WARNING:GRAPHIC PHOTOS Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #8

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #141
My point is that the Italian jury was made up of 8 people, including 2 judges, and that there is no foundation to accuse the jury of being influenced by, or basing their opinions on, what was published in the newspaper. Furthermore, there is ample evidence, both circumstantial and forensic, to justify the conviction. Accusations that the jury was tainted, that both prosecutors are corrupt, that the police had tunnel vision and didn't do their jobs or had it in for Amanda or were anti-American, that the forensic analysts were incompetent ... all of this is nothing more than attacking people that were simply doing their jobs. It does not address the facts of the case. Instead, the facts of the case are simply dismissed with one singular remark; that being: "there is no evidence". After an 11 month trial, how anyone can conclude that there was no evidence and that the facts of the case are insignificant is beyond me. Those people that were doing their jobs have become the targets for the fact that Raffaele Sollecito and the American woman were convicted of murder, and the victim is ignored while Amanda Knox is placed on a pedestal.

Amanda Knox is an insignificant woman who arrived in Europe thinking it was her playground, and that she did not have to abide by any laws. She has paid a high price for her foolish, self indulgent, self entitled attitude. If she is innocent, she is the subject of a mountain of coincidences all pointing towards her guilt.
I understand your frustration Otto. I followed the Haidl gang rape trial here in Orange County a few years ago. Not only was there significant evidence but the actual gang rape itself was entirely videotaped! How more clear can it be?This was a no brainer imo.
But the first jury was hung. They were not hung because they acted improperly but because they interpreted all the evidence differently than I did. They drew different conclusions from the evidencead the facts. The woman was unconscious and did not even flinch when penetrated from behind with a pool cue. Yet they thought they saw her hips move forward just a bit so they determied it was possible that she was feigning unconsciousness and the rape was consentual. what?

My point is that the very same pieces of information and facts are all open to interpretation, that is why it comes down to experts sometimes;it is their opposing opinion on facts that weighs heavily. But the conclusions will not always be the same. This thread is a perfect example of that.
So, while you and the jury may see the evidence and facts one way, it is always open to interpretation by anyone else that comes upon it.Just to throw an additonal curve into that news reports prior to any trial can influence just about everyone.

If the jury was biased then it is a problem. If the jury did the best they could with the information they had, that is all that can be asked of them.
 
  • #142
I understand your frustration Otto. I followed the Haidl gang rape trial here in Orange County a few years ago. Not only was there significant evidence but the actual gang rape itself was entirely videotaped! How more clear can it be?This was a no brainer imo.
But the first jury was hung. They were not hung because they acted improperly but because they interpreted all the evidence differently than I did. They drew different conclusions from the evidencead the facts. The woman was unconscious and did not even flinch when penetrated from behind with a pool cue. Yet they thought they saw her hips move forward just a bit so they determied it was possible that she was feigning unconsciousness and the rape was consentual. what?

My point is that the very same pieces of information and facts are all open to interpretation, that is why it comes down to experts sometimes;it is their opposing opinion on facts that weighs heavily. But the conclusions will not always be the same. This thread is a perfect example of that.
So, while you and the jury may see the evidence and facts one way, it is always open to interpretation by anyone else that comes upon it.Just to throw an additonal curve into that news reports prior to any trial can influence just about everyone.

If the jury was biased then it is a problem. If the jury did the best they could with the information they had, that is all that can be asked of them.

There have been some rather astounding verdicts coming out of the US, but I don't know if that's justification to conclude that other country's legal systems lend themselves to the same errors. Italy had a complete overhaul of their legal system a few years ago to address any system errors that could occur. Thus we have a system that has attempted to be as fair and transparent as possible. Judges in Italy are required to publish their findings and justify the verdict within three months of a verdict being handed down. That does not happen in the US. Judges are included in a jury to ensure fairness and a clear understanding of the law. That does not happen in the US. All convicted murderers are automatically given not one, but two appeals in Italy to ensure that the process was fair. That does not happen in the US. To compare what happens in the US with a completely different legal system, one that was overhauled to eliminate problems, such as those that happen in the US, does not seem reasonable.

