"that there's, oh, nothing on TV one night so they brutally murder one of their roommates"

Don't be ridiculous, she obviously was able to distinguish and clean up only her DNA at the crime scene.

Also how can a justice system that tells one of their prisoners that she has HIV in order to have her list all her sexual partners and leak it to the press be anything but just?

What's troubling is people in Europe believe this....despite the prosecutor having been in hot water for doing this to other people.

(I think Amanda being pretty worked against her favor)

...Ppen, don't forget the fact that she was doing YOGA in the police station and HUGGING/KISSING her boyfriend. And THEN, after they were interrogated, she went out and went CLOTHES SHOPPING.

I mean, these are all clearly actions of a devil-worshiping murderer. If I were a 20-year-old student who was interrogated all night in a language I could barely understand about my roommate's brutal murder, you wouldn't find ME using relaxation techniques, seeking comfort or trying to get some clean clothes after my apartment was closed off as a crime scene. GUILTY, I say.

http://www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/alan-dershowitz-amanda-knox-murder-trial/2014/01/31/id/550244

Alan Dershowitz disagrees, and so do I.

"First they were guilty, then they weren't, now they are again. In the United States, this is commonly referred to as double jeopardy ."

I'm not sure if that is an accurate statement. Double jeopardy, I always thought, means that you cannot be tried for the same crime more than once unless there is new evidence.

My understanding (and granted, I haven't really followed this case, so I could be completely wrong) is that it wasn't a new trial; it was higher courts overviewing the case.

My understanding is that the case went like this: the original trial found them guilty, a higher court overturned that guilty verdict, and now an even higher court has overturned the overturn. Doesn't this happen in the US? Don't we also have cases that work their way though the system appealing to an even higher court each time, eventually ending up at the Supreme Court?

One problem I see is that the news media, as with most stories, goes for "an angle" and isn't interested in the facts. They are more interested in what sells. As a result, I don't expect to hear what really happened, or even to hear an unbiased view of how the Italian court system works.

Isab, Thanks for that link. It is good to see another viewpoint.

Dershowitz is stating distortions by the media and prosecution, not going by evidence.

Doesn't this happen in the US? Don't we also have cases that work their way though the system appealing to an even higher court each time, eventually ending up at the Supreme Court?

In the U.S., a defendant can appeal a guilty verdict but the prosecution can't appeal an acquittal, which is what happened here.

The conviction of Gerald Amirault might prove instructive for those who think nothing like that can happen here.

Dershowitz is stating distortions by the media and prosecution, not going by evidence.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 12, 2014 8:48 AM

Yes, and "your friend" is part of the media who wrote a book on the case to profit from the media circus.

I think there was enough evidence to convict Amanda Knox in a US court.
Dershowitz agrees.

In fact he states, if you read the article, that there are people sitting in US prisons with far less evidence against them, than was used to convict Amanda Knox.

The media very cleverly has picked out a few doubtful threads of physical evidence and tried to destroy the case with those.

The main evidence against Amanda Knox and her boyfriend, was the testimony of Rudy Guede, her drug dealer who is already sitting in jail for the murder.

You can believe it or not, but don't pretend that Amanda Knox didn't lie to the police repeatedly about where she was and what happened that night. She tried to cover for Guede by accusing someone else. The time she spent in prison already was for being convicted for that false accusation.

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

I tend to agree with Isab and think she is guilty, but they had their one bite at the apple and that is enough. We don't keep trying people until we get a favorable, or should I say popular, outcome. I wouldn't be in favor of extradition for her. She did spend some time in jail and this will follow her, her whole life.

Andrew Gumbel, who also wrote a book on the Oklahoma bombing case, is a person and a journalist I find to be of impeccable integrity. He's not about to distort or lie for a buck -- if he were, he'd be in a different profession. (You really don't make that much money for journalistic lies. You can do far better in advertising.)

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 12, 2014 9:39 AM

Having integrity isn't enough. You also need to be unbiased, and a subject matter expert on evidence and courts of law.

I don't doubt his intentions. I am just calling him "wrong" and also unqualified to form an objective opinion. He is a journalist, not a legal scholar. He chose to believe Amanda Knox. I don't.

It really is that simple.

Dershowitz, on the other hand, is a highly respected legal scholar who is a subject matter expert with no personal interest in this case.

The facts of the case, which I linked to, support his opinion.

