Amanda Knox Is Innocent

[ymu]

Last year, he got a reduced sentence. New sentence. He was found to be acting with others, and that finding was only last year. The Kerchers understandably want to know who those others were.

That's not true. He was found to be acting with others at his original trial. The Micheli report is his sentencing report - but there's no full English translation. This telegraph report is based on it though: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ned-the-door-to-Meredith-Kerchers-killer.html

They were originally committed for trial together. Guede was tried separately because he opted for fast-track, saying he feared that they'd gang up on him and stitch him up.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sorry, the prosecution tried to "fit up" an innocent person. Knox is innocent - you have to work from that position now, regardless of your attempts to use semantics in the definition of guilt to imply she may actually be guilty. They made false claims about her in a criminal case.

Are you naturally stupid, or have you been taking classes?
Innocence and guilt as findings in a court of law aren't the same thing as innocence or guilt of an act, they're merely a finding based on an interpretation of evidence. Knox may be an innocent who was found guilty, but she can equally be a guilty person who has been found innocent. Chuntering on that because the prosecution did this, that or something else, the defendant must have been fitted up is illogical nonsense.

Anyone who made a false accusation (such as the prosecutor, who I believe stated that knox slit kerchers throat, or Knox, who I believe stated a landlord went into a house...) should do time, according to the system.

In a perfect version of this world and those political and criminal justice systems, they should. As it is, courts rely on facts that have to be mediated through fallible (whether through corruption, stupidity, laziness or any other reason) humans. Errors occur. The guilty roam free and the innocent are locked away. Welcome to the human condition.

 

[ViolentPanda]

legally, they are certainly exclusive. Innocent until proven guilty, anyone?

Italy uses an inquisitorial system of justice. There's no immediate "presumption of innocence", there are "findings of fact".

 

[Jon-of-arc]

Italy uses an inquisitorial system of justice. There's no immediate "presumption of innocence", there are "findings of fact".

So in Italy you can be guilty and innocent at the same time?

 

[Jon-of-arc]

Are you naturally stupid, or have you been taking classes?
Innocence and guilt as findings in a court of law aren't the same thing as innocence or guilt of an act, they're merely a finding based on an interpretation of evidence. Knox may be an innocent who was found guilty, but she can equally be a guilty person who has been found innocent. Chuntering on that because the prosecution did this, that or something else, the defendant must have been fitted up is illogical nonsense.

So you think it is a different thing for Knox to be a fallible human than it is for the prosecution to be?

In a perfect version of this world and those political and criminal justice systems, they should. As it is, courts rely on facts that have to be mediated through fallible (whether through corruption, stupidity, laziness or any other reason) humans. Errors occur. The guilty roam free and the innocent are locked away. Welcome to the human condition.

I've stated twice that my suggestion was idealism. I understand that errors occur. I'm just a bit shocked that Knox's error cost her 3 years of her life, whilst the prosecutions error will not cost anyone anything.

 

[dylans]

In a perfect version of this world and those political and criminal justice systems, they should. As it is, courts rely on facts that have to be mediated through fallible (whether through corruption, stupidity, laziness or any other reason) humans. Errors occur. The guilty roam free and the innocent are locked away. Welcome to the human condition.

Yes but it's not simply a case of the fallability of the criminal justice system in general but of severe errors in this particular trial, errors that raise serious questions about the italian legal system itself and errors that should have ensured that the case was thrown out long before the original verdict came in.

The interrogation of a suspect for hours without legal council or tape recordings, the fact that her statements from that original interrogation were disallowed and yet still shown to the same"jury" in the slander trial. The fact that the prosecutor himself has serious questions of competency and abuse of office to answer from previous cases, including allegations from previous trials that he is "obsessed by witchcraft and satanism". The extremely unprofessional handling of forensics. The outrageous gossip and slurs that were allowed in the case. The reporting of the case without restriction in the local and international press. All this should have led to a mistrial long before it came to appeal.

 

[danny la rouge]

That's not true.

Again, I think you've misunderstood my meaning. I'm not claiming he wasn't before.

I think the misunderstanding might be because I used the word 'sentence' twice close together, once meaning the grammatical notion, the other meaning the judicial notion. That was clumsy of me; I apologize. I should have said "Full stop".

 

[gabi]

Bonkers case. Basically distilled in the papers today, now the trial's over - to what everyone already knew.

A coward fuck broke into a house to rob it, found a fit girl in there, decided to have sex with her, she resisted, he slashed her throat.

if kercher's family can't accept it's as simple as that, then.. well. i think they need to meet with Knox and Sollicato, and shake some hands.

