I have a suspicion based on nothing more than instinct and absolutely zero facts that she knows a little bit more about the murder than she's letting on. There's no evidence to say that she was involved but there's something just not kosher about her denials.
The actual hard evidence against her was weak to non-existent - but she made things difficult for herself. Not only did she finger an innocent man (Lumumba) but cavorted and played around in the police station, doing cartwheels and the splits and was overheard promising her bf "wild sex" while the police were investigating the crime scene and was also photographed kissing him outside the house while the police were inside. Strange behaviour for someone who's housemate and friend had just been brutally murdered. Then she made a tearful confession to being involved in the murder before retracting it and there were various other discrepancies in her testimony. So I can see why the police considered her a suspect and why the court found her guilty. It was obvious that there was more than one person involved in the attack on Meredith Kercher so who better to suspect than her apparently unconcerned flatmate who kept changing her evidence and was happy to shift the blame on to someone she knew was not guilty?
Odd behaviour for sure, and she didn't cover herself in glory, however her testimony was extracted without a solicitor present by a prosecutor who (I think) is or was subsequently investigated for illegal intimidation. She may well be the unpleasant character she was portrayed as but the Italian judiciary seemed unable to rise above that and consider the facts and circumstances in an objective way.
Bravery? Berlusconi? So is this the war against the Mafia that the Italian judiciary have been pursuing since the 80's? Not sure what Berlusconi had to do with it back then, indeed there's more allegations as to his links with the mafia; though most are a bit tenuous. There has been countless cases and trials against Berlusconi, sure he moves the goalposts by changing the length of time for the statute of limitations. Let's face it though anybody in office, or economically and politically on the up-slope are rarely taking to court. It is nearly always on the down-slope that people are attacked or porperly investigated. Whether that be Parmalat or Enron, or the individuals such as Carlisto Tanzi or Kenneth Lay.
I agree with you Lincs over forensic evidence, not that I necessarily don't trust it, just that too often the police use as a piece of main evidence. They all too regularly, as with the case of Barry Bulsara, vehemently pursue forensic evidence when there is scant-else evidence and often no clear DNA evidence at the scene. Expert witnesses like Roy Meadows, who struggled with simple statistics that a young teenager could understand, are a beloved aspect of many police forces/investigations across the world.
Whoever bemoans the three tiered system in Italy, isn't that what we've got? Trial, Appeal Court, then appeal to the Supreme Court? I might be wrong but I think that's the same for English civil and criminal law. Whatever that has to do with double jeopardy I don't know. Funny that Roy Meadows ridiculous stats, were the reason for an appeal and brought excessive pressure on other 'expert' witnesses who withheld information. Without the pressure of intensive re-evaluation that an appeals process brings, much dubious prosecution evidence is not properly evaluated.
I have a suspicion based on nothing more than instinct and absolutely zero facts that she knows a little bit more about the murder than she's letting on. There's no evidence to say that she was involved but there's something just not kosher about her denials.
I suspect that all the boys and girls were stoned out of their collective brains and when the party was over, Meredith was dead and no-one really understood or remembered why or how it all went wrong. A bit like a scene from American Psycho. One thing is for sure, 'Foxy' will never be allowed to live a 'normal' life
Oh and I didn't say 'It sickened me....'. Though I agree with Leroy's sentiment, not the particular 'sickened' bit, as money or individuals/cases with interest to the core of society always have a chance in the appeals court or to circumvent legal procedures; Sally Clark, Colin Stagg, Lord Lucan and John law spring to mind. Some young male from the wrong side of town will always struggle to have a decent legal team behind them, which is what I'm sure Leroy is mainly getting at.
An interesting piece. No system is perfect and at least with the Napoleonic system the idea is that a team works together to determine the 'truth' as opposed to the Anglo Saxon system which is a joust between 2 opponents who look for a victory and if the truth emeges, so be it, but the 'truth' is not really important to either party. There are pros and cons in either system and at present there is a huge furore in France where the Govt is keen to move more towards the Anglo system as it's felt that Judges and Magistrates have too much power in criminal cases.