If Knox had been convicted in the US, she could be sitting on death row. That could never happen in Italy. Instead, the penal system in Italy looks to rehabilitate, not punish, it's prisoners.
 
  • #143
Amanda Knox is an insignificant woman who arrived in Europe thinking it was her playground, and that she did not have to abide by any laws.

Otto, I want to know how you know what AK was thinking, what she thought as she arrived in Italy, and how you know she didn't think she had to abide by any laws?
 
  • #144
There have been some rather astounding verdicts coming out of the US, but I don't know if that's justification to conclude that other country's legal systems lend themselves to the same errors. Italy had a complete overhaul of their legal system a few years ago to address any system errors that could occur. Thus we have a system that has attempted to be as fair and transparent as possible. Judges in Italy are required to publish their findings and justify the verdict within three months of a verdict being handed down. That does not happen in the US. Judges are included in a jury to ensure fairness and a clear understanding of the law. That does not happen in the US. All convicted murderers are automatically given not one, but two appeals in Italy to ensure that the process was fair. That does not happen in the US. To compare what happens in the US with a completely different legal system, one that was overhauled to eliminate problems, such as those that happen in the US, does not seem reasonable.

If Knox had been convicted in the US, she could be sitting on death row. That could never happen in Italy. Instead, the penal system in Italy looks to rehabilitate, not punish, it's prisoners.
Like I said Otto, my points have nothing to do with the differences in judicial systems, but rather the issue common to all judicial systems-human nature and the ability or inability to remove media reports from the analysis of the facts and the human element in interpreting said facts.
 
  • #145
Otto, I want to know how you know what AK was thinking, what she thought as she arrived in Italy, and how you know she didn't think she had to abide by any laws?

?

I would hope that it is obvious that I base my opinion on the actions of a woman that thought smoking dope in Italy was a good idea.
 
  • #146
Like I said Otto, my points have nothing to do with the differences in judicial systems, but rather the issue common to all judicial systems-human nature and the ability or inability to remove media reports from the analysis of the facts and the human element in interpreting said facts.

If the judicial system is completely different, and the jury system is completely different, how is it possible to say that the problems experienced by one system are automatically experienced by another?

There are no judges on American juries. There are judges on Italian juries. Should we assume that the judges on the jury are not able to determine whether the debated facts are based on court presented evidence? Should we assume that if an Italian jurist introduces something that was not presented in court, the judges on the jury will go along with it?
 
  • #147
If the judicial system is completely different, and the jury system is completely different, how is it possible to say that the problems experienced by one system are automatically experienced by another?

There are no judges on American juries. There are judges on Italian juries. Should we assume that the judges on the jury are not able to determine whether the debated facts are based on court presented evidence? Should we assume that if an Italian jurist introduces something that was not presented in court, the judges on the jury will go along with it?
do you think the Italian judicial system is flawless? I don't think there is a system out there that is flawless and that is, imo based on one common factor-the human element.
If you think the italian system is flawed in any way at all, what way would that be?

We are getting far afield from the case and I do not want to do that. I am only trying to state that it is not unreasonable for differnt people to draw different concnusions based on the same information.

Clearly the facts in this case have been interpreted differently. Look at the poll. All privvy to the same data, yet there is not 100% agreement.
What would account for that? Human reasoning is not all equal and we all use our own experiences from which to draw conclusions. A jury is no different. They are made up of people just like you and I with the extreme obligation to remain impartial.
In the final analysis, it is only the jury opinion that matters and so we can only hope that they live up to that expectation. But to speculate that some do not, is certainly not an outrageous notion. IMO.

ETA: Do you consider the jury to be of your peers in ItalY? I would not want judges on my jury!
 
  • #148
Wow! Lots of info to digest! Appreciate your patience -thanks!
Placing what you wrote in response to my post, as well as an additional post you made since the two provide a really good summary for anyone new here (including me) to read.

