Blogs and Stories
Zero Hour for Amanda Knox
Stefano Medici / AP Photo
As the Italian murder trial draws to a close, defense attorneys for American Amanda Knox and her boyfriend are challenging forensic evidence marred by sloppy police work.
In the waning days of the Amanda Knox murder trail in Perugia, Italy, the courtroom conversation has come down to this: shoes, knives, and the contents of Meredith Kercher’s stomach. At one point during testimony on Friday, prosecutor Manuela Comodi took off her own shoe to clarify a point about how footprints are made. On Saturday, a knife—with what the prosecution says is Knox’s DNA on the handle and Kercher’s genetic material on the blade—was introduced in court.
Vinci argued that Sollecito, who has a hammertoe on his right foot, could not have made the bloody print from a bare foot on the bathmat.
But the weekend testimony did little to clarify the dynamics of Kercher’s mysterious murder. In fact, more troubling contradictions were introduced. The defense is wrapping up its case in a trial that began in January. This weekend was dedicated to witnesses for Raffaele Sollecito, Knox’s ex-boyfriend, who is a co-defendant in the murder trial. The two are charged with sexually assaulting and murdering Kercher in November 2007, staging a crime scene and theft. Knox is also charged with defamation for falsely naming a fourth man, Patrick Lumumba, as the murderer. They face life in prison if convicted.
On Friday, forensic specialist Francesco Vinci gave a detailed PowerPoint presentation about the blood evidence, including a bare footprint found on a bathmat in the bathroom shared by Kercher and Knox. The prosecution attributed this footprint to Sollecito, but Vinci argued that Sollecito, who has a hammertoe on his right foot, could not have made the print. Through a series of slides of Sollecito’s nude foot, the specialist showed anomalies and discrepancies between the prosecution’s findings and his own.
Not surprisingly, Vinci attributed the footprint to Rudy Guede, the Ivory Coast native who was convicted for his role in Kercher’s murder last October. Vinci also showed how a bloody shoe print in Meredith’s bedroom made by an athletic trainer should be attributed to Guede and not to Sollecito. But he failed to explain how Guede could have left both a shoeprint and a bare footprint. After court, when asked if it was feasible that Guede could have had one shoe and sock off and one shoe on, Vinci said, “In a situation like that, you could easily lose a shoe.” Francesco Maresca, attorney for the Kercher family, said that Vinci’s theory was “not credible.”
Saturday’s witnesses were the independent experts who had testified in the preliminary hearings last year. They were called by Sollecito’s defense team to reiterate several points—including the time of death and the compatibility of the murder weapon with Kercher’s wounds. The first witness, Giancarlo Umani Ronchi, testified that there were traces of alcohol in Kercher’s blood. A second witness, Mariano Cingolani, also testified to the presence of alcohol in her system. Alcohol changes not only the potential dynamic of the crime, but it could affect calculations about the time of death, because alcohol slows the digestive process. The time of death is crucial for the alibis of both Knox and Sollecito. They say they were at Sollecito’s house smoking pot, watching a movie and having sex when the murder took place, even though several prosecution witnesses testified to seeing them in the area much later.
The alcohol levels in Kercher’s blood were tested in both Perugia and Macerata—and came out differently, even though the two samples were supposedly taken from Kercher’s corspe at the same time. “The amount of alcohol in the system determines how much it affects digestion,” said Cingolani. “But because the amounts differ, it was either a lab error or an unexplainable anomaly.”
This possible lab error is just the latest problem in a case that is riddled with both police and scientific mistakes. Still, the forensic and circumstantial evidence against Knox and Sollecito has passed many levels of Italy’s judicial system. In addition to the knife that the prosecution says has Knox’s DNA on the handle and Kercher’s blood on the blade, Knox’s DNA was said to be found mixed with Kercher’s blood in five spots in the house, and a footprint outside Kercher’s bedroom attributed to Knox was found using using Luminol, a substance that can identify blood that has been cleaned up. Sollecito’s DNA was found on the clasp of the bra Kercher was wearing at the time of her murder. And both Sollecito and Knox have offered uncorroborated alibis.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Amateur Hour at the White House
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Going Rogue: The Index
Christopher Buckley's books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. Buckley's Daily Beast column is the winner of an Online Journalism Award in the category of Online Commentary.
The Knox Trial Endgame
Barbie Latza Nadeau has reported from Italy for Newsweek Magazine since 1997. She also writes for CNN Traveller, Budget Travel Magazine and Frommer's.
Berlusconi's Tranny Defense
Barbie Latza Nadeau has reported from Italy for Newsweek Magazine since 1997. She also writes for CNN Traveller, Budget Travel Magazine and Frommer's.
Knox Evidence Will Stand Alone
Barbie Latza Nadeau has reported from Italy for Newsweek Magazine since 1997. She also writes for CNN Traveller, Budget Travel Magazine and Frommer's.
A very good article. I have been critical with parts of other articles by Ms. Nadeau but I have to say this was a very interesting summation of where things stand.