The English appeals system is 2 fold, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (ex House of Lords), but, leave to appeal must be granted by a district judge and if that is refused, there can be an appeal against the refusal of leave to appeal. Cold cases have brought in a degree of double jeapordy in that cases can be retried if new evidence comes to light, e.g. DNA. I believe that the first case where a defendant was retried and found guilty after previously being found not guilty took place fairly recently. And that is as it should be, provided that all the necessary safeguards to prevent miscarriages are in place, that is, the defence get the same scientific facilities as the prosecution. The right of appeal by the prosecution agaianst a perceived over lenient sentence has been in place for a few years.
I thought Berlusconi was more of a Lombard man than a mafia man !!!!
I believe that the first case where a defendant was retried and found guilty after previously being found not guilty took place fairly recently. ...........
As an aside double jeopardy in the UK was scrapped in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act - but only when new evidence is presented. The next stage is the Court of Appeals (Crim div) which can overthrow the acquittal. There is one high profile case where this has happened - Gary Dobson, who was acquitted of murdering Stephen Lawrence had his acquittal overturned earlier this year and was subsequently charged with his murder (David Norris was also charged, but he wasn't charged, let alone acquitted in the private prosecution in 1995). I think that case is scheduled to be heard this November. In his case some of Stepen Lawrence's dna was found on some clothing which possibly links him to the murder.
However the evidence against Knox was pathetically weak. Hard to avoid the conclusion that the Italian system failed, to the massive detriment of Amanda Knox and the Kerscher family.
You can't have read much about the case. The circumstantial evidence against her was overwhelming. She definately tried to frame her former boss (and was found guilty of that); she lied to police repeatedly - saying she was at her boyfriend's house all night when she was at the house where the murder took place then when her boyfriend says she wasn't saying she was at home but asleep, then when her mobile phone shows her making calls in the middle of teh night saying she was in the kitchen when teh murder took place but didn't hear anything) she bought a shit load of bleach and cleaning material at 7: 45 a.m. She knew a lot about the details of the murder that she could not have done without being involved e.g. saying that her prints had been grafted onto the murder weapon while she was asleep before anyone had told her what the murder weapon was.
I believe that the first case where a defendant was retried and found guilty after previously being found not guilty took place fairly recently. ...........
As an aside double jeopardy in the UK was scrapped in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act - but only when new evidence is presented. The next stage is the Court of Appeals (Crim div) which can overthrow the acquittal. There is one high profile case where this has happened - Gary Dobson, who was acquitted of murdering Stephen Lawrence had his acquittal overturned earlier this year and was subsequently charged with his murder (David Norris was also charged, but he wasn't charged, let alone acquitted in the private prosecution in 1995). I think that case is scheduled to be heard this November. In his case some of Stepen Lawrence's dna was found on some clothing which possibly links him to the murder.
Can we reserve a thread on CL now for the November Stephen Lawrence debate, I would like to order a front row seat with nachos and melted cheese please.
Knox fervently denies the 'strange' behavior at the police station, which was widely reported in the media as 'complete lies'. Don't think anyone can really say whether she was doing cartwheels in the police station.
On 13 December 2010, Mark Weston became the first person to be convicted of murder after previously being found not guilty of the same offence, that of the murder of Vikki Thompson at Ascott-under-Wychwood on 12 August 1995. Weston's first trial was in 1996, when the jury found him not guilty. Following the discovery of compelling new evidence in 2009 – Thompson's blood on Weston's boots – Weston was arrested in 2009 and tried for a second time in December 2010, when he was found guilty of Thompson's murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment to serve a minimum of 13 years.[26]
Knox fervently denies the 'strange' behavior at the police station, which was widely reported in the media as 'complete lies'. Don't think anyone can really say whether she was doing cartwheels in the police station.