Although it may seem that Rudy unfairly received the shortest sentence, the reason for it is solidly based in Italian law. Amanda and Raffaele could also have opted for the fast track trial, and their sentences would also have been reduced by one third after their final appeal. There are both ups and downs in opting for the fast track, but Rudy took his chances with that legal option. One of the reasons that Rudy chose the fast track was that he feared Amanda and Raffaele would try to put all the blame on him. By fast tracking, he distanced himself from any blame the other two might put on him. The courts concluded that he was a party to the sexual assault and murder and sentenced him to the full 30 years. On appeal that was reduced to 24 years to match the sentences of the other two, and after all appeals were exhausted, the 1/3 reduction (a legal requirement for fast track trials) was applied to his sentence.

The movie was intended to portray Amanda as a victim, but we have to remember that the victim of this murder is Meredith Kercher. When police arrived at the cottage and saw the broken window, it was quickly obvious that the break in was staged because the room had been ransacked, and broken glass was on top of the ransacked items. The only conclusion possible is that whoever murdered Meredith (the real victim) first ransacked the room, then broke the window. This means that someone entered the home through the front door.

The next point is that the bloody footprint on the bathmat does not belong to Rudy. Rudy's foot is longer and narrower than Raffaele's foot. Thus we now have the fact that someone other than Rudy stepped in Meredith's blood, and then stepped on the bathmat. The footprint on the bathmat has a distinctive "hammer" toe, as does Raffaele. Those that want Amanda to be innocent have done some interesting things with photos of the footprint on the bathmat. Raffaele's and Rudy's footprints have been photoshopped as being the same size, and then all sorts of monkey business is done to say that the print on the mat belongs to Rudy. The bottom line is that experts ... those that testified in court ... have concluded that the print is Raffaele's.

Now we have Rudy walking through the front door, and more than one attacker. Rudy kept his shoes on and his bloody prints are seen going from Meredith's bedroom straight out the front door. We have a barefoot print on the bathmat belonging to someone else. Further investigation resulted in evidence that Meredith's blood was mixed with Amanda's DNA in five different areas throughout the crime scene.

What should police have concluded?



The police, forenic analysts, prosecutors and jury in the investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher have all been accused, by those that want Amanda to be innocent, as having been corrupt or incompetent. The family of Meredith Kercher does not agree. It might be a good time now to look at the list of circumstances that has been assembled regarding this case ... and then we should decide whether the jury made a decision based on reading the newspaper:

•the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito on Meredith’s bra-clasp in her locked bedroom;

•the almost-entire naked footprint of Raffaele on a bathmat that in *no way* fits that of the other male in this case – Rudy Guede;

•the fact that Raffaele’s own father blew their alibi that they were together in Raffaele’s flat at the time of the killing with indisputable telephone records;

•the DNA of Meredith Kercher on the knife in Raffaele’s flat which Raffaele himself sought to explain as having been from accidentally “pricking” Meredith’s hand in his written diary despite the fact Meredith had never been to his flat (confirmed by Amanda Knox);

•the correlation of where Meredith’s phones were found to the location of Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guedes’s flats;

•the computer records which show that no-one was at Raffaele’s computer during the time of the murder despite him claiming he was using that computer;

•Amanda’s DNA mixed with Meredith Kercher’s in five different places just feet from Meredith’s body;

•the utterly inexplicable computer records the morning after the murder starting at 5.32 am and including multiple file creations and interactions thereafter all during a time that Raffaele and Amanda insist they were asleep until 10.30am;

•the separate witnesses who testified on oath that Amanda and Raffaele were at the square 40 metres from the girls’ cottage on the evening of the murder and the fact that Amanda was seen at a convenience store at 7.45am the next morning, again while she said she was in bed;

•the accusation of a completely innocent man by Amanda Knox;

•the fact that when Amanda Knox rang Meredith’s mobile telephones, ostensibly to check on the “missing” Meredith, she did so for just three seconds - registering the call but making no effort to allow the phone to be answered in the real world

•the knife-fetish of Raffaele Sollecito and his formal disciplinary punishment for watching animal 🤬🤬🤬🤬 at his university – so far from the wholesome image portrayed;

•the fact that claimed multi-year kick-boxer Raffaele apparently couldn’t break down a flimsy door to Meredith’s room when he and Amanda were at the flat the morning after the murder but the first people in the flat with the police who weren’t martial artists could;