No one is being railroaded here. Italy has a perfectly valid judicial system, with multiple opportunities for appeal.

In the U.S., a defendant can appeal a guilty verdict but the prosecution can't appeal an acquittal, which is what happened here.

That's because the burden of proof in the English common law (our legal system's ancestor) evolved to fall upon the accuser (later embodied in the prosecution). This evolved because the Normans who conquered England did not speak the language and relied on juries who understood local customs and idioms to adjudicate guilt.

In countries whose legal systems evolved from the Code of Justinian, Canon Law, and the Napoleonic Code, the burden of proof is on the accused. Under such a system, it is the duty of the state to investigate crimes and to only bring charges if there is sufficient evidence to justify them. If accused, the defendant has the duty to try to show the state where it is was wrong in its investigation. (See Victor Hugo's Les Miserables)

Isab and Derschowitz are right that there are people in jail in the U.S. on the basis of less evidence but Amanda Knox would not have been one of them. Anyone with a decent lawyer would have torn up the mishandling of evidence and interrogation in a U.S. courtroom. Guede placed Knox and Sollecito at the crime scene in exchange for a reduction in his sentence. He will get out soon and serve significantly less time than the Italians want the other two to serve.

Insofar as I have an opinion, I think Knox and Sollecito are innocent but more broadly, they certainly should not have been convicted on the basis of the shoddy case handling and prosecution.

Isab and Derschowitz are right that there are people in jail in the U.S. on the basis of less evidence but Amanda Knox would not have been one of them. Anyone with a decent lawyer would have torn up the mishandling of evidence and interrogation in a U.S. courtroom. Guede placed Knox and Sollecito at the crime scene in exchange for a reduction in his sentence. He will get out soon and serve significantly less time than the Italians want the other two to serve.

Insofar as I have an opinion, I think Knox and Sollecito are innocent but more broadly, they certainly should not have been convicted on the basis of the shoddy case handling and prosecution.

Posted by: Astra at February 12, 2014 11:38 AM

You are mischaracterizing the evidence against her. There is and was a lot more than just Guede's testimony.

She lied to the police, and her lies were substantial enough to get her convicted of the Italian equivalent of perjury.

There was no evidence she was anywhere other than her apartment that night cleaning up the crime scene,

Did you even read the wiki article on the case?

If I have any sympathy here, it is entirely with the family of the victim, Meredith Kercher.

Also Astra, you mischaracterized the second and third looks at the evidence as "trials". It is all just a standard part of the Italian appeals process, very similar to what we have in the US, but actually more fair because they look at both the facts and the law.

They were not out to "get her" anymore than LA was out to get OJ.

But, you know what? I can't reason people out of opinions they did not reach through reason.

In this case, two very guilty people may very well go free, which happens frequently.

What I really resent is the media campaign to turn her into some kind of martyr.

A lot of you seem to be under the impression that in order to be guilty of murder, in either Italy or the USA, you actually have to be the one holding the knife, or with your finger on the trigger.

This is a poor understanding of both the murder statutes, and the conspiracy statues of both countries.

I don't believe that Amanda Knox was the one wielding the knife that night.
If you think this makes her "innocent" of the crime, you need to understand the legal system better.

For a good example, guess what happens to the guy driving the get away car in an armed bank robbery where where either a bank employee, or a bystander gets killed?

It is capital murder because the get away driver was a participant in the underlying crime,that led to the murder.

Innocent people don't spend hours trying to clean up the crime scene,which they have Amanda Knox dead to rights on,

and they don't not call the police, which she NEVER did,

and they don't attempt to implicate their boss, to cover up the fact that their drug dealing friend was the one that actually stabbed Meredith Kurcher to death.

Amanda Knox , at best, is a piece of shit, not a sweet little martyr.

But, you know what? I can't reason people out of opinions they did not reach through reason.

How odd that you assume anyone disagreeing with you is not reasoning. At no point did I say "trial" -- I was very clear in my use of "appeal." I also did not go into detail in my post because I was not aware that anything other than a blow by blow account would be taken as evidence of ignorance. I stated broadly that I believe Knox with a good lawyer would not be convicted in the U.S. because of evidence mishandling and interrogation techniques (sans recording) that would be easy to tear apart. Less emphatically, I have read about the trial and find the evidence of her guilt as an accomplice to Guede to be weak and the so-called confession the sort of thing you get when you mis-handle an interrogation.