It is easy to speculate this way and that outside of the courtroom. But inside a courtroom, in the interests of fairness and justice, one should not have to prove innocence, it should be the other way around.
A very astute point about subjective versus objective evidence. It would be easy to make subjective hypotheses based on objective evidence if that evidence were reliable--but it's pretty clear that the investigators made enormous mistakes. That's not the fault of the accused.
Great article. I had been trying to find some of the details that were provided in this article. Even though I think she is guilty, I believe there is reason to question her guilt.
Whilst it is easy to say that she is guilty, there is very little physical evidence. It all seems a little bizarre, the case does not really make sense. Leave it up to the Italians.
I wonder how the "erased" footprint showed up in the luminol test.
Why were Knox/Sollecito shuffling about at the crime scene and not running to the police.
Why did Knox point to Lumumba, a totally innocent person.
Why the two bottles of bleach, bought the very next morning after the murder.
Whatever trouble these two persons are in, they created it by themselves.
The Italians sloppy?
The lack of physical evidence in trials whether in America or abroad in civilized countries limit some jurors from making a sound decision of guilt or innocence. However when circumstantial evidence is presented properly by prosecutors, jurors usually make the right decision. In my opinion Knox and Sollecito are guilty based on their own admissions when they were first questioned. These are two very smart individuals who are attempting to shift all the blame on Rudy Guede.
I really do hate this perception that America has the highest legal system in the world.
This is not a very well though out article, poorly written by an author who assumes that a civil law system (i.e., Italy) should be like a common system, i.e., the US.
First, the presumption of innocence does apply since Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, to which Italy is a signatory, and which is enforced by the European Court in Strasbourg provides detailed rights (1) to a fair trial, including (2) the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time, (2) the presumption of innocence, and (3) other minimum rights for those charged with a criminal offence (adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence, (4) access to legal representation, (5) right to examine witnesses against them or have them examined, and (6) right to the free assistance of an interpreter) - which makes Italy better than say Texas with appeal to the US Supreme Court.
Second, in a civil law country trial is a two step process. There is a preliminary proceeding conducted by an investigating magistrate (in some civil law countries called a juge d'instruction) who is like a grand-jury in the US system, but with added powers, since he/she can cross examine the police and prosecutor and will only allow a case to go to trial if there is prima facie evidence that the defendant has a case to answer - and which point the defendant gets a trial with the presumption of innocence. The confusion among bad reporters that leads to the idea that when on trial one is "guilty until proven innocent" is because the investigating magistrate only lets a case go to trial if he/she thinks the defendant is guilty, but the trial is a fresh one - that is what is going on now.
The Knox family who are fairly well off in fact, are being badly advised by Washington based criminal lawyers to use publicity in her case, and the publicists they have hired have decided to put the Italian justice system on trial. They have spread potentially libelous stories about the prosecutor and tried to muddy the waters in public. The problem for Knox is that this may well antagonize the court - it is a stupid tactic, being used by people who are trying Seattle court tactics in Italy.
The civil trial system is heavily run by the judges, who have to make the decision. What this means in practice is that they ask a lot of the questions and will when there are problems with evidence keep recalling people to get to the bottom of the issue. This is in contrast to the US system where a witness is heard, examined and cross-examined, and the defense and prosecution tries to score some points during that testimony. In the Italian system, if a question mark is raised, the judges will often call a few witnesses back to ask for explanations.
Knox and Sollecito to me, and I have read most of what has come out in this case, have very serious problems. The trouble Knox has is that ab initio she told the police a pack of lies, implicating an innocent black man (and demonstrably so) as the killer (by the way her choice of Mr. Lumumba is particularly telling since in a country with a smallish black population she chose someone of the same race as Guede - why?) Her alibi is to put it mildly piss-poor and in both her and Sollecito's case they don't match facts that can be established (e.g., cell phone records, computer use.) Sollecito has avoided supporting her alibi in court. The only reasonable conclusion that can be reached is that she and Sollecito were in some way present or involved in at least part of the events on the fatal night - the nature of that involvement is not clear, but the confessions seem to be a starting point for working out what it might be.
It is this inescapable involvement that presents the huge problem - Knox is not telling the truth and Sollecito has stopped really talking at all - however, what Knox now says and Sollecito's lawyers argue are inconsistent with some known facts -- why? What you see the court heading towards is that Knox is trying to tell a false story because the truth must be worse.
I do notice by the way that the fact that Knox fingered Lumumba as the murderer, and that he had a solid alibi is simply not mentioned in this or other press accounts in the US.
Best post I have read here on this subject.
MacK-MacK:
A fine post, indeed! It's not often on TDB that a post is actually more informative than the original article.
You seem to know what you're talking about. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but does civil law not focus more on answering the three questions: what happened? Why did it happen? And how did it happen? as opposed to our common law where prosecuting lawyers and defence lawyers rely more on precedent.
