22-year-old Amanda Knox found guilty

[Nerys Ghemor]

The lack of a jury system doesn't necessarily make a dictatorship, but it DOES mean that all you have to do is corrupt an official to get the verdict you want and create the same kind of foregone conclusion you get in a dictatorship; juries can act as a check against that sort of thing. Corruption in office is practically a given in any country, so removing potential checks against said corruption is a BIG problem.

(Which, incidentally, is something that I think needs to be fixed in the US: appellate court judges need to be subject to recall, in order to give the people some kind of control over them when they abuse their positions.)

 

[iguana_tonante]

What bugs the heck out of us is that your jury was allowed to decide based on "evidence" that had NOTHING to do with the actual evidence. NO DNA evidence that she was even there. The forensics are NOT there, Iguana.

If you want to talk about the details of the case, be my guest. I have no more insight into the forensic evidence than anybody else. The police say there was DNA evidence on the knife. The defendants say it was not enough to get an accurate results. Fuck me if I know who is right. But that's the deal with criminal investigations, not everything is cut clear as in a CSI episode. Maybe Amanda Knox is involved in the murder, maybe not. I don't know, and actually I don't really care. It's not my job to deal verdict about this. Nor is yours, I submit.

But all this crying and raging about the Italian justice system just because you don't agree with the conclusions, well, it's just ridiculous.

The lack of a jury system doesn't necessarily make a dictatorship, but it DOES mean that all you have to do is corrupt an official to get the verdict you want and create the same kind of foregone conclusion you get in a dictatorship; juries can act as a check against that sort of thing. Corruption in office is practically a given in any country, so removing potential checks against said corruption is a BIG problem.

Well, that's the reason why there are more than one judge on any specific case: in murder trials the quorum is composed by two professional judges and four popular judges, who are layperson selected at random (more or less like US jurors). So there are checks and balances for any personal bias or corruption of the professional judges.

For the rest, it's a matter of different cultures: personally, I'm not comfortable with popular juries, since I feel they are much, much more prone to mistakes and emotion-fueled decisions than professional judges. Who is right? Probably nobody, and everybody. Whatever works, I suppose.

 

[sidious618]

The Italian system sucks. Their system should be changed to be exactly like the US system. They need jurors who are bribed and threatened. They need jurors who fall asleep during the trials. They need state defense lawyers who are working on a ton of cases and don't really give a shit. They need judges who are racist, sexist and easily swayed by a handful of cash. They need a system where we execute people (bonus points if they're retarded).

If only Italy had this they'd be set.

 

[JonathonWally]

The lack of a jury system doesn't necessarily make a dictatorship, but it DOES mean that all you have to do is corrupt an official to get the verdict you want

Ya, cause that never happens in America....

 

[T'Bonz]

It's hard to tell from here if she was guilty or innocent. Her behavior was a tad bizarre afterwards and WTF was up with fingering her former boss as the perp?

I guess, given the verdict, one hopes that she is guilty since she was found guilty.

I'm sure Italy's justice system is adequate for the most part, just as ours is, for the most part. Meaning they probably usually get it right, same as here, even if we do things differently than they do.

The one really sad thing about this, the media is going "Oh boo hoo!" about the woman who was convicted and her family, but are ignoring the victim's family and are not talking much about the victim.

Amanda kept some rather bad company, that much is certain. Does that make her a murderer? Not necessarily. I read somewhere though, that she had the option of leaving the country right away when this all first happened. Why the hell didn't she?

 

[Data Holmes]

It's hard to tell from here if she was guilty or innocent. Her behavior was a tad bizarre afterwards and WTF was up with fingering her former boss as the perp?

She was questioned by police, without a translator, for hours. She later said that the police presured her into making statements and naming individuals, and that she said these things so they would stop yelling at her/pressuring her.

She has also said, but there is no direct evidence to prove it, that some of the police became physical with her, pushing her, grabbing her and shaking her. But she wasn't examined for evidence of such till a few weeks later, and by that time any marks or bruses would be gone anyway.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

Bullshit. The italian judicial system is a fucking joke.

And why do you think that is? She killed someone = murderer. What's the beef here?

Just because she was convicted, doesn't mean she actually committed the crime.

Be that as it may, a jury of her peers found her guilty. As far as i am concerned, that means she's guilty. All other considerations are done.

 

[JonathonWally]

It's hard to tell from here if she was guilty or innocent. Her behavior was a tad bizarre afterwards and WTF was up with fingering her former boss as the perp?

She was questioned by police, without a translator, for hours. She later said that the police presured her into making statements and naming individuals, and that she said these things so they would stop yelling at her/pressuring her.

