Amanda Knox found guilty again

[Soxbadger]

Im not about to get into an argument about the Italian legal system, because quite frankly, I dont know anything about it. But in the US, the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and that means that at the end of the prosecutions case, there can be absolutely NO doubt that it was Knox.

 

Not maybe its more likely it was Knox, you have to have 0 belief that it wasnt her, otherwise you have to find her not guilty.

 

That is our system, its in my opinion the best system.

 

It may not be that way in Italy, but then you have to explain to us what the burden of proof is and why under Italian law she would be guilty.

 

Because under US law I doubt shed be convicted. She doesnt have to prove she didnt do it, the prosecution has to prove she did.

 

There are just to many problems, the main 1 being motive. The second being that Guede broke into some sort of childrens day care days before and was found with a knife. He then randomly appears at a place where someone is murdered with a knife and flees the country. His statement to police that he saw a man who told him something like "your black youll be guilty" just seems unbelievable.

 

So im not really sure how given that evidence anyone can be absolutely sure that Knox killed Kutcher, which is the standard of evidence required to convict in the US.

[Dick Allen]

I watched a 48 Hours episode on this case a few years ago. I don't remember much, but 48 Hours did use their own investigators and at that time, I think Knox was jailed, it was concluded by them, that she was not just not guilty, but innocent. A lot of things in the prosecution's case did not and could not add up. I also think the crime scene was beyond compromised.

[Jenksismyhero]

Go get a courtroom you two.

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

EXCUSE ME I AM BUSY ARGUING ON THE INTERNET IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT BUTT OUT

[Feeky Magee]

Others argue that the measurements were faulty and included the second toe as part of the big toe. If that error is adjusted, then the measurements match Guede's very well.

 

 

 

This is still at random because 1) it doesn't actually match the stab wounds and 2) there's no reason to believe that the murder weapon would be in that drawer or in his apartment at all. But if they're convinced that he did it in a big sex party with Knox and Lumumba oops I mean Guede now, hey, here's a big knife, that's probably the murder weapon!

 

 

 

Despite early reports to the contrary (thanks media circus and Italian justice system that invites juror contamination!), no receipts or evidence were ever produced that either of them had purchased bleach that morning. There's no indication that Knox's apartment was cleaned with bleach, either, otherwise there wouldn't be such copious amounts of Guede's DNA and blood trails all over the place.

 

 

 

I have plenty of criticism of the US legal system, but my (admittedly limited) exposure to the Italian system really does make it seem like a big joke comparatively. Double-jeopardy is a horrible idea.

 

 

 

Whether or not the break-in was staged is, like every other piece of evidence, very debatable and the prosecution's theories are not the most plausible. The same goes for multiple attackers. Knox's DNA was found in Kercher's bathroom, but not her blood. Not exactly shocking. Knox did have a bunch of bulls*** rambling at first, but false confessions or confusion are hardly unique to her.

 

I note that you are yet to respond to most of the points I've made. The knife didn't match wounds; the DNA analysis on it was garbage (as found by independent investigators appointed by the judge); the prosecution's many theories don't actually make sense; Guede's blood and prints are all over the damn place but there's no reliable physical evidence linking Knox; the bra clasp was left on-scene for weeks on end, kicked around and improperly handled; the judge's summary report relied very heavily on "probably" and supposition and was light on actual, plain facts.

- Even if we're to take the argument about the police confusing the second big toe and big toe, for which I cannot find any evidence, how do you explain the length and width of the metatarsus and plantar arches being a 100% match virtually across the board for Solecitto, and off by large amounts on Guede. You can't imagine an extra metatarsus like you can an extra toe.

 

- The knife matched the fatal wound in Kercher's throat. When presented with the news that Kercher's DNA was found on the knife, Solecitto claimed he had accidentally pricked her on the hand when they were cooking together and she had bled onto the knife. Kercher had never been to his apartment. Why would Solecitto lie if it was an impossibility this was the murder weapon?

 

- I didn't say anything about receipts. I said that there were two bottles of bleach that Solecitto's cleaning lady said she had not purchased and were not there before, and that Knox had been seen in the cleaning section of a shop at 7.45am when she claimed to be asleep.