That is one thing - but a youtube video exists of her kissing and canoodling with the BF outside the house as though they were waiting for the door to be answered by a friend. The thing was the police were inside investigating a murder scene. Hardly the sort of behvaiour that you'd expect from someone who was shocked and distraught at the brutal murder of a housemate. It's almost as though she wasn't surprised at what the police had found.
It's interesting how so many of us can see the same coverage and evidence and come up with completely different view points.
I live in Canada and they've had blanket coverage of the Knox case on CNN. Obviously this has US slant on things and I have never heard anything about cartwheels in the police station. I did see some coverage of her kissing her fella when the police were inside the house, but didn't see anything bad there. It just looked like she was seeking comfort from her boyfriend during a traumatic time. Here they talked about her "confession" and fitting up her ex boss, but it was described as being cajooled out of her as the police were asking her to imagine different scenarios as to how she felt things MIGHT have happened.This was after she had been interrogated for 3 days straight and was pressed to her limits.
The over riding sentiment here in North America is that she was convicted on tremendously dodgy evidence, by a prosecutor who has previous for wrongful convictions and had made his mind up before there was any firm evidence that she and her fella were guilty. Couple that with shoddy police work and possible tainting of evidence, it's no wonder she was released on appeal.
I'm not saying that it was the right decision, I have no idea. But our opinions are all shaped somewhat by the media coverage. The victim was from the UK and the English media, perhaps, had their coverage shaped by that fact. Whereas the alleged murderer was a US "sweet" college girl and the media here had a completely different view point.
It would be interesting to see what the media coverage in the UK and the US would have been had the (for want of a better term) roles been reversed. And also how peoples perceptions on this forum were different.
For what it's worth - my insight on this being from a very much US media perspective - I think it was a travesty she was convicted in the first place. She doesn't come across as capable of the crime she was convicted of and eventually the Italian justice system has made the right decision.
EDIT: haha... just rereading my slightly drunken post and realize I have contradicted myself slightly. I guess I don't KNOW it was the right decision, but in my opinion they made the correct decision in the end. I'm going to bed.
Personally haven't really paid much attention to the media coverage so don't know which way it's been slanted. My view has been shaped by a thread on a poker forum of all places. Sounds a stupid place to be informed but there's some serious well-informed people on there (mostly Americans) and it's impossible not to read the debate without concluding that the evidence against Knox is overwhelming.
Itv will be interesting to see if the prosecution do appeal. Knox will not be extradicted because the americans do not do that whereas we roll over whenever they want a british citizen dragged over there.
Personally I think she is gulty but its based on newspaper reports anbd having been on a juiry in the past and seen the misreporting of cases by the press, I know you really cannot believe every thing that you read in the press.
The US press will have their own slant on the story behind their "sweet college girl" and the European press will have theirs, the truth is there with Knox.
Of course we should never forget why there was a trial. But also we don't really know the full extent of Knox's guilt or innocence. It is one of those things where the decision felt right given lack of evidence. There may have been a degree of guilt that we will never know of but I don't think she killed her or set out to kill her. When an injustice is done and a young person loses their life, you want justice and this case leaves more questions than answers -it's messy. It requires silence and reflection and certainly not all this nonsence like 'she is a pretty girl and can make millions' and the disgusting 'would ya'. Sad how low this world can get really.
@Crazy - interesting point about the canoodling, I read about it and I thought they'd been dry humping in the murder scene whereas when I saw it, it looked very much like a comfort hug/peck
Good post, all round. Nobody really knows anymore. People nowadays love to assume that they have an inside line on a complicated investigation because they've seen 2 minutes of Sky News and scanned the soaraway Sun.
Personally haven't really paid much attention to the media coverage so don't know which way it's been slanted. My view has been shaped by a thread on a poker forum of all places. Sounds a stupid place to be informed but there's some serious well-informed people on there (mostly Americans) and it's impossible not to read the debate without concluding that the evidence against Knox is overwhelming.
LOL. Pokercast gives it's verdict, who is going to question that? Which comment did you find most convincing? I personally liked
"I'm going to need to see Amanda Knox naked before I can draw any conclusions".