I absolutely buy into your point that the Knox family are being badly advised by Washington- based criminal lawyers to use American-style negative publicity in her case and this potentially will backfire on them. It is a stupid tactic, as you say!
Sample of one here, but I think she is very guilty and should pay the price.
This user is no longer registered.
mblips:
No...I remember these details, which you itemize in your post. Regarding your second point, I believe that she's (Knox) claiming that she gave the statement 'under duress'. I don't believe that she, or her legal team, mentioned what caused the duress; perhaps she was in a state of duress, because she had just murdered somebody!
Regarding your third point, her bizarre behaviour on her shopping trip directly after the initial police investigation, was caught on tape, so it's around for perpetuity.
I suspect that we haven't been hearing about these issues on this side of the Atlantic because her father's attempts, via professional media relations firms that he has hired, to obfuscate the key issues has indeed been working, at least with the US public. (The strategy here is to create a over swell of public opinion in the US in favour of her innocence so that the Italian justice system will be somehow intimidated into either letting her go, or allowing her to be tried in the US, where she would, presumably, get a more lenient trial.)
I hope that the Italians stick to their principals and give her the deserved punishment.
Awesome post...but who "fingered" Knox.....?
FINALLY! MacK-MacK seems to be the ONLY person with a real objective look on the whole trial. People seem to be either Pro-defendant, pro-victim, anti-American, pro-Italian, well you get the point...
Anyway, I've got to say that while I have been following this story since it first broke almost 2 years ago now, I've yet to hear anything that has really convinced me that these two are innocent.
I have to agree Mack, I'm not sure WHAT they're lying about... but it's got to be big, cuz it's been a long time.
Great post MacK-MacK!
You did get honorable mention on the TJMK web site for your past post on another TDB article. Great to have someone so knowledgeable about this case and also in Italian law. I believe based on AK and RS reactions to the news that there will be no further review of the evidence that it is "Game Over" for them. Hopefully the Kercher family will finally get the justice they so deserve. Looking forward to when the Kercher family speaks out, they have been so dignified during this whole ordeal, something the Knox/Mellas families should have emulated. RIP Meredith
Knox/Sollecito's big problem is they are not clearly innocent.
Don't know if that is enough for Italian jurors to convict and leave to the appeals process the sorting out of this mess.
The parents of the victim are convinced they are both guilty.
Pretty face or not...Guilty...but that's just me. Let's see if the jury agrees.
"and we are not saved..."
"....A pretty face, don't mean no pretty heart..." -Robert Palmer
There is also in a lot of the reporting a misunderstanding about rules of evidence in the common law system versus the civil law system. To explain, rules of evidence in common law cases, generally heard for the most part before lay-jurors, that is to say ordinary non-legally-trained people, are very very strict, with principles such as the hearsay rule, high requirements for scientific evidence before it will be considered, etc. This is because of a concern that lay-jurors may be unable to place proper weight on evidence - that they will regard things as unduly prejudicial. Thus in a US case "motions in limine" have a big role - these are motions before trial to exclude evidence - and the usual argument is that evidence is more prejudicial than probative. To explain in a US case the argument would be that this individual piece of DNA evidence should be excluded because their might be something wrong with it, or this statement to the police should be excluded because it makes the defendant look bad and proves less than the prejudice it might create. The evidence about Knox's sex life, sex toys and vibrators, etc., relevant to explain her problems with her roommates (who were uncomfortable with an apparent parade of men at the breakfast table) would have been excluded in the US, because even though they had at least some relevance to the circumstances of the murder and Knox's risky behavior, also make her look bad. In an Italian court they take the view that they can exclude the issue of her morality as a matter of sexual behavior (i.e., do they not like her) from the question of her guilt or innocence.
In a civil law system the jurors are in effect professionals. They are expected to know things like eyewitness identifications are inherently unreliable and the system trusts them to weigh the evidence and its reliability in toto, so for example hearsay is usually allowed. Thus fif there is an issue about say this bloodstain - yes they take account of that, but they do not exclude the bloodstain, they simply regard it as less reliable - but they consider it in context. So the defendants are disputing multiple examples of DNA evidence - the judges will consider each separately, but also collectively - as in how likely is that that all of these separate bloodstains would exist, each supporting Knox and Sollecito's presence. Knox made a statement - she says it was under duress; OK, maybe it was, maybe that makes it unreliable - but some of this physical evidence found after the statement supports the story in the statement - maybe it is reliable. A US court might simply exclude Knox's confession absolutely, and then not consider it in the context of the other evidence.
If you are used to the common law system where evidence is attacked and excluded in isolation you write this sort of article, where you talk about the Sollecito's hammertoe, but now how that matched in with other things. If you understand the civil system you consider it in the context of Knox's challenged confession and wonder does each corroborate the other.
In effect everything is relevant and most things admissible, they are just given different weights as evidence. Things like including Knox's weird behavior in court may have an impact - this continued until someone told her she was not doing herself any favors. Now this article has a demure photo of Knox (presumably from the Knox family publicists) -- other articles, often in the British press (who want to present her as guilty) show her with weird grins on her face and wearing flippant slogans on T-shirts.