 

- You say that the theories about the fake break-in and multiple attackers are debatable but say absolutely nothing about why this is the case. You didn't address a single one of my points a) to e) about why it was faked:

5. The conclusive evidence that the break-in was staged is as follows: a) the glass from the window was all on top of the scattered items, therefore the glass was broken after everything was scattered, b) the point of entry made no sense, being both the most exposed and most difficult point of entry in the whole house, c) to enter through the window required one to walk on grass first, it was a wet night, and there were no grass or mud stains at all on the wall or windowsill and none of the vegetation was trampled, d) the windowsill was covered in glass, despite an entry requiring a burglar to rest his knees upon it, and surely brush the glass away first, e) the scattering was mostly clothing, with valuables left in plain sight.

As for the multiple attacker theory, you didn't address how it was possible for Guede to have held her down ensuring no defensive wounds and stabbed her with two different knives on different parts of the body and attempt to strangle her all at once.

 

- You claim Knox's DNA was found in the bathroom but not her blood. This is not true. Knox's DNA was found in the bathroom as well as her blood. Knox's blood was found on the top of the wash basin, whilst a mixture of the two women's DNA (likely but not definitively blood) was found in 3 other places. To explain this away Knox said that she showered in the bathroom 12 hours later and bled from a recently pierced ear.

 

1. Do you think Solecitto's claim that he accidentally stabbed Kercher's hand whilst they were cooking together is plausible?

2. Do you think Knox's claim that she bled from her recently pierced ear in the bathroom 12 hours after the murder is plausible?

3. Do you think it's plausible to explain away glass being found on top of all the scattered items from the "break-in", quite apart from all the other evidence it was faked?

[Soxbadger]

Great argument, but you still havent addressed the actual legal issue:

 

1) What is the burden of proof for criminal conviction in Italy?

 

In the US Knox would not have been found guilty. There is no motive, there is no clear cut explanation of what happened. In the US we arent supposed to convict people on maybes, its supposed to be definite.

 

In 1 concise statement you should be able to tell me: Who, why, when and where about the crime. If you cant, its likely an innocent verdict.

 

It doesnt matter if 1,2,3 are plausible, at least not in the US. Its not the defendants responsibility to prove their innocence, its the prosecutions job to prove they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

And thats the system the US uses and thats why when you are arguing about Italian law, you might want to tell us what the standard/burden is, because otherwise we are going to apply the US standard, which pretty much makes youre entire argument irrelevant.

[Feeky Magee]

Great argument, but you still havent addressed the actual legal issue:

 

1) What is the burden of proof for criminal conviction in Italy?

 

In the US Knox would not have been found guilty. There is no motive, there is no clear cut explanation of what happened. In the US we arent supposed to convict people on maybes, its supposed to be definite.

 

In 1 concise statement you should be able to tell me: Who, why, when and where about the crime. If you cant, its likely an innocent verdict.

 

It doesnt matter if 1,2,3 are plausible, at least not in the US. Its not the defendants responsibility to prove their innocence, its the prosecutions job to prove they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

And thats the system the US uses and thats why when you are arguing about Italian law, you might want to tell us what the standard/burden is, because otherwise we are going to apply the US standard, which pretty much makes youre entire argument irrelevant.

Fortunately for my argument, in Italy, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution: any doubt on the defendant’s guilt will resolve in an acquittal, as the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure explicitly affirms that guilt should be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Having to prove the defendant's motive is overrated due to TV shows. Criminal law states that whilst motive can be important during investigation and sentencing, courts are not generally concerned with it when determining guilt of a criminal defendant, and prosecutors need not prove the defendant's motive. They need to prove intent, but not motive.

[Soxbadger]

Fortunately for my argument, in Italy, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution: any doubt on the defendant’s guilt will resolve in an acquittal, as the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure explicitly affirms that guilt should be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Having to prove the defendant's motive is overrated due to TV shows. Criminal law states that whilst motive can be important during investigation and sentencing, courts are not generally concerned with it when determining guilt of a criminal defendant, and prosecutors need not prove the defendant's motive. They need to prove intent, but not motive.

 

 

I never said they had to prove motive. Im just saying that you arent going to convince a jury that someone committed a murder for "no reason", you generally have to convince them that there is a good motive. Not having a motive, is one of the easiest ways for a defense attorney to create doubt.

 

And just as an fyi, I get paid to try cases, so Im not basing it on tv.

 

When you have a jury of 12 people, its hard to convince them that someone, with no history of random violence, committed murder for no good reason. Its also hard to convince a jury when you dont have 1 story, thats why I predicted Casey Anthony would be acquitted. You cant do a shotgun approach in criminal law, it works in civil where you can plead in the alternative and the burden of evidence is preponderance of the evidence (what is most likely true).

