Amanda Knox Freed: Verdict Coverage

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 12:50:00 PM EST
Tags: Amanda Knox (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Update: Amanda Knox's nightmare is over. She's free. Her murder conviction is overturned. Only the slander charge against police was upheld. Raffaele Sollecito was also freed. Here's Amanda listening to the verdict, after the verdict is announced, being led out of court, and the crowd outside which was cheering. One half hour later, they are still outside. Amanda will soon leave this prison.

Update: 1:45 pm: Amanda is seated now. She looks as nervous as she must feel. She's surrounded by police. [More...]

Update 1:02 pm MT: Live-Stream of courtroom and verdict at King5.com (Seattle), running now. Verdict has been pushed back 15 minutes. Here's a picture of the courtroom at 9:15 pm. Only 100 journalists and no members of the public are allowed inside. Here is the crowd outside. There are more than a dozen judicial police on hand in case of "public disorder.)

Bump and Update 12:00 pm MT: Verdict will come at 21:30 local time -- the court has confirmed time. That's 90 minutes from now.

Update: 10:12 am MT: Here is the text of Amanda Knox's statement to the court. You can watch her statement here. The jury of two robed judges and six laypersons is now deliberating. It is now 6:12 pm in Perugia and the verdict is not expected before 8:00 pm.

[Judge]Hellmann has two votes. The other professional judge has one. Then there are six lay judges: ordinary citizens drawn by ballot from among the residents of Umbria, the region of which Perugia is the capital. They have one vote each.

Update: 1 a.m. MT: For those staying up late, court in Italy is just beginning. The journalists are in the courtroom, the prison van with Amanda has arrived. For live coverage via Twitter (in English), check out: @john_hooper (The Guardian); @BLNadeau (Daily Beast, Newsweek); @andreavogt (crime and breaking news in Italy ); and @mchancecnn (CNN Senior International Correspondent.) The Italian press doesn't think a verdict will be in until Monday evening. This is a wrap for me until tomorrow.

Bump and Update 12:50 am MT Monday 10/3: Seattle's King5.com will live-stream Amanda Knox's final plea to the judges and jury. It's not certain what time that will be.

Update 11:45 pm: Court begins in 75 minutes at 9:00 am Perugia time. It's 7:45 am there now. The proceedings are being televised. Journalists were lining up at sunrise, here's a picture by the Geoff Hill, Director of Coverage for CNN London. Here's a picture of the prison.

Update: The murder verdicts will be read first. What to listen for:

There are three main words to listen for. Confirma means the original verdict will be upheld. Reforma means it has been overturned. Parsiali reforma means the sentences could be lengthened or shortened.

Update: There are two judges on the jury and six citizens.

Appeal decided by a jury of eight, made up of main judge - in this case Claudio Pratillo Hellmann - another judge and six jurors from the general public Judges take part and vote as part of the jury, but guide rather than instruct others how to votd

An Italian Appeals Court is preparing to rule Monday in the Amanda Knox case. Amanda's lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, will first make a statement and then Amanda will get a final chance to present a plea to the judges before they retire to deliberate and hand down their ruling.

There are four possible outcomes:

Conviction upheld and she serves remaining 22 years
Conviction upheld and sentence increased to life
Conviction upheld and sentence reduced
Conviction overturned and she is released from prison

Tomorrow's verdict is not likely to end the case. Either side can appeal to Italy's highest court.

How the ruling tomorrow will unfold:

On Monday, when the judge announces the ruling (on live television, no less), he will spew out the case numbers and codes for the original conviction and then whether they are confirmed or overturned. He can absolve Knox of all or part of her conviction, and he can rule separately on Knox and Sollecito. He can absolve them completely, or let them go due to insufficient evidence, which is not the same as finding them not guilty. He can also reduce the sentence without absolving Knox of any crime.

CNN explains the verdict process here. If the verdict is overturned, Amanda will return to jail to collect her belongings and is then likely to leave Italy. Further appeals by the prosecution are not expected to delay her departure.

Also check out the site, An Injustice in Perugia, "detailing the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollecito."

For live twitter updates, follow Barbie Latza Nadeau, an American journalist based in Rome since 1996 who is covering the case for Newsweek and Daily Beast.

< 16 Years Ago Today, O.J. Simpson Acqutted | Daily Mail Publishes Wrong Knox Verdict, Then Corrects >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Amanda Knox Freed: Verdict Coverage | 173 comments (173 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Please stay on topic of (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:23:01 AM EST

Amanda Knox. And please take jokes to an open thread. A young woman's future is about to be determined. Quips and off-topic remarks are distracting and will be deleted.

Actually (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:03:28 PM EST

neither should affect someone's "reputation". There are plenty of poor examples that hang out at both places. Aren't you the one always railing against guilt by association but are now playing that card?

And the mindset that "they must be a nice person because they go to church" has been a boon to many a con man.

Wow. (5.00 / 2) (#77)
by shoephone on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:35:09 PM EST

It's going to be the circus of all circuses when she gets home to Seattle. We won't have to wait long for local TV reporters Jim Forman and Gary Horcher to make unrelenting fools of themselves.

That said, the verdict was the right one, IMO. No legitimate evidence tying Knox and her boyfriend to the crime. It really exposes the Italian prosecutor for what he is -- an incompetent joke of a lawyer, with a compulsive hunger for salaciousness.

