Amanda Knox murder conviction overturned

[Candlelight]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/5726572/Verdict-reached-in-Amanda-Knox-trial

The jury considering the Italian murder conviction appeal of American student Amanda Knox has announced her conviction for murder has been overturned. Knox was acquitted on all charges except one of defamation.
The jury has also overturned the murder conviction of Raffaelle Sollecito. Both will be free to leave.
Earlier today (NZ time), Knox tearfully begged the court to acquit her of murdering her British roommate during a brutal erotic game, saying she was paying for a crime she did not commit.
"I did not do the things they say I did. I did not kill, rape or steal. I was not there," she said, trembling and sobbing during her final plea to the court for freedom after nearly four years in jail.
"I want to go home. I want to go back to my life. I do not want to be punished. I do not want to be deprived of my life for something I did not do, because I am innocent," she said.
The Seattle native and her Italian boyfriend at the time, Raffaele Sollecito, are fighting a 2009 verdict that found them guilty of murdering Leeds University exchange student Meredith Kercher during a drug-fuelled sexual assault.
Kercher's half-naked body, with more than 40 wounds and a deep gash in the throat, was found in 2007 in the apartment she shared with the American student in this Umbrian hill town.
The panel of two professional and six lay judges retired to consider a verdict immediately after Knox's final plea.
Hopes are high among Knox's many supporters in the United States that the 24-year-old will walk free from a Perugia prison after a forensic review that cast deep doubt on DNA evidence used to convict her and 27-year-old Sollecito.
Knox was sentenced to 26 years in prison and Sollecito given 25 years.

I've only started following this trial in the past few weeks.

I hope she is able to put all this behind her. Well, as much as is possible.

 

[Random_Spock]

Same. She hasn't had a fair trial from the start.

 

[Ashu]

Yeah, here's to hoping she's able to make her life some what straight after this. Sadly, this is one of those things that doesn't just fix itself. It's going to be haunting her for a while.

 

[Admiral Shran]

I haven't been following the story at all, so what I do know is only secondhand info. But, from that, it does sound like they tried to railroad her.

Hopefully she can get her life back together.

 

[MNM]

But, from that, it does sound like they tried to railroad her..

Maybe. But it is a fact the woman lied at least twice. She gave a very detailed account of how a black guy murdered the girl, and how Knox was terrifed and hid etc.. only for that black guy to have an airtight alibi that ruled him out of ever having done it. she then changed her story and claimed that she was with her bf surfing the net at the time at his house, only for ISP records to show this was not the case.

The false accusation, the first instance I have mentioned above, was upheld even when her conviction was over turned.

She's give multiple versions of her whereabouts and what happened, all provably false, yet she has never given a version that can be proven to be true.

It's always struck me that while she may not have actually done it, she certainly was covering for someone or something that happened.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Keep in mind two things. One, she says she was told to imagine what happened when she gave that first statement and that the statement was thrown out of court because it was improperly obtained.

Second, people accused are not required to prove their innocence. They are not required to prove that their story is true. The other side has to prove she's guilty and actually committed the crime.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Second, people accused are not required to prove their innocence. They are not required to prove that their story is true. The other side has to prove she's guilty and actually committed the crime.

That's true in the US, but is it true in all countries?

 

[Count Zero]

I can't think of a signle one where that isn't the case, at least officially. It seems to be a pretty fundamental principle.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

But, from that, it does sound like they tried to railroad her..

Maybe. But it is a fact the woman lied at least twice. She gave a very detailed account of how a black guy murdered the girl, and how Knox was terrifed and hid etc.. only for that black guy to have an airtight alibi that ruled him out of ever having done it. she then changed her story and claimed that she was with her bf surfing the net at the time at his house, only for ISP records to show this was not the case.

The false accusation, the first instance I have mentioned above, was upheld even when her conviction was over turned.

She's give multiple versions of her whereabouts and what happened, all provably false, yet she has never given a version that can be proven to be true.

It's always struck me that while she may not have actually done it, she certainly was covering for someone or something that happened.

She was interrogated for 55 hours without a lawyer, interpreter or access to food, water or a bathroom. And there is no video of her interrogation. There is no DNA evidence implicating her, the murder weapon was never found (that kitchen knife wasn't it-- too big) and Guede apparently jacked Meredith Kercher's cell phones.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Second, people accused are not required to prove their innocence. They are not required to prove that their story is true. The other side has to prove she's guilty and actually committed the crime.

That's true in the US, but is it true in all countries?

