better as it would be for an amateur jury.
__________

Generally, not related to your comment, two things bug me with American comments on this case which are used to attempt to make an objective argument for the commentators' "US is the only country with a non-biased justice system" biases:
1) The expectation of perfect evidence ie. the so-called "CSI effect" - real life is not as clear-cut as seen on police procedurals or CSI. The evidence is often ambiguous, degraded, etc. Take the knife example - there are numerous comments that the knife should have been tossed as evidence the minute that there wasn't a positive match. But not even in the US (a country which has to have extremely strict rules of evidence do to populist juries) would that evidence been tossed out. Its not conclusive (because it lacks a full match), but it has circumstantial evidence value. Now, the defense can dispute how the blood got there and if it was truly the victims, but attacking the knife evidence on the basis that the blood there is only similar to the victim's, and not conclusively hers, is a clear example of the "CSI effect" in action.

Yes. On the other hand, if there is one cell that might conceivably belong to the victim on a knife that experts claim was not the murder knife... it's not very strong circumstantial evidence. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation.

I feel that for evidence to be relevant, it should be at least "strong circumstantial": there are plausible ways it could not be significant, but those ways are far less plausible than the evidence simply being valid. I'm not sure the knife qualifies, and I'm not sure a large number of individually questionable things that indicate the defendant's guilt with probability or whatever should add up to a conviction. Especially not when the stakes are high and the trial is high-profile.

There is basically no appreciation for those things in American pro-Knox comments. The "CSI effect" one is especially relevant since there have been numerous convictions in the US based on even flimsier evidence and yet its suddenly a scandal and something worth casting doubt on an entire justice system simply because it happened elsewhere to a US citizen defendant.

This may also have to do with the case being relatively high profile; it becomes a scandal in the US because it was already a scandal in Italy.

[The Yosemite Bear]

unknown, this whole case sounds very, very strange to me. my brain likes physical evidence, and dislikes "Police Instinct", testimony of people who are likely to be suspects/killers etc, I also dislike judicial Xenophobia, where the people from outside the community will always be suspect because they are outsiders.

[Big Phil]

Sanchez, a question inspired by one of the comments on the Clint van Zandt article:

Purely hypothetically, if Knox and Sollecito were proven to have been involved in the cleanup and possible staging of a crime scene, how would this affect the likelihood that they were guilty of the murder in your eyes?

Strongly; they would have absolutely no reason to be involved in the cleanup or staging of a crime scene unless they were involved (unless we are to assume that they are both so stupid that their first response to seeing their roommate's dead body is to clean). Based on my understanding of the evidence, however, there was no physical evidence that they participated in a cleanup... well, other than a bra clasp found two months after the murder (Overlooked? Planted? Contaminated? At this point, no one knows)

Yes. On the other hand, if there is one cell that might conceivably belong to the victim on a knife that experts claim was not the murder knife... it's not very strong circumstantial evidence. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation.

I feel that for evidence to be relevant, it should be at least "strong circumstantial": there are plausible ways it could not be significant, but those ways are far less plausible than the evidence simply being valid. I'm not sure the knife qualifies, and I'm not sure a large number of individually questionable things that indicate the defendant's guilt with probability or whatever should add up to a conviction. Especially not when the stakes are high and the trial is high-profile.

I believe that the standard in US courts is that there must enough DNA for two independent tests, and that courts will occasionally disallow DNA evidence if there is insufficient material for the defense to test independently. Different standards; in this case, I prefer the US standard.

The Kercher family was interviewed today; they weren't condemning Knox and Sollecito and condemning them to hell. Now that might be traditional English understatement, or it could be that they themselves weren't exactly convinced by the case the prosecution put forward. In any case, it was interesting to hear from them for essentially the first time ever.

[Big Phil]

unknown, this whole case sounds very, very strange to me. my brain likes physical evidence, and dislikes "Police Instinct", testimony of people who are likely to be suspects/killers etc, I also dislike judicial Xenophobia, where the people from outside the community will always be suspect because they are outsiders.