I then skipped to page 201 but they still didn't seem to have reached a consensus and were trading the same internet babble that is on here. Discussion about the supposedly suspicious videotape of 'canoodling' being a case in point.
Oddly enough, the best source of fact and analysis in these matters usually comes from published Court decisions (popular opinion notwithstanding, the Courts generally do know best) - for a good example see my earlier link to the Troy Davis case. I believe a published decision is to be provided in the Knox case under the Italian legal system so we can resume the debate when that comes out perhaps.
It's interesting how so many of us can see the same coverage and evidence and come up with completely different view points.
I live in Canada and they've had blanket coverage of the Knox case on CNN. Obviously this has US slant on things and I have never heard anything about cartwheels in the police station. I did see some coverage of her kissing her fella when the police were inside the house, but didn't see anything bad there. It just looked like she was seeking comfort from her boyfriend during a traumatic time. Here they talked about her "confession" and fitting up her ex boss, but it was described as being cajooled out of her as the police were asking her to imagine different scenarios as to how she felt things MIGHT have happened.This was after she had been interrogated for 3 days straight and was pressed to her limits.
The over riding sentiment here in North America is that she was convicted on tremendously dodgy evidence, by a prosecutor who has previous for wrongful convictions and had made his mind up before there was any firm evidence that she and her fella were guilty. Couple that with shoddy police work and possible tainting of evidence, it's no wonder she was released on appeal.
I'm not saying that it was the right decision, I have no idea. But our opinions are all shaped somewhat by the media coverage. The victim was from the UK and the English media, perhaps, had their coverage shaped by that fact. Whereas the alleged murderer was a US "sweet" college girl and the media here had a completely different view point.
It would be interesting to see what the media coverage in the UK and the US would have been had the (for want of a better term) roles been reversed. And also how peoples perceptions on this forum were different.
For what it's worth - my insight on this being from a very much US media perspective - I think it was a travesty she was convicted in the first place. She doesn't come across as capable of the crime she was convicted of and eventually the Italian justice system has made the right decision.
EDIT: haha... just rereading my slightly drunken post and realize I have contradicted myself slightly. I guess I don't KNOW it was the right decision, but in my opinion they made the correct decision in the end. I'm going to bed.
Comments
I have a suspicion based on nothing more than instinct and absolutely zero facts that she knows a little bit more about the murder than she's letting on. There's no evidence to say that she was involved but there's something just not kosher about her denials.
@ColinTat
An interesting piece. No system is perfect and at least with the Napoleonic system the idea is that a team works together to determine the 'truth' as opposed to the Anglo Saxon system which is a joust between 2 opponents who look for a victory and if the truth emeges, so be it, but the 'truth' is not really important to either party. There are pros and cons in either system and at present there is a huge furore in France where the Govt is keen to move more towards the Anglo system as it's felt that Judges and Magistrates have too much power in criminal cases.
The English appeals system is 2 fold, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (ex House of Lords), but, leave to appeal must be granted by a district judge and if that is refused, there can be an appeal against the refusal of leave to appeal. Cold cases have brought in a degree of double jeapordy in that cases can be retried if new evidence comes to light, e.g. DNA. I believe that the first case where a defendant was retried and found guilty after previously being found not guilty took place fairly recently. And that is as it should be, provided that all the necessary safeguards to prevent miscarriages are in place, that is, the defence get the same scientific facilities as the prosecution. The right of appeal by the prosecution agaianst a perceived over lenient sentence has been in place for a few years.
I thought Berlusconi was more of a Lombard man than a mafia man !!!!
...........
As an aside double jeopardy in the UK was scrapped in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act - but only when new evidence is presented. The next stage is the Court of Appeals (Crim div) which can overthrow the acquittal. There is one high profile case where this has happened - Gary Dobson, who was acquitted of murdering Stephen Lawrence had his acquittal overturned earlier this year and was subsequently charged with his murder (David Norris was also charged, but he wasn't charged, let alone acquitted in the private prosecution in 1995). I think that case is scheduled to be heard this November. In his case some of Stepen Lawrence's dna was found on some clothing which possibly links him to the murder.