 

But in criminal court its basically an admission that there is some doubt. How can you have no doubt, if the prosecution cant tell you exactly how/why/where/when/who committed the murder?

 

You cant and thats why Knox's conviction is suspect.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Soxbadger

[Feeky Magee]

I never said they had to prove motive. Im just saying that you arent going to convince a jury that someone committed a murder for "no reason", you generally have to convince them that there is a good motive. Not having a motive, is one of the easiest ways for a defense attorney to create doubt.

 

And just as an fyi, I get paid to try cases, so Im not basing it on tv.

 

When you have a jury of 12 people, its hard to convince them that someone, with no history of random violence, committed murder for no good reason. Its also hard to convince a jury when you dont have 1 story, thats why I predicted Casey Anthony would be acquitted. You cant do a shotgun approach in criminal law, it works in civil where you can plead in the alternative and the burden of evidence is preponderance of the evidence (what is most likely true).

 

But in criminal court its basically an admission that there is some doubt. How can you have no doubt, if the prosecution cant tell you exactly how/why/where/when/who committed the murder?

 

You cant and thats why Knox's conviction is suspect.

Right, but when there is a large body of evidence suggesting they were directly involved the murder, failure to establish a watertight motive does not mean her conviction was suspect. It's clearly not admission that there's reasonable doubt in this case as the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt and two courts found her guilty under that burden.

[Soxbadger]

Right, but when there is a large body of evidence suggesting they were directly involved the murder, failure to establish a watertight motive does not mean her conviction was suspect. It's clearly not admission that there's reasonable doubt in this case as the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt and two courts found her guilty under that burden.

 

What large body of evidence suggests Knox committed murder? Every piece of evidence you presented has suggested Sollecito's involvement. What direct evidence was there that Knox killed Kercher? Not Sollecito's footprint or dna on a knife, but something to connect Knox.

 

Even if Knox lied about everything, thats not enough proof to convict "beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

And its interesting you said its odd behavior to s*** in someones bathroom and take a shower, isnt even odder behavior to do that after committing murder? I mean you have to admit that the facts are pretty odd and there is really very little evidence that Knox committed murder.

 

Perhaps obstruction of justice, conspiracy to commit murder, etc, but I just dont see any hard evidence that Knox killed her.

[Feeky Magee]

What large body of evidence suggests Knox committed murder? Every piece of evidence you presented has suggested Sollecito's involvement. What direct evidence was there that Knox killed Kercher? Not Sollecito's footprint or dna on a knife, but something to connect Knox.

 

Even if Knox lied about everything, thats not enough proof to convict "beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

And its interesting you said its odd behavior to s*** in someones bathroom and take a shower, isnt even odder behavior to do that after committing murder? I mean you have to admit that the facts are pretty odd and there is really very little evidence that Knox committed murder.

 

Perhaps obstruction of justice, conspiracy to commit murder, etc, but I just dont see any hard evidence that Knox killed her.

Knox's blood was found in the bathroom.

 

And the point of the s*** is not that Knox did it and it's weird, rather that someone else (Guede) did and she left it there because she knew there was a body in the house (according to her story she didn't know this at the time she claimed she was doing her hair) and she wished to have evidence present that she was not the only one there. According to Knox, she entered the bathroom, saw the feces which had been there overnight, and proceded to blow-dry her hair without flushing the toilet. The police reported that she had a mini panic attack when she thought it had disappeared until it was confirmed it had sunk beneath easy sight.

[Soxbadger]

Her blood was found in the bathroom of the apartment she lived in.

 

Im still not seeing how this is beyond a reasonable doubt murder conviction. Was her blood found on Kercher? Was her dna under fingernails etc? What evidence do we have to tie Knox to the actual murder, besides for you dont believe her story and think shes lying.

 

Because thats enough to convict for murder.

[Feeky Magee]

Her blood was found in the bathroom of the apartment she lived in.

 

Im still not seeing how this is beyond a reasonable doubt murder conviction. Was her blood found on Kercher? Was her dna under fingernails etc? What evidence do we have to tie Knox to the actual murder, besides for you dont believe her story and think shes lying.

 

Because thats enough to convict for murder.

Her fresh blood, together with the blood of the recently murdered Kercher. Coupled with the evidence of multiple attackers the masses of circumstantial evidence - the false accusal, the busted alibi, the staged break-in, the behaviour to the postal police, the phone calls,; couple with the even stronger masses of both direct and circumstantial evidence against Solecitto, was enough for, I believe, four judges and 12 lay judges to find them guilty. Bearing in mind that it would be an enormous stretch to envisage Solecitto being involved but not Knox.