She has also said, but there is no direct evidence to prove it, that some of the police became physical with her, pushing her, grabbing her and shaking her. But she wasn't examined for evidence of such till a few weeks later, and by that time any marks or bruses would be gone anyway.

Well, when you're a murderer, I'd imagine lying isn't out of the realm of possibility.

 

[iguana_tonante]

She was questioned by police, without a translator, for hours. She later said that the police presured her into making statements and naming individuals, and that she said these things so they would stop yelling at her/pressuring her.

I agree it may be an harsh treatment, but the girl was a suspect for murder. I'm no fan of police brutality, but pressuring/yelling is just doing their job.

She has also said, but there is no direct evidence to prove it, that some of the police became physical with her, pushing her, grabbing her and shaking her. But she wasn't examined for evidence of such till a few weeks later, and by that time any marks or bruses would be gone anyway.

I don't know if it's true. Maybe they get a bit rough, shouting at her face and what not. But going as far as physical abusing her, I find it highly unlikely: this was obviously going to be an high profile case, involving foreign nationals. Police officers are smarter than this. Now, if she were an undocumented migrant from a backward country, I would be more wary. But she was a white middle-class American college student. Physically abusing her would be something just far too stupid to do.

 

[Data Holmes]

It's hard to tell from here if she was guilty or innocent. Her behavior was a tad bizarre afterwards and WTF was up with fingering her former boss as the perp?

She was questioned by police, without a translator, for hours. She later said that the police presured her into making statements and naming individuals, and that she said these things so they would stop yelling at her/pressuring her.

She has also said, but there is no direct evidence to prove it, that some of the police became physical with her, pushing her, grabbing her and shaking her. But she wasn't examined for evidence of such till a few weeks later, and by that time any marks or bruses would be gone anyway.

Well, when you're a murderer, I'd imagine lying isn't out of the realm of possibility.

So, you work from the guilty until proven innocent camp. That's a great way to look at things.

She was questioned by police, without a translator, for hours. She later said that the police presured her into making statements and naming individuals, and that she said these things so they would stop yelling at her/pressuring her.

I agree it may be an harsh treatment, but the girl was a suspect for murder. I'm no fan of police brutality, but pressuring/yelling is just doing their job.

It's also a way to get people to admit/confess to things they didn't do. Anyone familiar with the psychological process of interrogation knows that you can break most people into admitting things that are not true in 5 to 6 hours, and that's without the added stressers in this case.. A full day under these conditions, they could have had her say anything.

She has also said, but there is no direct evidence to prove it, that some of the police became physical with her, pushing her, grabbing her and shaking her. But she wasn't examined for evidence of such till a few weeks later, and by that time any marks or bruses would be gone anyway.

I don't know if it's true. Maybe they get a bit rough, shouting at her face and what not. But going as far as physical abusing her, I find it highly unlikely: this was obviously going to be an high profile case, involving foreign nationals. Police officers are smarter than this. Now, if she were an undocumented migrant from a backward country, I would be more wary. But she was a white middle-class American college student. Physically abusing her would be something just far too stupid to do.

I said they got physical with her, not abused her. They didn't hit her. They did, according to her, grab her arms a few times pretty hard, they pushed her into the chair a couple times and at least one officer supposedly grabbed her by the shoulders and shook her violently when she became confused as to what he was asking her.

While not outright physical abuse, its enough to mess with the head of a petite young frightened girl enough to make her story get screwed up.

 

[sidious618]

She was questioned by police, without a translator, for hours. She later said that the police presured her into making statements and naming individuals, and that she said these things so they would stop yelling at her/pressuring her.

If she didn't have a translator then how did she know what they were pressuring her to say?

 

[Data Holmes]

She was questioned by police, without a translator, for hours. She later said that the police presured her into making statements and naming individuals, and that she said these things so they would stop yelling at her/pressuring her.

If she didn't have a translator then how did she know what they were pressuring her to say?

She had basic/primitive Italian and some of the police had basic english. It was a hodge podge of translations and confusion that they used against her.

 

[JonathonWally]

She was questioned by police, without a translator, for hours. She later said that the police presured her into making statements and naming individuals, and that she said these things so they would stop yelling at her/pressuring her.

She has also said, but there is no direct evidence to prove it, that some of the police became physical with her, pushing her, grabbing her and shaking her. But she wasn't examined for evidence of such till a few weeks later, and by that time any marks or bruses would be gone anyway.

Well, when you're a murderer, I'd imagine lying isn't out of the realm of possibility.

So, you work from the guilty until proven innocent camp. That's a great way to look at things.

So you believe everything that comes out of the mouth of a suspected murderer do you?