You are in effect talking about a fundamentally different system. The most important thing to know is that if a case is brought against you in a civil system, although you have still the presumption of innocence, you have in effect already been tried by the investigating magistrate, who after seeing all the evidence has already concluded that you are guilty. That does not mean that you do not have the presumption of innocence at trial, just that if you do go to trial you have lost once already before an impartial pro (the investigating magistrate) - by contrast in the US New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously observed that district attorneys have so much influence over grand juries that "by and large" they could get one to "indict a ham sandwich."
By the way, does it occur to anyone that given all the publicity, Sollecito's well connected family, a US citizen, etc., the path of least resistance for the Italians would have been to do what Knox's lawyers want them to do, and simply to have accepted that Guede acted alone -- that is what most criminal justice systems might have done, avoiding the headache of trying these two as well. They had their "goat" why go for more unless they did think Knox was guilty?
Would you say it is easier to convict in the Italian system?
This is perhaps the key question.
OMG.
What are your points?
- The sex toys. The babble about the sex toys. Are you trying to defend the Italian system why they included them as evidence?
-"In effect everything is relevant and most things admissible, they are just given different weights as evidence. Things like including Knox's weird behavior in court may have an impact - this continued until someone told her she was not doing herself any favors. " What the heck? Are you even studying law? Hey, are you yet again admitting the Italian system can not be impartial?
- "They had their "goat" why go for more unless they did think Knox was guilty? " Because now they have to cover their massive incompetence.
Dude, go into insurance instead. You'll never pass the bar.
FC
MacK-MacK:
You say..."In a civil law system the jurors are in effect professionals." Can you explain what you mean by this? Are they (the jurors) not 'a jury of ones peers'? Just curious!
In most civil systems for serious crimes there are judges 2-5 and also there can be lay jurors (3-8) who are regarded as assisting the judges. In the case of Italy there are two judges (Giudici Togati) and 6 lay jurors/judges (Giudici Popolari) in the Corte d'Assise (serious criminal court.) Lay jurors have to complete at least high school and must be between 35-65. The decisions are taken in a private decision process by discussion among the judges, but in practice a conviction will not occur unless the two professional judges agree.
In effect the professional judges run things and the lay-judges are a safety net against political railroading (a problem in the Facist era.) But then if some juror said say "gosh she kept a vibrator in the bathroom" or "what a slut, she must be guilty" the professional judges would in principle at least warn the jury off this form of logic. The result is a different approach to the presentation of evidence, because the judges are in the room warning everyone of things like "hearsay is inherently unreliable - don't give it more weight than it deserves," etc.
By the way I am not saying one is better than the other -- I am a common law trained international lawyer -- but that you have to understand that they work in fundamentally different ways. Most of the US press commentary assumes the Italian system is the same as the US and therefore people are being railroaded because evidence with a question mark over it has been admitted rather than excluded. The civil system is to bring it in, but warn heavily of the problems with the evidence.
To take another example - normally appeals in a civil system are "de novo" and as of right - that is to say at the first level of appeal the case is heard without regard to the lower court ruling (i.e., the presumption of innocence effectively applies) albeit mostly on the same evidence - while in the Common Law systems appeals presume the lower court was right and you must show it was wrong (with varying standards of review (e.g., clear error, etc.) This is a very big difference in both Civil and Criminal cases.
Journalists need though to spend the time to understand these differences, because they are assessing what is going on through a US prism.
MacK-MacK:
Thanks for that. Very interesting indeed!
Changing gears here; but, as I understand it, the Lockerbie bomber was tried under Scottish law, which I believe is civil law. And I further understand that, while the trial itself was held in the Netherlands under Scots law, there was no jury present. Was this because of the system you outline above? Were there judges and lay jurors involved in this case?
I know it's a leap from the case in Italy to the case in Scotland (The Netherlands), but I'm assuming you know everything ;-)
oh dear, the Scottish system. It is very different, a sort of hybrid of the Common Law and Civil law systems but without the Code Napoleon (which was a big reform of the civil system even if Napoleon was a tyrant.)
For example in a criminal case in scotland there are 3 potential verdicts, guilty, innocent and "case not proven" (known sarcastically as "innocent but don't do it again.")
The Lockerbie thing is a mess. It is pretty clear that London made it known, but then did not do so officially, that that they wanted Abdel Baset al-Megrahi out before he died, and Edinburgh complied ... but denies complying for its own reasons. In addition al-Megrahi in a funny way is guilty the way it seems that Knox is guilty - i.e., he had some level of involvement, but it is not clear (a) how much, and (b) if he knew what he was actually involved in. The Libyans seem to have offered him up to appease US and UK demands for someone "guilty" and to punish him for not covering his tracks. But then he was of a related tribe to Ghadaffi, so it became a problem. The UK and Scotland did not bargain with the Libyans being so crass as to welcome him back as a hero (stupid since Libyan = crass.)