Shocker from the Italian police. It took 46 days for DNA linking the two to mysteriously turn up - no fingerprints, no footprints. I hope they take the prosectutor to the cleaners (so to speak).

 

[ymu]

Google translation of the Micheli report here: http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=286&p=63343

This report is Guede's sentencing report (reasoning behind the judge's decision), but it's also the reasoning for committing Knox and Sollecito to trial.

There are huge problems with the investigation and how it was handled, no question about it. What we can't know is whether the bungling led to two innocent people being falsely accused, or two guilty people being acquitted.

 

[belboid]

if kercher's family can't accept it's as simple as that, then.. well. i think they need to meet with Knox and Sollicato, and shake some hands.

why put anything on the kercher family? Entirely up to them whether they shake hands or spit in her eye.

 

[gabi]

They've actually been totally ungracious. I wasn't sitting in the courtroom as they were but even a cursory glance at the 'evidence' says these two had nothing to do with their daughter's death.

i'd be offering a sincere apology to them for calling for their heads, as they have done throughout this ordeal.

Not this.

Lyle Kercher, the victim's brother, told a press conference: "While we accept the decision that was handed down yesterday, respect the court, and obviously the Italian justice system, we do find now that we are looking at this again and thinking how a decision that was so certain two years ago has been so emphatically overturned now."

 

[danny la rouge]

if kercher's family can't accept it's as simple as that, then.. well.

Presumably the reason they think there are still others involved is because the convicted man is still said to have worked with others. They want to know, that being the case, who those others are. Of course they do, why wouldn't they? If there were no others involved, then they'll want to know that, too, and why it was thought there were.

On a couple of occasions now you've been quite dismissive of the Kercher family, which seems to me quite a strange response to all of this.

 

[gabi]

Presumably the reason they think there are still others involved is because the convicted man is still said to have worked with others. They want to know, that being the case, who those others are. Of course they do, why wouldn't they? If there were no others involved, then they'll want to know that, too, and why it was thought there were.

On a couple of occasions now you've been quite dismissive of the Kercher family, which seems to me quite a strange response to all of this.

Because they dont appear to accept that two young people have lost four years of their lives for something they had nothing to do with.

Reading between the lines of their statements they seem to be with the Prosecutor. Which is nuts.

 

[danny la rouge]

They've actually been totally ungracious. [...]
Not this.

Why shouldn't he say that?

"While we accept the decision that was handed down yesterday, respect the court, and obviously the Italian justice system, we do find now that we are looking at this again and thinking how a decision that was so certain two years ago has been so emphatically overturned now."

I see nothing to disagree with there. Get a grip of yourself.

 

[gabi]

Why shouldn't he say that?

"While we accept the decision that was handed down yesterday, respect the court, and obviously the Italian justice system, we do find now that we are looking at this again and thinking how a decision that was so certain two years ago has been so emphatically overturned now."

I see nothing to disagree with there. Get a grip of yourself.

I'd prefer to see them condemning the Italian police and judicial system, not bigging them up.

 

[danny la rouge]

Because they dont appear to accept that two young people have lost four years of their lives for something they had nothing to do with.

They can think what they like. They also have a better handle on the evidence than you or I do. But that being said, they explicitly said they accept the acquittal. What they want to know now is who were Guede's accomplices. And how did the cock up happen.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'd prefer to see them condemning the Italian police and judicial system, not bigging them up.

"While we accept the decision that was handed down yesterday, respect the court, and obviously the Italian justice system, we do find now that we are looking at this again and thinking how a decision that was so certain two years ago has been so emphatically overturned now."

Read that properly, and tell me who it bigs up.

 

[dylans]

Because they dont appear to accept that two young people have lost four years of their lives for something they had nothing to do with.

Reading between the lines of their statements they seem to be with the Prosecutor. Which is nuts.

Not nuts at all. Perfectly understandable. Their daughter was murdered. They should not be expected to be considered, neutral observers of the procedures. To expect that of them is unfair.

 

[gabi]

They can think what they like. They also have a better handle on the evidence than you or I do. But that being said, they explicitly said they accept the acquittal. What they want to know now is who were Guede's accomplices. And how did the cock up happen.

The Italian judicial system was covering it's arse after fucking up the initial investigation. I highly doubt there were accomplices. It's an open and shut case, complicated by drama seeking prosecutors.

Read the papers.

Do you believe Knox and Sollecito did it? And if not, do you think Kercher's family should acknowledge they didnt?

 

[danny la rouge]

Do you believe Knox and Sollecito did it?