•the extensive hard drug use of Sollecito as told on by Amanda Knox;

•the fact that Amanda knew details of the body and the wounds despite not being in line of sight of the body when it was discovered;

•the lies of Knox on the witness stand in July 2009 about how their drug intake that night (“one joint”) is totally contradicted by Sollecito’s own contemporaneous diary;

•the fact that after a late evening’s questioning, Knox wrote a 2,900 word email home which painstakingly details what she said happened that evening and the morning after that looks *highly* like someone committing to memory, at 3.30 in the morning, an extensive alibi;

•the fact that both Amanda and Raffaele both said they would give up smoking dope for life in their prison diaries despite having apparently nothing to regret;

•the fact that when Rudy Guede was arrested, Raffaele Sollecito didn’t celebrate the “true” perpetrator being arrested (which surely would have seen him released) but worried in his diary that a man whom he said he didn’t know would “make up strange things” about him despite him just being one person in a city of over 160,000 people;

•the fact that both an occupant of the cottage and the police instantly recognised the cottage had not been burgled but had been the subject of a staged break-in where glass was *on top* of apparently disturbed clothes;

•that Knox and Sollecito both suggested each other might have committed the crime and Sollecito TO THIS DATE does not agree Knox stayed in his flat all the night in question;

•the bizarre behaviour of both of them for days after the crime;

•the fact that cellphone records show Knox did not stay in Sollecito’s flat but had left the flat at a time which is completely coincidental with Guede’s corroborated presence near the girl’s flat earlier in the evening;

•the fact that Amanda Knox’s table lamp was found in the locked room of Meredith Kercher in a position that suggested it had been used to examine for fine details of the murder scene in a clean up;

•the unbelievable series of changing stories made up by the defendants after their versions became challenged; Knox’s inexplicable reaction to being shown the knife drawer at the girl’s cottage where she ended up physically shaking and hitting her head.

Okay, I've read it all and my conclusion is that Amanda may* have been inside Meredith's room and seen her body, may have helped in trying to clean up the scene or covered Meredith's body up with a quilt - but I do not see sufficient evidence to say she committed or helped murder Meredith.
*may because I am not sure about her DNA being found there - since I think her DNA would be all over the cottage.
IMO Amanda might be guilty of tampering with evidence and lying to police, but no proof that she was an accomplice to murder, unless they can show she was with Raffaele while he was stabbing Meredith while she was alive...
I think Amanda was trying to help protect Raffaele.

Where am I going wrong?
 
  • #149
do you think the Italian judicial system is flawless? I don't think there is a system out there that is flawless and that is, imo based on one common factor-the human element.
If you think the italian system is flawed in any way at all, what way would that be?

We are getting far afield from the case and I do not want to do that. I am only trying to state that it is not unreasonable for differnt people to draw different concnusions based on the same information.

Clearly the facts in this case have been interpreted differently. Look at the poll. All privvy to the same data, yet there is not 100% agreement.
What would account for that? Human reasoning is not all equal and we all use our own experiences from which to draw conclusions. A jury is no different. They are made up of people just like you and I with the extreme obligation to remain impartial.
In the final analysis, it is only the jury opinion that matters and so we can only hope that they live up to that expectation. But to speculate that some do not, is certainly not an outrageous notion. IMO.

I have not said that the Italian judicial system is flawless. I have said that the problems experienced by the US system cannot be automatically projected onto the judicial systems of other countries, or that solutions sought in the US are the same as those practiced in other countries. The US may choose to sequester all juries in the future in order to address the fact that information travels faster than ever before, or, as we have read, the US system may recognize that information cannot be stopped, so objective jurors have to be carefully selected. The Italian system has addressed jury problems by having judges sit on the jury. Each system is addressing problems of media in different ways. In England, it is a violation of the law to reveal or discuss case details of upcoming trials. In other parts of Europe, suspects cannot be identified until a court finds them guilty. Each system is different, and each system looks to its own unique solutions. The solution in the US is to sequester juries, the solution in many other countries is to limit the information that is published. When a case involves someone from the US, it is very difficult to enforce the laws in other countries. For example, Dutch law does not allow the names of suspects to be released, but the US media either didn't know that or decided not to respect those laws. In the case of Knox, I suspect that the PR firm hired by the family had much to do with ensuring that only information that painted Knox as innocent was widely broadcast in the US. That effort most certainly fueled curiosity and interest on both sides of the pond, but to date there have been no allegations of jury misconduct in the trial of Raffaele Sollecito and the American woman.