The US would rather he went quietly to Tripoli and died, but the idiot son of Ghadaffi (lots of education, but stupid) did not understand that the objective was to send him quietly back to die (and that goes back probably to the Bush administration.)
The reality [I think] was that this was to be a quiet solution for the US, UK and Libyans and the Libyans blew it.
If you have to do life in prison, you certainly can do worse than Italy.
She got caught telling a lot of lies when she got arrested. At the very least she's a complete idiot.
What a tangled web some people weave.
Mackmak,
The only thing I agree with you is yes, it was a poorly written article.
Is you whole basis of your argument "the knox family has muddied the waters" by attacking their accusors?
Can we once again come to an agreement that the judges, prosecution, etc. in this case cannot be unbiased? That they see "attacks on them" from pro Knox scary scary people and freak out - not being able to actually come to an impartial judgement? That we agree on.
Also love your rush to verdict on the "piss poor alibi" and race baiting. Um. Okay.
Would you like to expound on your prodigious knowledge of the Italian legal system? When I see someone say "from my information that I can find on the internet I say GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY" I say try and stop breathing through your mouth and try and untangle your cursory knowledge of US legal law with italian.
FC
Frumpycat:
You certainly have a knack for lowering the level of debate on this website.
The Italian legal system is not 'freaking out', as you say. They're in control of this situation. What you're getting bitter and twisted about is the US media's coverage of this trial, which in itself is contaminated by the expensive media relations campaign that Knox' father has bought and paid for. But, this is on this side of the Atlantic.
As I mentioned earlier, the strategy behind this campaign is to discredit the Italian legal system and also to apply pressure on the Italian justice system and the Italian government into letting her go, giving her a slap on the wrist or shipping her back to the US to face a trial on friendly territory.
There is no need on your behalf to be sucked in to this campaign to discredit. Go and read the early reports on this case (these early reports were free of the contamination caused by Knox' father's media people) and you'll surely conclude that Miss Knox is guilty of something! Either murder or being an accomplice to murder. She was a part of something that started out to be one thing and ended up being another, much more sinister and criminal. She should have told the truth at the beginning, but unfortunately she chose another route, spinning a web of lies and contradictions and this is likely to be her downfall.
Frumpycat,
MackMack didn't write the article, doesn't need to defend his much-appreciated comments....take a deep breath. Unless you're Amanda's family, in which case, the hysteria is justified,
MANY people, Italian, American, British consider Ms. Knox guilty because of her behavior, the evidence, shifting stories, and not necessarily the prosecutor's interpretation. I agree with Mack mack's view that her shakey alibi and attempt to "blame the black guy" have a lot to do with why she's in jail now,
Frumpy Cat
MackMack made some very well-articulated points but, as is usual with you, you are unable to reply in kind, you are unable to enter constructive criticism, instead you attempt, again as is usual with you (on other blogs) to discredit his or her personality.
It says far more about you and nothing about the ones you attack.
Basically, you have an agenda, and it is to aggressively belittle people who have anything to say, whether neutral or against the accused.
The only stuff you (just like the way Obamalover operates as well) agree with - even if you know it is inaccurate and untrue - is the stuff you think is supportive of Knox.
If what is said/written is true and correct, but not supportive of Knox, you then are unable to be truthful about it and give credit where credit is due.
Thankfully you and yours have nothing to do with the inside of a courthouse.
If you were truly honest, and well thinking, you'd also support Sollecito, but none of you do, because your motives, have been shown, again and again, by and through the stuff you say, to be narrow-mindedly based on pseudo nationalism and an idea that whether Knox is guilty or not, she should never have to face the music at all.
That is why you and the rest of the Knox supporters actively attempt to discredit absolutely everyone except for those in your own team.
I intended saying something about what you wrote Barbie, but, MackMack did a pretty good job of outlining what is wrong with what you wrote about Italian law.
In a case where the defenders of Knox have been out to pervert the course of justice through the purchasing of media space and more, then to make off the cuff sentences, without explaining what you mean, I think is not a very good job done.
The bit I refer to is that about, supposedly "considered guilty until proven innocent."
I think, that's a damaging thing to say, where people are not just unable to understand things but actively refuse to do so, even try to make it impossible for others to grasp what is going on.
To say what you did in this piece without explaining it, is not academic.
I mean, the idea, the other day, I had, where I was trying to think what to say, to you, had me thinking of hundreds of examples, in order to be able to provide insight into this matter, and show that the remark you made, is not true.
Compare it to other European or even American cases, and in practice, even though supposedly a civilian is officially deemed innocent until proven in court not to be, still, people are considered, in the minds of people, civilians and officials like police and more, to be guilty.
What one thinks in mind is entirely different to what must be done and said in the land of official practice.
In Britain a case comparable to this, would see the cops who arrested the accused as thinking these folk are guilty.
I think that is true of anywhere in the world.
They can't say it, that's all.
What you wrote, is very unclear on this point.