I accept the acquittal. I wasn't at the court, so my "belief" is frankly irrelevant. So moving on...

Read the quote you pasted. It says: "Due respect, judicial system. But either you cocked up at the original trial or now. We have to accept that it was at the original trial. So now, tell us, where do we go from here?" That's what it says.

 

[dylans]

The Italian judicial system was covering it's arse after fucking up the initial investigation. I highly doubt there were accomplices. It's an open and shut case, complicated by drama seeking prosecutors.

Read the papers.

Do you believe Knox and Sollecito did it? And if not, do you think Kercher's family should acknowledge they didnt?

Its not for us to lecture the family of a murdered girl what they should or shouldnt do. We should simply wish them peace

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Its not for us to lecture the family of a murdered girl what they should or shouldnt do. We should simply wish them peace

Exactly.

 

[100% masahiko]

Knox and that other guy whose name I cannot spell, should appear on the Maury/ Jeremy Kyle Show for a lie detector test.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So in Italy you can be guilty and innocent at the same time?

No, no presumption is made by the investigating magistrate(s). That's left to the prosecution and defence, and their cases.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

I was wondering if this was the first time that Phildwyer has got something right.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So you think it is a different thing for Knox to be a fallible human than it is for the prosecution to be?

"The prosecution" isn't a fallible human being, it's a mechanism staffed by fallible human beings, so yeah. It's a different thing. There are more opportunities for failure, but there are also more opportunities for cross-checking and oversight of operations.

I've stated twice that my suggestion was idealism. I understand that errors occur. I'm just a bit shocked that Knox's error cost her 3 years of her life, whilst the prosecutions error will not cost anyone anything.

Except, perhaps, the prosecutor(s) credibility and ability to practice at law. Who wants lawyers that shitty or tainted?

 

[belboid]

They've actually been totally ungracious. I wasn't sitting in the courtroom as they were but even a cursory glance at the 'evidence' says these two had nothing to do with their daughter's death.

i'd be offering a sincere apology to them for calling for their heads, as they have done throughout this ordeal.

Not this.

'Ungracious'? Fucking hell, why on earth should they be 'gracious', its not a football match.

As to them calling for K&S's heads, well, they never have done. They seem to have acted with great calm and dignity, trying to seek the truth about what happened to their daughter. Sadly, it seems unlikely they will ever know who accompanied Guede (as someone almost definitely did) in murdering her.

 

[LiamO]

I was wondering if this was the first time that Phildwyer has got something right.

No doubt we can expect an orderly queue, of suitably contrite Urban posters, to form all wishing to magnanimously retract some of their earlier comments directed at Mr Dwyer.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes but it's not simply a case of the fallability of the criminal justice system in general but of severe errors in this particular trial, errors that raise serious questions about the italian legal system itself and errors that should have ensured that the case was thrown out long before the original verdict came in.

I don't disagree. There were procedural aspects that would have stopped the case making it past the starting post in other jurisdictions.

The interrogation of a suspect for hours without legal council or tape recordings, the fact that her statements from that original interrogation were disallowed and yet still shown to the same"jury" in the slander trial.

Interrogation without counsel (note correct spelling! ) isn't unusual, refusal to provide counsel is unusual. As for recording, I'll agree with you there. In any modern jurisdiction police generally record interviews/interrogations to protect themselves as much as to secure the chain of evidence.
Bear in mind that contemporaneous recording of interviews/interrogations is only just 25 years old in the UK, and only came about (in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act) because of a number of fairly horrible cases being proven to have been based on evidence invented by members of the West Midlands Regional Crime Squad. Before then "contemporaneous note-taking" was allowed, which often meant after the interview/interrogation in reality. That's still the case/legally permissible in some jurisdictions.

The fact that the prosecutor himself has serious questions of competency and abuse of office to answer from previous cases, including allegations from previous trials that he is "obsessed by witchcraft and satanism". The extremely unprofessional handling of forensics. The outrageous gossip and slurs that were allowed in the case. The reporting of the case without restriction in the local and international press. All this should have led to a mistrial long before it came to appeal.

You're measuring against standards (the UK) that originate under a different criminal justice system than the occurrences you note took place in, though. Do those practices constitute bad practice or unacceptable error in the jurisdiction they took place in? If so, you have a point. If not, then you don't. I'm not up on the minutiae of the Italian version of forensic practice or the Italian criminal justice system, so anything I say would only be an assumption of bad practice.

 

[Orang Utan]

lots of people seem to be absolutely certain they know what happened. divs.