A poll on this website is not an indication of how jurors weigh evidence after an 11 month trial.
 
  • #150
Some interesting things

It appears that that particular night was very windy

The front door, if not locked, opens by itself with the wind. It was a very windy night and, during the assault in Meredith’s room, the door opened by itself. It could happen, since those who entered with Meredith (never mind, now, if gently or not) didn’t know the secret of the door: that it had to always be locked

http://74.6.117.48/search/srpcache?...3&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=k1uQ5rt8L5XhnUxA3_Yyvw--

Interestingly, the same link talks about other cases of coerced testimony during interrogations by ILE.
 
  • #151
I have not said that the Italian judicial system is flawless. I have said that the problems experienced by the US system cannot be automatically projected onto the judicial systems of other countries, or that solutions sought in the US are the same as those practiced in other countries. The US may choose to sequester all juries in the future in order to address the fact that information travels faster than ever before, or, as we have read, the US system may recognize that information cannot be stopped, so objective jurors have to be carefully selected. The Italian system has addressed jury problems by having judges sit on the jury. Each system is addressing problems of media in different ways. In England, it is a violation of the law to reveal or discuss case details of upcoming trials. In other parts of Europe, suspects cannot be identified until a court finds them guilty. Each system is different, and each system looks to its own unique solutions. The solution in the US is to sequester juries, the solution in many other countries is to limit the information that is published. When a case involves someone from the US, it is very difficult to enforce the laws in other countries. For example, Dutch law does not allow the names of suspects to be released, but the US media either didn't know that or decided not to respect those laws. In the case of Knox, I suspect that the PR firm hired by the family had much to do with ensuring that only information that painted Knox as innocent was widely broadcast in the US. That effort most certainly fueled curiosity and interest on both sides of the pond, but to date there have been no allegations of jury misconduct in the trial of Raffaele Sollecito and the American woman.

A poll on this website is not an indication of how jurors weigh evidence after an 11 month trial.
Please do not think I was suggesting you said the Italian system was flawless, which is why I asked for your opinion. What i was trying to draw out was that imo, the big variable in every judicial system is the human portion of the program. The poll is indicative of the different translations of the same information; no more no less. Just drawing a parallel.

But at the same time, of course we cannot feed the data into a computer and have it spit out a verdict. The human element is also what makes all justice systems, well human and generally reasonable
.
Everyone just has their own point of view or translation when presented with the same info. and that can work for and against anyone.

I feel my points are missed but my goal is not to dominate the conversation with them or change any minds, but I have tried to explain them the best I can.
Thanks Otto.
 
  • #152
So now we have incompetent investigators and experts, contaminated evidence, two corrupts prosecutors, a judge that makes illegal deals, lawyers that spend eleven months in a courtroom waving their arms because there is no evidence, and a jury that is too stupid to make a decision without looking to the newspapers for answers. Did I miss anything?....

Nobody has claimed that all that occurred, but even if they did, it would still be more credible than the claim that three people who barely knew one another suddenly entered into a conspiracy to torture and murder a young woman.

I don't know what your experience is that you think police deception during interrogations, overzealous prosecutors and inappropriately curious jurors are rare.
 
  • #153
  • #154
Amanda most definitely went out of her way to avoid discovering the crime. She was at the cottage for some reason that morning, but we have to take her word for it that she was there to take a shower even though she had a shower at Raffaele's the night before, she spent the night at Raffaele's apt, and she went directly back to Raffaele's after the shower. Raffaele and Amanda had plans to go to Gubbio for the day but instead of preparing for the trip, they were wasting time with Amanda wandering around Perugia with a mop, and showering at a different apt.