...........
Same difference - but a different name.
A miscarriage of justice, another American? This case (link below) was bigger than the OJ Simpson Trial in the US recently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Caylee_Anthony
On 13 December 2010, Mark Weston became the first person to be convicted of murder after previously being found not guilty of the same offence, that of the murder of Vikki Thompson at Ascott-under-Wychwood on 12 August 1995. Weston's first trial was in 1996, when the jury found him not guilty. Following the discovery of compelling new evidence in 2009 – Thompson's blood on Weston's boots – Weston was arrested in 2009 and tried for a second time in December 2010, when he was found guilty of Thompson's murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment to serve a minimum of 13 years.[26]
Why has the font gone all Lilliputian?
That is one thing - but a youtube video exists of her kissing and canoodling with the BF outside the house as though they were waiting for the door to be answered by a friend. The thing was the police were inside investigating a murder scene. Hardly the sort of behvaiour that you'd expect from someone who was shocked and distraught at the brutal murder of a housemate. It's almost as though she wasn't surprised at what the police had found.
Hmmm, I reckon you'd be up for a slice though mate?
What about the pink then?
I live in Canada and they've had blanket coverage of the Knox case on CNN. Obviously this has US slant on things and I have never heard anything about cartwheels in the police station. I did see some coverage of her kissing her fella when the police were inside the house, but didn't see anything bad there. It just looked like she was seeking comfort from her boyfriend during a traumatic time. Here they talked about her "confession" and fitting up her ex boss, but it was described as being cajooled out of her as the police were asking her to imagine different scenarios as to how she felt things MIGHT have happened.This was after she had been interrogated for 3 days straight and was pressed to her limits.
The over riding sentiment here in North America is that she was convicted on tremendously dodgy evidence, by a prosecutor who has previous for wrongful convictions and had made his mind up before there was any firm evidence that she and her fella were guilty. Couple that with shoddy police work and possible tainting of evidence, it's no wonder she was released on appeal.
I'm not saying that it was the right decision, I have no idea. But our opinions are all shaped somewhat by the media coverage. The victim was from the UK and the English media, perhaps, had their coverage shaped by that fact. Whereas the alleged murderer was a US "sweet" college girl and the media here had a completely different view point.
It would be interesting to see what the media coverage in the UK and the US would have been had the (for want of a better term) roles been reversed. And also how peoples perceptions on this forum were different.
For what it's worth - my insight on this being from a very much US media perspective - I think it was a travesty she was convicted in the first place. She doesn't come across as capable of the crime she was convicted of and eventually the Italian justice system has made the right decision.
EDIT: haha... just rereading my slightly drunken post and realize I have contradicted myself slightly. I guess I don't KNOW it was the right decision, but in my opinion they made the correct decision in the end. I'm going to bed.
EDIT 2: I would.
Personally haven't really paid much attention to the media coverage so don't know which way it's been slanted. My view has been shaped by a thread on a poker forum of all places. Sounds a stupid place to be informed but there's some serious well-informed people on there (mostly Americans) and it's impossible not to read the debate without concluding that the evidence against Knox is overwhelming.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/34/other-other-topics/amanda-knox-innocent-american-trial-italy-cold-blooded-murderer-648983/
Personally I think she is gulty but its based on newspaper reports anbd having been on a juiry in the past and seen the misreporting of cases by the press, I know you really cannot believe every thing that you read in the press.
The US press will have their own slant on the story behind their "sweet college girl" and the European press will have theirs, the truth is there with Knox.
@Crazy - interesting point about the canoodling, I read about it and I thought they'd been dry humping in the murder scene whereas when I saw it, it looked very much like a comfort hug/peck
Good post, all round. Nobody really knows anymore. People nowadays love to assume that they have an inside line on a complicated investigation because they've seen 2 minutes of Sky News and scanned the soaraway Sun.
So, who shot JFK?