[Soxbadger]

But once again, nothing you stated proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Knox did it. It certainly raises suspicion, maybe its even more likely than not that she did it. But if the Italian law is "beyond a reasonable doubt" that is not enough. Its not just enough to be a liar and circumstantially placed at the scene of the crime.

 

Why?

 

Because associating with someone who may be a murder doesnt make you a murder. Lying to police to protect your murdering boyfriend and his friends, doesnt make you a murderer.

 

Thats the problem with the argument. There is pretty much 0 evidence to suggest Knox actually stabbed or was involved in the murder of Kutcher.

 

Was it possible she was there? Sure, perhaps in Italy there is some sort of felony murder rule that states if you are involved in the commission of a crime that results in the murder you can be convicted of murder, but Ive yet to see you make that argument.

 

And "enormous stretch" is exactly what the test should be. Beyond reasonable doubt means that you have NO question that Knox actually murdered her. The proper interpretation is that non of the jury should have ANY doubt as to her guilt.

 

Im sorry but Id rather let 1000 criminals go free than 1 innocent person be wrongly convicted. The evidence just isnt there.

[StrangeSox]

OTOH the US is no stranger to convicting people of murder on only shaky-at-best circumstantial evidence.

[Texsox]

Sidebar

 

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/03/ital-m06.html

 

I wonder how Italians responded when this verdict came in.

[greg775]

Is Knox a murderer or not? The case has been decided a few times now. What do you say Soxtalk people? Is she a murderer??

[cabiness42]

Is Knox a murderer or not? The case has been decided a few times now. What do you say Soxtalk people? Is she a murderer??

 

Based on what I've read about the case, I would lean towards not guilty, but I'm not 100% certain. In any case, the fact that the Italian justice system allows for double jeopardy is ridiculous, and as I said earlier, Italian tourism seems likely to suffer if they don't make this go away.

[greg775]

Based on what I've read about the case, I would lean towards not guilty, but I'm not 100% certain. In any case, the fact that the Italian justice system allows for double jeopardy is ridiculous, and as I said earlier, Italian tourism seems likely to suffer if they don't make this go away.

 

Thanks, Hickory.

[nitetrain8601]

I personally think she is guilty. All the evidence suggests she is. All the arguments against it are funny, in that they're more circumstantial and guessing than any evidence suggesting she is guilty.

 

It's possible measurements were off

I need an air tight motive

She lied about 80% of what actually went on, but so what?

 

I think we as Americans have become elitist snobs about everything we do. Fact is, if the crime happened in the US, and it was Italians who were tried, we wouldn't care or we would come to a conclusion that she's guilty and the Italians need to extradite their own because our system is better than theirs.

 

I also don't think this will stop tourism or slow it down one bit in Italy unless you're scared with the person you're traveling with.

[nitetrain8601]

BTW,

 

Here's a good read about the case which doesn't know have opinions one way or the other on what happened. Just presents the facts in the case. I usually go to this site to read about big time crimes like this:

 

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murd...nda_knox/1.html

[southsider2k5]

BTW,

 

Here's a good read about the case which doesn't know have opinions one way or the other on what happened. Just presents the facts in the case. I usually go to this site to read about big time crimes like this:

 

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murd...nda_knox/1.html

 

It was kind of hard to call it factual when the first page had this paragraph.

 

Lurid British, Italian and American tabloid coverage and unsolicited grassroots efforts to prove Amanda's innocence by alleging police misconduct casting doubt on the Italian judicial system have transformed the case into a media circus, its sensational headlines eclipsing the sad fate of young Meredith Kercher.

[nitetrain8601]

It was kind of hard to call it factual when the first page had this paragraph.

 

How is that not factual? Half the people don't even know who Amanda Knox is accused of killing.

[greg775]

What's going to happen? Would our government ever send her over there to be thrown in the slammer? Would our govtment cooperate?

[cabiness42]

Just saw this:

 

http://www.kgw.com/news/Italian-show-claim...-258465671.html

 

An investigative TV show in Italy has challenged the alibi of Amanda Knox.

 

"Quatro Grado" released surveillance video apparently showing a woman resembling Knox. You can see the woman walking through a parking lot near the home Knox shared with Meredith Kercher. The footage was reportedly recorded the night of Kercher's murder.

 

Knox has maintained she spent the evening at the home of her then-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito.

 

KING 5's Linda Byron has been covering the Amanda Knox case from the very beginning and weighs in on the video.