Actually, with all respect, you saying that adds to the confusion on this subject matter, the matter that others supportive of Knox actively seek to stoke-up in order to create bias against the Italian justice system and its servants such as Doctor Mignini, all done in order to undermine this particular case and to get their client off, even if guilty.
They have shown clearly, up until now, that if they do happen to know that Knox is guilty, they will still try to get her out of having to pay for her crimes.
Frumpycat-
You really have no idea do you? You are starting with a particular point of view and you are assuming anyone who disagrees with you has an agenda. You are assuming that the Italians constructed their entire criminal justice system to get one attractive brunette from Seattle, that with someone already convicted for the murder they need to get two extra "scalps."
Look, the police "fit" people up all the time, usually people they think are guilty. However, they do it when they have to get a person for the crime -- but the Italian cops had Guede - so why bother with Knox and Sollecito.
You accuse me of "race-baiting" - which makes you an ignoramus. The point made was that Knox accused one black man - and in a relatively unlikely coincidence (in Italy) a perpetrator and co-accused turned out to be well, black (and not say Albanian, Italian, Romanian etc. (i.e., white) all more likely in that part of Italy.) Of course the court is going to consider the fact that she accused Lumumba - and pretty likely that racial-description point may be considered.
My point about the Knox family being badly advised is also simple -- the Knox family have been told, by Seattle lawyers it seems, to drum up publicity, as well as ill-advised idiots, well, like you, to rant on about Knox being railroaded. This is a tactic that works in the US because of the absence of the UK's sub-judice rule (which makes it largely illegal in the UK, Ireland, Canada, etc.) and it serves to contaminate the jury pool -- so it might be a good idea in Seattle. It is at least a pointless tactic in Italy and - since people get mad at being slandered, and it is howlingly obvious that the Knox family is orchestrating this stuff (check the organizers of free-Knox websites), it may well backfire. It is stupid and indeed Frumpycat you are stupid if you think this sort of ranting helps Knox's situation at all.
Knox has very big problems with her case - she has a lot of explaining to do, but so far none of the explaining makes a lot of sense.
My own guess as to what happened -- Knox was stoned, Sollecito was stoned; Knox brought some acquaintance (Guede) into the apartment and everything went wrong. The police sized up the situation and her behavior and that of Sollecito and concluded they knew something - they tried to BS their way out (in the course of which she accused her former employer - Lumumba) and their stories fell apart. Since then everything has been an effort to get out of the stories they told at the beginning and come up with something consistent with all the evidence. They have not succeeded.
My apologies on the race baiting comment. I take it back after rereading. You seem convinced of guilty/complicity, but I still don't see it.
- Most of your assumptions of guilt appear to come from the initial statements. With all the new evidence coming to light does that sway you in any way? Do you feel the DNA evidence, how it was collected, etc has any bearing on the case? Do you have examples of other crimes where they took such low statistical readings, or came to such weird conclusions "multiple knives" and actually got a conviction?
- From what evidence do you see a "sex crime"? And how are AK and RS involved? Wasn't it all of RG DNA found inside and outside of Meredith in the near vicinity? Do you have examples of similar cases that led to conviction?
- If AK and RS were involved from the start why didn't RG start singing like a canary? What possible motive does he have for not implicating them? I bring this up because it took many, many stories before he started to finger the two, and AK never in the room.
- Do you believe AK or RS actually stabbed Meredith themselves?
- What is your personal feeling on the prosecutor assigned to this case being under investigation for abuse of office himself? Have you dealt with cases like this before and how did they turn out?
- You stated that there is implicit "trust" in the judge, and that he generally is already convinced of guilt before the trial happens. Why have a trial then? Do you believe his implicit sense of guilt then sways the jurors?
- You ask, why pursue AK and RS if RG is found guilty, could it be preservation on the part of the prosecution?
Also, I'm curious, did RG's fast track trial differ from this one in jury, power of judge, etc. I hear a lot about what the judge decided, but little on what the jury thought.
Thanks,
FC
Oh FrumpyCat -
Are you a law-student perhaps, you have that sort of vanity.
I have passed the bar - in multiple states and I am admitted in 3 countries too.
You comments were just stupid; they reveal that if you were studying evidence you did not pay attention when the exclusionary rule was explained to you (and I would flunk you for not understanding it.)
In common law the general principle regarding evidence is that is assessed on three scales - is it relevant - but also is it prejudicial (i.e., does it make the defendant look generally bad) and finally is it reliable. Because common law systems have non-professional jurors, they have followed a practice of excluding evidence if its reliability is called on any level into question (say hearsay evidence) or if it is considered prejudicial (say sexual behavior) even if it is relevant. The general question on prejudice is does the the bad impression this evidence might create outweigh its value as relevant evidence. Reliability is an almost automatic exclusion, i.e., show any question at all on reliability and that evidence is out (e.g., if is is 99% and not 100% reliable.)