Amanda did not alert anyone to the circumstances at the cottage while she was there, and instead of calling police, she left and then called Filomina to come to the cottage. She and Raffaele cracked the bedroom door, ensuring that the next attempt to open the bedroom door would be successful.

It's rather easy to see that Amanda wanted Filomina and her three friends to break down the door and trample the crime scene ... thus destroying the evidence. Their plan went south when police unexpectedly arrived. With the presence of the police, Amanda did not want the bedroom door to be broken down. One minute she's panicked about the door, running around the cottage, looking for the boys downstairs (even though she knew they were all away that weekend), trying to break down the door ... and the next minute she is claiming that Meredith routinely locks her door and there is no need for concern.

Why did Amanda switch from concern to unconcern? Could it be the unexpected presence of the police?

No, because you yourself claim AK exhibited a LACK of concern once the police arrived.

As I've said before, it's true that AK procrastinated in calling the police. I think that is entirely explained by her concern about communicating with them.

We have no testimony that she tried to dissuade RS from calling the carabinieri, which he did before the postal cops arrived.

And furthermore, if we accept your list above as AK's attempt to avoid discovering the body, then we have to believe RS, at least, had no such qualms, since he tried to break into MK's room and then called the cops. Apparently, AK's "partner in crime" didn't share her aversion.
 
  • #155
No, because you yourself claim AK exhibited a LACK of concern once the police arrived.

As I've said before, it's true that AK procrastinated in calling the police. I think that is entirely explained by her concern about communicating with them.

We have no testimony that she tried to dissuade RS from calling the carabinieri, which he did before the postal cops arrived.

And furthermore, if we accept your list above as AK's attempt to avoid discovering the body, then we have to believe RS, at least, had no such qualms, since he tried to break into MK's room and then called the cops. Apparently, AK's "partner in crime" didn't share her aversion.

Raffaele has indeed attempted to distance himself from Amanda, specifically in terms of not providing her with an alibi. It is Amanda that avoided being the one to report the crime, instead acting like a complete airhead and wandering off for something to eat instead of reporting to Filomina that her bedroom window had been smashed.
 
  • #156
What tabloid gossip are you referring to? Could you post some so we know what you consider to be gossip based on untruth?

For example, stoned and drunk Amanda is true, Foxy Knoxy is her chosen nickname and true, sleeping around is true, lying about her boss is true, lying to police is true, changing her story is true, voluntarily confessing is true, seeing the break in and doing nothing is true, changing the time of dinner is true, claiming to leave a puddle of water on the kitchen floor over night is true, having a selectively faulty memory is true, the evidence is true, Raffaele's silly story about the knife is true ... what was said in the "tabloid gossip" that is discussed here and that is not true?

Now there, you see? I didn't have to compile my own list; you complied it for me.

"Foxy Knoxy" was a childhood nickname deriving from soccer.

She listed what? 6 or 7 sexual partners over several years? Not a nun, but hardly a record for "sleeping around." And most of the details of those sexual encounters came from tabloid reports.

Add to that the reported feuding with MK over the job and PL's attention.

How many times have you claimed that AK was upset because MK didn't include her in Halloween plans? Even though it is also claimed that AK and RS were obsessed with each other and ignored everyone else.

The publishing of AK's diary and short stories as if they were evidence of her real-life activities is a common tabloid tactic (and also illegal per an Italian court).

The entire "sex games gone wrong" motive argument is tabloid fiction, since no evidence for it ever surfaced.

A few days ago you linked to an article that blamed the murder on AK's mother and her "competition" with her daughter forcing AK to bond with men but not with women. The same article snarked at EM's "styling" herself by taking her husband's name, as if that were unusual.

Perhaps some posters have immersed themselves in so much tabloid crap they aren't even aware of how much of it there is in this case. You and other posters (including myself, no doubt) mix such claims into discussions of actual trial evidence without even noting the difference.

What makes you so sure jurors were able to refrain from doing the same?

There is a reason the victim's own country prohibits pretrial coverage of violent crimes.
 
