Amanda Knox and the Murder Mystery

[robertlouis]

The Italian justice system is notorious for its incompetence, corruption and labyrinthine processes.

I recommend The Monster of Florence by Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi as a primer. It's a true story about a serial killer of women in and around the city of Florence from the 70s onwards, which (probably) involves the police, the judiciary and the church in a hideous cover-up. The co-authors were arrested and persecuted by the police for having the temerity to challenge the establishment's preferred view. It reads like a thriller, because that's what it is.

The truth about Meredith Kercher's murder will never be known because the Italians, who excel in many other things, are utterly shite at justice.

[broncofan]

The truth about Meredith Kercher's murder will never be known because the Italians, who excel in many other things, are utterly shite at justice.

I'll take a look at the book. Though I don't think everything there is to know will be known with certainty, the evidence does seem to speak pretty loudly.

The evidence against Rudy Guede for instance would have no trouble reaching a burden of proof in almost any country in the world. Admission that he was at the scene, a trove of dna evidence corroborating that, a history of carrying around a knife (the admissibility of which I discussed in my last post), fleeing the country and being found with a cut on his hand. Also consider the fact that the murder happened within the span of him going to the restroom according to his story, by people who were not in the room according to him when he left for the restroom.

On the other hand, Amanda Knox and Sollecito's dna confined to a bra clasp. If someone told you the procedures for collecting the dna were impeccable, it simply would not make sense that one person's dna is everywhere, but other people who were in the room leave a trace on a small, discrete object. The fact that his dna is everywhere indicates nobody wiped down the room.

I hate to be dogmatic about this, but I have trouble seeing both sides of this.

[bte]

When I was living in Italy, this trial was pretty big news. I haven't followed it in years, although just recently she was found not innocent and moved back to WA. Although when I first heard about the trial, my conclusion was she was guilty.

[Stavros]

Can you recall why you thought she was guilty? The press coverage has been remarkable for its indifference to facts, not least as more have emerged about the crime itself and the manner in which Amanda Knox conducted herself. Even though there is no evidence that she and Raffaele were even in the house that night, the original claim that Rudy Guede could not have acted alone has been an albatross on the trial, as well as the cheap sensationalism that needs a wicked American girl who is anything but innocent. The Court of Cassation has now even changed the motive, yet has not apparently explored the issue of uncleanliness in the top floor apartment by bringing in the other two (Italian) residents who also used the kitchen and bathrooms...the more you look at this, the worse it gets for Italian justice. And it is not as if there haven't been miscarriages of justice in the UK or the USA, it happens to us all.

[broncofan]

It's difficult to judge other legal systems because all have bad outcomes and it requires a lot of information about each to be able to make that criticism. What I think is a major problem are the rules of evidence used at the initial trial.

In the U.S legal system the Judge plays the role of gatekeeper for evidence of dubious value. For instance you do not get to say someone was involved in a sex game that went awry, unless you can make a baseline showing that that's what happened. It's the idea of conditional relevance. The fact that a sex game can lead to murder is only relevant if there was in fact a sex game.

Prosecutors in the U.S want what is called an anti-CSI instruction to be given to juries here. This instruction would tell juries that they do not need forensic evidence to convict someone of a crime. Prosecutors claim that based on recent television shows, jurors now bring with them the expectation that there will be dna evidence in every trial. But while it's true that you do not need forensic evidence to convict, for every type of evidence you are missing, you come farther and farther from sustaining a burden of proof. There is no eyewitness testimony putting them at the scene. No physical proof. No confession. No really solid, proven motive.

All you have is the fact that in a very long police interview that bordered on an interrogation, she appeared to behave like a flake. She implicated someone who had nothing to do with the crime...if you could sustain murder charges based on someone's peculiar behavior after the fact, you could probably convict anyone.

[broncofan]

the original claim that Rudy Guede could not have acted alone has been an albatross on the trial

I agree. Any assumption that is not really rational and is never re-examined is problematic. A murder doesn't require a quorum of more than one.

[robertlouis]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm personally disgusted by the 100% media attention focused on Amanda Knox to the almost complete exclusion of any sympathy or consideration for the real victim.

Remember, the girl who actually died? Her name was Meredith Kercher, and since the tragedy of her loss her family have conducted themselves consistently with dignity and restraint, unlike Ms Knox.

Innocent or guilty, her conduct and that of the fucked-up circus that surrounds her is utterly shameful.

[broncofan]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm personally disgusted by the 100% media attention focused on Amanda Knox to the almost complete exclusion of any sympathy or consideration for the real victim.

Remember, the girl who actually died? Her name was Meredith Kercher, and since the tragedy of her loss her family have conducted themselves consistently with dignity and restraint, unlike Ms Knox.

Innocent or guilty, her conduct and that of the fucked-up circus that surrounds her is utterly shameful.

Amanda Knox' bad judgment to begin with is probably what got her locked up. It's a sad thing but at a trial, the victim doesn't get nearly as much attention as the person accused of their murder. It's also true of the media coverage because the coverage is of the matters pending, which are guilt or innocence in the proceeding.

Imagine if you were accused of a heinous crime and when you tried to mount a defense you were accused of not showing proper respect for the victim of that crime. That sentiment is based in large part on the assumption that you had something to do with it. If you did not, then you'd be saying, "my claim that I was not involved in the crime is not a claim that there was no crime or that the crime committed was not heinous."

[broncofan]

But I agree with you Robert that it was a terrible and brutal crime.

[robertlouis]

Amanda Knox' bad judgment to begin with is probably what got her locked up. It's a sad thing but at a trial, the victim doesn't get nearly as much attention as the person accused of their murder. It's also true of the media coverage because the coverage is of the matters pending, which are guilt or innocence in the proceeding.

Imagine if you were accused of a heinous crime and when you tried to mount a defense you were accused of not showing proper respect for the victim of that crime. That sentiment is based in large part on the assumption that you had something to do with it. If you did not, then you'd be saying, "my claim that I was not involved in the crime is not a claim that there was no crime or that the crime committed was not heinous."

I'm not disputing anything you say in this post, but it doesn't address my central point which is that as far as the US media and public are concerned, this is all about Amanda Knox and the original victim of the crime can go to hell.

Am I angry about this? You bet I am.