Civil law systems approach things differently because they have professional jurors (the judges.) They allow the judges to assess what weight to put on all relevant evidence and trust them to avoid prejudice and to lower the value of evidence that has reliability issues (like say hearsay, or eyewitness identification (let in in the US.)) The context is that because the finders-of-fact are different and work in a different way, the rules that developed to keep complex evidence from juries do not apply.
As to the question someone posed about acquittal rates -- it is more complicated and less well understood. In any cvil system, Japan, France, Italy - if you are on trial the problem is that an impartial judge - with access to all the evidence - and who was tough on the cops - has already decided you are guilty. So in practice you only go to trial when the state has a very very strong case already, that has passed an investigating magistrate's review. An investigating magistrate is much tougher on the prosecution than a grand-jury. This means that weak cases should not get to trial.
Once on trial you have the presumption of innocence - but - and this is a big point - you would not be there on the word of the police alone, you have already had a sort of mini-trial already.
By contrast, when a US prosecutor brings a case to a grand-jury to get an indictment, the prosecutor decides what to tell the grand-jury. The prosecutor does not have to tell the grand-jury any exculpatory information, he/she does not have to tell that the confession was after say 20 hours of interrogation; the accused's lawyer is not in the grand-jury room. The grand-jury process is entirely one-sided, unlike the investigating magistrate process.
When idiots like FrumpyCat start ranting about the admission of evidence they are missing the point. Knox's sexual behavior is considered relevant because it is evident that the murder was (a) a sex-crime, and (b) because her activities seem consistent with the prosecution's theory of the case, i.e., that she had been having assignations with relatively random men who would be brought back to the apartment almost immediately she met them, and her bemused roommates would find these new guys at the breakfast table. In the US this would have been excluded notwithstanding its relevance as unduly prejudicial ("oh my god she's a slut!!!") In the civil law system it is let in, but the professional judges are supposed to make sure that it is considered only as evidence as to what may have happened, not as to Knox's general morality, or lack of it.
You have to consider this in context though - this information is not going back to a Seattle Jury-Room, it is going to an Italian Jury-Room which works in a different way
"As to the question someone posed about acquittal rates -- it is more complicated and less well understood. In any cvil system, Japan, France, Italy - if you are on trial the problem is that an impartial judge - with access to all the evidence - and who was tough on the cops - has already decided you are guilty. So in practice you only go to trial when the state has a very very strong case already..."- MacK-MacK
I do know Japan has a 95% conviction rate. Don't know about Italy but if the rate is high, the chances of Knox going free are almost zero. This case will be thrown to the appeals process.
Yes but ... first Italy is not Japan (I worked for 3 years there as a lawyer), second, trying to compare conviction in Civil law with Common Law rates is like comparing apples - and well uncooked apple pies, because by the time a case goes to trial in a Civil Law system there has bee a fairly tough hurdle already crossed by the prosecution.
Piktor,
I would look again at the idea of the appeal. The first level of appeals in Italy are de novo, i.e., like a new trial, but all the evidence goes to the appeal court. You have to ask if there is something in there that would lead them to rule differently.
By the way, you need to remember the the "impartial judge," i.e., the investigating magistrate, is not a trial judge. He or she is a judge that reviewed all the evidence both ways and concluded that you looked guilty -- then there is a trial again with the presumption of innocence, then an appeal de novo, then further appeals - not de novo.
MacK-MacK,
The biggest lesson here is do not open your mouth at all.
And get a lawyer.
And let the lawyer do all the talking.
Your comments have made this "mystery" more predictable in its outcome. The real surprise would be the jury finding the defendants innocent. The defense arguments are not devastating to the prosecution or enlightening to the outside public.
Many thanks to MacK-MacK and others for an informative and civil debate/discussion. It is frustrating to read constantly that various items of evidence have been "thrown out" or that one particular suspect is being judged based solely on behavioral quirks, and refreshing to see an in-depth explanation of how things really work. Reductive and false statements of the kind offered by Frumpycat (as a proxy for the PR effort in general) don't help anyone understand the process or why these two defendents are on trial.
When you consider that these kinds of statements are among the key talking points of the US lawyer and PR driven campaign, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion than this one: the aim of the spin is to muddy the waters and whip up nationalist sentiment, the assumption being that ordinary Americans are not smart enought to realize they are being manipulated.
As usual, Frumpycat (or one of his ilk) comes along to insult individuals and distort their arguments rather than engage in honest give and take, which is also part of the grand strategy: "Quick! Shut down the discussion before it goes anywhere interesting."
MacK-MacK -
Thank you for putting so much effort into informing us of the nature of the civil law system. It is especially invaluable, as for most Anglo followers of this case it is a rather alien concept. I'm sad to say, many have played upon that general ignorance. The illumination you've provided will have gone some way to correct that.
But, I have a question for you. You have indicated that in the common law system, where an appeal is granted, the accused is considered guilty and therefore has to prove their innocence. They have to overturn a verdict. Whereas, in the Italian civil law system, the appeal (second degree) is automatic and is to confirm a verdict, with the presumption being one of innocence.