It's true in any country with the rule of law, yes. Even inquisitorial systems don't convict people without affirmative proof of guilt (not that countries with inquisitorial systems purely have that system anymore, as I understand it, that's more for preliminary determinations then there is the normal adversarial proceedings). This is clearly demonstrated by the appeal in the Knox/Sollecito trial. They were acquitted because they were not convinced of her guilt. They said they could only be reasonably certain of Rudy Guede's guilt. While they also can't be certain of her innocence, certainty of one's innocence is a difficult bar to reach (short of an air-tight alibi and that only excludes direct involvement).

 

[Admiral Shran]

But, from that, it does sound like they tried to railroad her..

Maybe. But it is a fact the woman lied at least twice. She gave a very detailed account of how a black guy murdered the girl, and how Knox was terrifed and hid etc.. only for that black guy to have an airtight alibi that ruled him out of ever having done it. she then changed her story and claimed that she was with her bf surfing the net at the time at his house, only for ISP records to show this was not the case.

The false accusation, the first instance I have mentioned above, was upheld even when her conviction was over turned.

She's give multiple versions of her whereabouts and what happened, all provably false, yet she has never given a version that can be proven to be true.

It's always struck me that while she may not have actually done it, she certainly was covering for someone or something that happened.

So she gave conflicting stories. That in and of itself isn't evidence of guilt. It's circumstantial evidence that points toward possible guilt.

Like others have said, she doesn't need to prove her innocence. If all the state had to go on was some conflicting circumstantial evidence, I don't know how that is a basis for a conviction.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

I hope she is able to put all this behind her. Well, as much as is possible.

Not that I'd ever want to go through what she went through, facing the possibility of life in prison...

but I'm sure the huge sums of money she will no doubt receive from selling her story will more than make up for having to spend a few years in prison.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Second, people accused are not required to prove their innocence. They are not required to prove that their story is true. The other side has to prove she's guilty and actually committed the crime.

That's true in the US, but is it true in all countries?

It's true in any country with the rule of law, yes. Even inquisitorial systems don't convict people without affirmative proof of guilt (not that countries with inquisitorial systems purely have that system anymore, as I understand it, that's more for preliminary determinations then there is the normal adversarial proceedings). This is clearly demonstrated by the appeal in the Knox/Sollecito trial. They were acquitted because they were not convinced of her guilt. They said they could only be reasonably certain of Rudy Guede's guilt. While they also can't be certain of her innocence, certainty of one's innocence is a difficult bar to reach (short of an air-tight alibi and that only excludes direct involvement).

The circumstances of her interrogation would seem to go against the idea that the rule of law had anything to do with the conviction.

Unless those cops were ultimately found to be in violation of Italian law?

 

[Alidar Jarok]

They were in the same sense that American police officers who often do the exact same thing are found to be in violation of the law. In other words, the confession was deemed inadmissible and excluded from the trial for the purpose of proving her guilt.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Good--because had there not been any recognition of the wrongness of that interrogation, I would've held a very low opinion of any "justice" system that considered such behavior to be okay.

(Similarly, from a US perspective, I would've been furious had there never been any recognition of how wrong that asshole Nifong's excuse for "justice" was for all the shit he pulled in the Duke lacrosse case.)

 

[Alidar Jarok]

A woman said she was raped, so he pressed charges against those she said raped her rather than ignoring her?

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

You are right that no such accusation should be dismissed out of hand, without a fair hearing of it. The prosecutor, hearing something like that, should absolutely investigate, and in good faith.

However, he should not prosecute--should not press charges--on improper evidence.

The trouble is that the rules of proper evidence were not followed in that case, especially with the lineup of suspects, and that is where the comparison between this case and the Amanda Knox case comes in--the total mishandling of evidence and witnesses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case

 

[Admiral Shran]

A woman said she was raped, so he pressed charges against those she said raped her rather than ignoring her?

No, he went on her word alone with no supporting evidence.

"He said/she said" isn't proper evidence for pursuing a conviction.

If I claimed that you killed by brother and the state simply took my word for it without any further evidence pointing toward your guilt, would that be acceptable?

 

[Alidar Jarok]

That depends on what you had to say. A single eye witness is often far better than many murder cases.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

So you would convict a person on one person's testimony based on your gut feeling or personal preferences about that person? Remember that the latter can color the former no matter how above prejudice any of us believe we are. Without corroborating evidence, such testimony is null.

I haven't seen you address the improper behavior by the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case, nor have I seen you address any of the clear facts in the article I linked. I don't think you'd really condone that, would you?