You seem quite exercised on this point, Isab, and you aren't the only one. I guess pretty girls get everyone's attention, good or bad.

@Sheep Mommy

"We don't keep trying people until we get a favorable, or should I say popular, outcome."

Sure we do. The police in the Rodney King case were acquitted in state court of the beating, so the Feds convicted them of depriving King of his civil rights by beating him. i.e. tried twice for the same crime. Eric Holder still hasn't decided whether to do the same to George Zimmerman. When the defendant is unpopular there are ways to try them twice, even multiple times if you count civil trials.

Am I the only one who doesn't think she's all that stunning?

Anyway, I thought our culture, if anything, was protective of "pretty white women," hence the issue of more news coverage when a missing woman is white and attractive.

Yes, I have read that women want to attack and undermine women who are more beautiful, but this is normally women they interact with in real life, who represent real competition. Amy just posted something awesome about how we aren't comparing ourselves to celebrities in the media, so we don't feel threatened by them.

If there is public resentment related to her looks, then I hypothesize that it's due to people fearing that a good-looking person will get off easy--easier than what is fair.

"In the U.S., a defendant can appeal a guilty verdict but the prosecution can't appeal an acquittal, which is what happened here."

Typically, though, in the U.S. when an appeals court reverses a conviction, they don't just declare the accused not guilty and let them go free. They send it back to the lower court for a retrial, with specific instructions related to the reason for the reversal (e.g., a specific piece of evidence must be excluded). The prosecution can then decide whether they want to forward with the retrial given the restrictions imposed by the appeals court.

I have been confused enough by this case to say that I have no opinion on Knox's guilt on these specific charges. However, I will say that from what I've read about her, and her own public statements, that she comes across to me as a sociopath.

I have been confused enough by this case to say that I have no opinion on Knox's guilt on these specific charges. However, I will say that from what I've read about her, and her own public statements, that she comes across to me as a sociopath. -- Cousin Dave at February 13, 2014 9:00 AM

I'm pretty much in the same idea that I doubt her guilt for the charges. The sociopath aspect -- I suspect that comes from essentially going from being a young American woman on and adventure thrown into a foreign prison with limited support and then dragged across the coals, mostly by foreign press, but not given much choice in maturing.

Guilty or innocent, in such a situation upon my release, I would be finding a cabin in the middle of the Idaho woods with the last five miles being uphill on a dirt road with dips. Or in other words withdrawing from society and when caught by a reorter doing my best not to tell them a straight "fuck off".

http://rottenapplepie.blogspot.com/2011/10/red-flags-in-amanda-knox-case.html

More info you wont find in the mainstream media.

that criminal justice in Italy doesn't work the way it does in other countries

There are many things I love about Italy. This is not one of them.

Suggested reading: The Monster of Florence by Douglas Preston & Mario Spezi.

"The book recounts the authors' personal experiences while investigating the case and their problems of being accused by the Italian criminal justice system. Preston and Spezi are outspoken critics of the tactics and theories pursued by the Italian police and prosecutors in the Monster of Florence case."

Alan Dershowitz: "The truth is it's a very close case. There's a lot of evidence of guilt, there's some evidence of innocence. On balance, it's more likely than not that she did, but there's not enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt."

From what I've read about the case, there's some evidence of guilt, not "a lot" and, even though Dershowitz views it as "a lot", even he acknowledges that there's not enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt."

"Suggested reading: The Monster of Florence by Douglas Preston & Mario Spezi."

For every overzealous prosecution in Italy, I can probably point to a hundred in the U.S.

Nowhere else in the western world is the plea bargain system abused the way it in in the US, as a means to extort confessions, and guilty pleas.

While there was probably reasonable doubt as to Amanda Knox's participation in the actual murder, there are several things they proved in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

First, she was in the apartment, knew about the murder, and tried to clean the crime scene.

She lied to the police repeatedly.

She perjured herself to try and protect her boyfriend and Rudy Guede, by accusing her boss of the murder.

She staged a break in. She never phoned the police.

There is a woman in Knoxville Tennessee who had about the same level of involvement in the carjacking murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom
She was black, and not a cute little white girl. 53 years in prison for her as an accessory to rape and murder, in a US. Court.

Do you know what reasonable doubt is? What ever the jury decides it is. There is no independent objective standard for reasonable doubt, so why are people equating reasonable doubt with actual innocence?

Meredith Kercher was the victim here, not Amanda Knox