Sollecito isn't exactly an outsider, although Guede and Knox certainly are.

[cosmicalstorm]

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.

[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.

Again, this is part of what convinces me that Amanda is innocent. Reading about what all happens kind of scares me, because I think it's entirely possible that any innocent person could get caught up in a murder (or other case) and appear guilty because of circumstantial evidence, conflicting statements (honestly, who really remembers their every action on a given day, minute by minute, when questioned about it days later?), etc, etc.

And I like the point that if she was really the conniving, cold-blooded killer so many people in Italy think she was, she would have had her story straight. And her boyfriend too - they would have discussed it together.

[Guardsman Bass]

My best guess; they'll be found not guilty on appeal, or else they'll be paroled in five years or so and Knox will be told to get the fuck out of Italy and never come back.

My guess is that it will be the former, although it might take years - her appeal won't be heard until next year, if I recall correctly.

[Stofsk]

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.

[Garibaldi]

I think they'll probably be released on appeal- IIRC, questions of evidence are settled on appeal in Italian courts (which is sort of a fucked-up way to do it) and as a result a lot of criminal convictions get reversed.

Or if they're lucky Berlusconi's ongoing quest to evade justice with ridiculous legislation will end up working in their favor (IIRC he just introduced a law dismissing any criminal cases that drag on longer than a few years).

EDIT: One of the real lessons here is what Stofsk said above...if you're arrested, never talk to the cops. They don't actually have your best interests at heart.

[cosmicalstorm]

Indeed. It can be a very dangerous thing to talk to the police without having time to think about what you intend to say.

Here is an absolutely awesome law-school lecture made by an ex-cop and and an attorney on the subject.
I especially recommend the second part.

It is centered around the American legal system but many of the issues raised certainly applies to other countries as well.

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

[Simon_Jester]

I think they'll probably be released on appeal- IIRC, questions of evidence are settled on appeal in Italian courts (which is sort of a fucked-up way to do it) and as a result a lot of criminal convictions get reversed.

!?

What is their reasoning in arguing that this is an efficient way to do things?

EDIT: One of the real lessons here is what Stofsk said above...if you're arrested, never talk to the cops. They don't actually have your best interests at heart.

Makes sense. They certainly don't have your best interests at heart if you've been arrested; at that point you are obviously a filthy criminal, and making the lives of filthy criminals miserable is what police are supposed to do all day long, right?

Having a police force that could actually go down into the swamp at the low end of humanity, fight to drain it constantly, and not end up treating people like filth when they don't deserve it is another one of those "I wish it were possible" things.

[Garibaldi]

They certainly don't have your best interests at heart if you've been arrested; at that point you are obviously a filthy criminal, and making the lives of filthy criminals miserable is what police are supposed to do all day long, right?

Well, that's sort of an extreme Manichean reading of the situation. Their job is to get enough information out of a suspect to make case, and there are a lot of situations in which the case hinges on how much information they can elicit from the detainee. This results in a lot of innocent people get banged up (metaphorically, hopefully) in interrogation but it also results in a lot of situations where actual criminals with otherwise solid alibis sink themselves. If the police were to presume every suspect were telling the truth in interrogation they wouldn't solve a lot of crimes.

[Simon_Jester]

They certainly don't have your best interests at heart if you've been arrested; at that point you are obviously a filthy criminal, and making the lives of filthy criminals miserable is what police are supposed to do all day long, right?

Well, that's sort of an extreme Manichean reading of the situation. Their job is to get enough information out of a suspect to make case, and there are a lot of situations in which the case hinges on how much information they can elicit from the detainee. This results in a lot of innocent people get banged up (metaphorically, hopefully) in interrogation but it also results in a lot of situations where actual criminals with otherwise solid alibis sink themselves. If the police were to presume every suspect were telling the truth in interrogation they wouldn't solve a lot of crimes.

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.