It has been argued by certain individuals who support Amanda Knox, that the automatic appeal trial (or second degree trial) therefore institutionalises the increased probability, almost certainly (especially if the apparent guilt is borderline) of a first degree trial returning a guilty verdict, as they can then simply pass the buck on to the second degree trial to sort it all out. Is there any foundation to this argument?
This user is no longer registered.
I don't know what happened at Lockerbie. Al Magrahi was up to his neck in nefarious doings for the Libyans - this is true, and he does seem to have had his hands on timers of the same type as the bomb and there is at least evidence, mostly circumstantial pointing at him as potentially having a role in the bombing.
Frankly, he reminds me of a client a long time ago about which, after he was acquitted the question was asked "but was he innocent" to which the only appropriate answer was that "C hasn't had an innocent day since he hit puberty, the question is was he guilty of what they indicted him for." Nothing I have seen convinces me that Al Magrahi is innocent, I think in fact he had some sort of involvement, but I am not sure even Al Megrahi knows what role if any he played, and if that was part of Lockerbie or something else. He was a bad boy to be sure, but was Pan Am 103 his doing? Seems likely but not totally certain.
Hey Mack Mack,
Have you read the book " the Monster of Florence"? Do you know anything about the corrupt judicial system of Italy?
The book tells of the dark side of the Italian judicial system.
The very corrupt and slimy world of the Carabinieri. The credibility of the police investigation in that case was weak, and any one familiar with the Italian judicial system would
have to call into question their findings and judicial process.
Frumpycat, you might consider what Piktor had to say:
"The biggest lesson here is do not open your mouth at all.
And get a lawyer.
And let the lawyer do all the talking."
Sound like a good idea, or do you like making an international spectacle of yourself?
pdxpte
I am not going to suggest that the Italian system is perfect -- it is far from that, although the big scandal is acquitals, of say Berlusconi, or various Mafia don's and corrupt politicians. Nor would I for a moment suggest that the police do not frame suitable suspects, because they do, in Italy, in the US, pretty well everywhere - usually when they have a high profile crime, need to "nail someone, anyone" and they have a suitable "patsy." I am also one of the earliest to say that the average police officer is well, none-too-bright. The problem here is that the police had a strong case against Guede and there was little heavy pressure to get anyone -- so why "frame" Knox and Sollecito, which is part of the Knox camp argument.
As far as the advice not to talk to the police without a lawyer -- well it may be promoting my profession, but only an idiot talks to the police without a lawyer when they are investigating a crime. From the moment someone like Knox starts talking to the police she is tying herself into knots and contradictions that she will have to disentangle herself from later.
Was Knox under duress - well yes. All people being questioned by the police are under duress - it is the nature of the situation. The legal question was whether she was under improper duress, and to what extent might that impact the reliability of her confession(s) and admissions. There you get into the thorny subject of corroboration - which leads to multiple issues - were the police seeking admissions to match evidence they knew of - or if later they found corroboration for her admissions, was that in any way impacted by their knowledge of the admissions? (By the way real CSI's avoid this by not knowing or considering any admissions when searching for evidence.)
Fulcanelli - appeals differ markedly at the first level between Civil Law and Common Law. In Civil Law the first layer of appeal court does not consider (or is not supposed to consider) the lower court's decision at all; instead it look at the evidence, any new evidence and then makes a new decision, hence the term "de novo." It will also consider errors of procedure or law by the lower court.
In the Common Law system an appeal assumes that the lower court verdict stands and only sets it aside if it thinks the lower court erred, either in law or more rarely in fact. That is to say in the common law there is a strong presumption against setting aside the factual rulings of the lower court, but a fairly good ability to set aside lower decisions for faults of law (except in the US where appeal courts regularly rule that things are "harmless error" even when say the prosecutor was say secretly "schtupping" the judge (cf Texas), that should not prevent an execution)
I am not arguing that the Italian system is perfect -- it has glaring imperfections and I know people who have gotten on the wrong side of them. But, the arguments raised in the US about the Knox case are pretty inaccurate.
As for the book "the Monster of Florence" - it has been fairly throughly debunked factually - it was sensationalist writing from a sensationalist author, who spent time researching a book and then had to come out with some salable work product, which had problems of libel, etc. In addition, the case was a particularly inapt one since it was a high profile situation with a lot of pressure to find someone, anyone, to convict. This does not seem to be the case in the Kercher case, since they already had Guede.
MacK-MacK wrote:
"Look, the police 'fit' people up all the time, usually people they think are guilty. However, they do it when they have to get a person for the crime -- but the Italian cops had Guede - so why bother with Knox and Sollecito."
Why did police and prosecutors in Wenatchee Washington fabricate child sex abuse charges against over 40 innocent people? Why did Mignini magnify a suicide or accidental drowning into a plot involving two dozen people and a Satanic cult? Sometimes the wheels of justice fall under the control of people who have a tendency toward grandiose thinking, and things go seriously awry as a result.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.