 

[Data Holmes]

Well, when you're a murderer, I'd imagine lying isn't out of the realm of possibility.

So, you work from the guilty until proven innocent camp. That's a great way to look at things.

So you believe everything that comes out of the mouth of a suspected murderer do you?

No, but as they are a suspect, not yet convicted of the crime by a court of law, I do not make an assumption one way or the other on their guilt and approach everything as possible until proven false, even their innocence. The point is to prove they are not innocent, not that they are guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. You start from 0 not negative 7.

And, seeing as the evidence of the case does not support the prosecution, I'm more inclined to believe her than not at this point.

 

[cultcross]

No, but as they are a suspect, not yet convicted of the crime by a court of law, I do not make an assumption one way or the other on their guilt and approach everything as possible until proven false, even their innocence. The point is to prove they are not innocent, not that they are guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. You start from 0 not negative 7.

She's been convicted of the crime, so her guilt has been proven to a judicial standard. Is there evidence that the jury was contaminated by the story of whether or not she was assaulted by police?

 

[Peach Wookiee]

No, but as they are a suspect, not yet convicted of the crime by a court of law, I do not make an assumption one way or the other on their guilt and approach everything as possible until proven false, even their innocence. The point is to prove they are not innocent, not that they are guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. You start from 0 not negative 7.

She's been convicted of the crime, so her guilt has been proven to a judicial standard. Is there evidence that the jury was contaminated by the story of whether or not she was assaulted by police?

The jury was not sequestered. Therefore, the answer would seem to be yes.

 

[Caretaker]

A high-profile case and the jury wasn't sequestered? Is that normal for Italy?

 

[iguana_tonante]

A high-profile case and the jury wasn't sequestered? Is that normal for Italy?

We don't have juries as in the American system. The judgment is passed by a board composed of professional judges and laypersons, who decide upon both the verdict and the length of the sentence (if I understand correctly, in the American system the jury decide upon the verdict and the judges upon the length of sentence, right?).

Given that the board have to follow the entire trial and that trials are way longer around here (up to a couple of years -- that is something that the Italian system should address because it's absolutely appalling), nobody get sequestered anywhere for no reason.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

And, in your informed opinion, how is Italy's system different from any other European country?

Well for one thing it obviously allows a jury or finder of fact to consider tainted evidence in the form of a bra that was sitting at a crime scene for months after.

A crime scene that was closed and sealed. And it was 6 weeks, not "months". I'm not an expert on DNA forensics. The evidence was ruled genuine, I have no reason to think otherwise.

Or perhaps its the fact that character evidence is allowed to be admitted and considered by a finder of fact. In other words, as I've said, in my professional opinion your system is a joke.

The tabloid media had a field day with her, I concur. I don't particularly like that either. However, it's not different from what it happens in UK or the US (Murdoch's papers come to mind). The fact that it was used against her in tribunal in just your supposition, tho.

Further, in the Great Brittain and in the United States, character evidence is inadmissible except in certain very rare circumstances. Here, it's obvious that it was considered. The "foxy Knoxy" thing surely carried forward and was considered by the fact finder. Again, your system is a joke.

"Obviously" as in "I think so because I've read that in MY tabloids". Again, the fact that character evidence was considered in court is just your supposition. If you have any particular insight into the debate chamber, I'll be happy to read it.

You're kidding right? DNA evidence degrades when it is not preserved. That equals reasonable doubt.

And it's not just my supposition. It's a fact that it was admitted into evidence, which is complete and total bullshit.

I agree it may be an harsh treatment, but the girl was a suspect for murder. I'm no fan of police brutality, but pressuring/yelling is just doing their job.

Are you fucking kidding me?

 

[iguana_tonante]

You're kidding right? DNA evidence degrades when it is not preserved. That equals reasonable doubt.

As I said, I'm not an expert on DNA forensics, and how much time it can pass before they become useless. They use it on Egyptian mummies, so I guess it can be quite a long time. Again, the prosecutor says it's reliable, the defendant say it's not. To me, it's 50/50.

And it's not just my supposition. It's a fact that it was admitted into evidence, which is complete and total bullshit.

You keep confusing "fact" with "my opinion". I understand you have a very opinion of yourself, but I'm sad to inform you that it's not widely shared.

I agree it may be an harsh treatment, but the girl was a suspect for murder. I'm no fan of police brutality, but pressuring/yelling is just doing their job.

Are you fucking kidding me?

I don't know, but I'm held for murder I wouldn't expect the police to be nice and chatty and bring me hot chocolate with whipped cream. Pressuring the suspect is not the same as abusing her.