  • #157
The choices don't have to be represented as being so extreme and it is not an either-or situation. "No one" is an extreme statement and it does not reflect a reasonable option IMO.

First, it is important to acknowledge that media reporting does influence potential jurors in many cases and that is a very real issue. What are the options? sequestration, admonishment, change of venue, professional jurors?
But with that said, there are lots of people that can read the media reports and put them aside andmake their own decisions based on the trial information only. But it certainly would not be easy for anyone.

I think anyone who has served on a jury will attest that some people ignore or forget their instructions. It comes out in the references they make during deliberations. On the best panels, such jurors are gently reminded they have to set aside "what they aren't allowed to know" and only consider the admissible evidence.

But to what extent they are able to do so is impossible to measure.

I've had good experiences on juries. Nonetheless, remarks were made that showed some jurors were considering information that was not part of the formal evidence we were charged to consider. (And other posters have had horrible experiences with clearly biased jurors, as we have discussed here in the past.)
 
  • #158
"Sequestered Juries: Juries are rarely sequestered from the public. Before being assigned to a sequestered jury, you will have an opportunity to discuss with the judge any conflicts that sequestration might create."

http://americanjuror.org/trial.htm



http://books.google.ca/books?id=IS7tN-c6BPQC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=%22juries+are+rarely+sequestered%22&source=bl&ots=INud08NuG5&sig=THtNkuinPLzRn_moBEnV67CSXFY&hl=en&ei=gU5pTaCEKIG-sQP0nummBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22juries%20are%20rarely%20sequestered%22&f=false

If people are generally unable to set aside any exposure they have to people like Nancy Grace, what qualifies Judges to be impartial?

Years of training. And even so, nobody claims judges are totally free from bias. What appeals courts consider is whether the biases of the judge were significant enough to affect the outcome of the trial.
 
  • #159
There have been some rather astounding verdicts coming out of the US, but I don't know if that's justification to conclude that other country's legal systems lend themselves to the same errors. Italy had a complete overhaul of their legal system a few years ago to address any system errors that could occur. Thus we have a system that has attempted to be as fair and transparent as possible. Judges in Italy are required to publish their findings and justify the verdict within three months of a verdict being handed down. That does not happen in the US. Judges are included in a jury to ensure fairness and a clear understanding of the law. That does not happen in the US. All convicted murderers are automatically given not one, but two appeals in Italy to ensure that the process was fair. That does not happen in the US. To compare what happens in the US with a completely different legal system, one that was overhauled to eliminate problems, such as those that happen in the US, does not seem reasonable.

If Knox had been convicted in the US, she could be sitting on death row. That could never happen in Italy. Instead, the penal system in Italy looks to rehabilitate, not punish, it's prisoners.

And here we are again: any suggestion of error or misconduct in the AK trial--even though the prosecutor has been found guilty of misconduct in another case--must be an indictment of all Italy and the entire Italian legal system.

All the "improvements" you list are open to argument: Requiring a verdict be published quickly may be convenient for all involved, but haste doesn't necessarily produce truth. Having judges on a jury may clear up confusion about technical points of law, but it may also unduly influence the jury in favor of the State, since judges are employed by the State. Capital cases are automatically appealed in the U.S.; I think you'll find most LWOP cases are as well.

And now somebody will want to point out that AK chose to go to Italy so tough luck for her if she gets stuck with Italian law.
 
  • #160
JBean, this may be of interest:

Here are six important ways in which the Italian courts differ from the U.S. courts in their practice of interpreting law and delivering justice:

1) Defendants do not have to take an oath to tell the truth.

2) Convicted criminals can automatically appeal.

3) The jury is not sequestered until deliberations.

4) Juries for criminal cases include two judges and six citizens. One of the judges presides over the trial.

5) Verdicts do not need to be unanimous; only a majority is required for a murder conviction.

6) The jury has 90 days to file their explanation of why they made their decisions.

http://www.mylifetime.com/movies/am.../article/italian-american-justice-differences
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
107
Guests online
2,408
Total visitors
2,515

Forum statistics

Threads
632,713
Messages
18,630,835
Members
243,269
Latest member
Silent_Observer
Back
Top