Thank dog this thing is over.

There was a quite good (5.00 / 1) (#94)
by brodie on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 04:03:03 PM EST

doc on CNN a few months back that completely destroyed the credibility of the prosecution and the very peculiar lead prosecutor who seemed obsessed with prosecuting this one along bizarre sex/satanism lines despite the absence of vid evidence. Interviews with an American writer who'd gone to Perugia to investigate a previous bizarre prosecution by the same guy convinced me that he was not about prosecuting the guilty but about making a name for himself in sensational ways.

So knowing all this, forgive me if I carefully avoid Perugia on my next trip to that country -- until at least that prosecutor has been removed and prosecuted himself.


: "vid" should be valid (none / 0) (#97)
by brodie on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 04:04:32 PM EST

Doubt it (none / 0) (#102)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 04:14:39 PM EST

I didn't see non-stop local reporting on this case. In fact, was surprised at how little coverage when the local reporters are obsessed with finding the local link to absolutely everything of national/international interest.

Who would join the circus to greet her arrival other than family and some close friends?


It has been my observation (5.00 / 1) (#110)
by sj on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 04:47:12 PM EST

local reporters are obsessed with finding the local link to absolutely everything of national/international interest.

That they're only interested when the local participants are victims. An alleged perpetrator is not an individual they'll claim.

Of course I could be wrong, but that is certainly my perception.

Oh, and now that her verdict has been overturned I expect she has made the successful transition to "victim" so I wouldn't be surprised at all if she does not have a quiet homecoming.

If she is from your area, I'd be interested to know how that turned out.


I'm told local reporters from (none / 0) (#114)
by ruffian on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 05:25:35 PM EST

Orlando are there.

Sooo riduculous.


Not here - our media was only too (none / 0) (#124)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 06:56:41 PM EST

happy to own and non-stop report on the DC Snipers. Anything that puts a local reporter in a position to maybe get 5 seconds on the national news reports seems to be raw meat to them.


: Oh that's right (none / 0) (#134)
by sj on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:15:05 PM EST

I forgot about them.

: The D.C. snipers story was (none / 0) (#152)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:01:47 AM EST

utterly riveting while it was happening. I remember my then bed-ridden elderly mother and I turning on CNN in the AM every day and just waiting, and sure enough...
That was truly a stunning (and frightening) mystery until they finally figured it out.

The first couple of years (none / 0) (#109)
by shoephone on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 04:33:29 PM EST

there was a ton of media on it. Maybe not on the TV news all the time, but the Times, PI, Seattle Weekly, and the Stranger (mostly the SLOG) covered it a lot. And, of course, the West Seattle Blog covered it. Newspaper and internet comment sections were often closed down because of the flame wars. Now that she is out of prison and coming home, there is no doubt it will be front and center in the news for awhile. How could it not be? After the incessant coverage of the Barefoot Bandit, the local media needs a new sensational story. And Jim Forman should not disappoint! We want to see him in his usual pose, standing on the roof of a car in front of the Knox's West Seattle home, bundled up in his famous bubble jacket, assuring Dennis Bounds that he'll be staying on the story, just in case something -- anything -- interesting ever happens!!


You are right about the local reporters (none / 0) (#125)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 07:02:51 PM EST

and the potential media circus...I thought you were saying the community would participate in the circus. That, I don't think would happen. Jim Forman loves his quick shots on Nightly News when we have a connection to a big story.


: I read the West Seattle blog this a.m. (none / 0) (#190)
by shoephone on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 05:31:17 PM EST

Sounds like the Knox's entire block has been invaded by media vans, and the neighbors were wondering how long the helicopters were going to be hovering, especially since Amanda is not even staying there right now, in order to avoid the crush.

Do you also have sympathy for the family (5.00 / 1) (#85)
by oculus on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:46:31 PM EST

of the deceased?

I Think Anyone With a Heart Does (none / 0) (#92)
by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 04:00:14 PM EST

I have no idea what happened, but if this was a miscarriage of justice, chances are the real murder(s) will never be found. I assume that even Knox and former boyfriend would have sympathy. No should go so young and so violently.

My last gf has the same last name and it always brings a chill when I hear her name mentioned. This could have been anyone's daughter/friend/relative.


: I believe the real murderer has been convicted (5.00 / 1) (#96)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 04:04:13 PM EST

and is jailed - Rudy Guede. It would seem that neither Amanda nor her boyfriend were involved in Guede's murder of Kercher.

: Real murderer found (none / 0) (#155)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:04:57 AM EST

early in this case-- his DNA all over the victim and the apartment. No question of his guilt.

Of course I was not advocating a (none / 0) (#95)
by oculus on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 04:03:52 PM EST

false conviction.


: The irony is (none / 0) (#153)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:04:02 AM EST

they long ago had the indisputable perpetrator convicted and in jail. The blood lust for Amanda and Raffaele on top of that is a little hard to understand, IMO.

Why? (none / 0) (#101)
by sj on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 04:10:09 PM EST

Are the two mutually exclusive?


The implication is that (none / 0) (#104)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 04:16:17 PM EST

you have an opinion on her guilt. Not sure how you could.


What now? (2.00 / 1) (#185)
by Gerald USN Ret on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:29:17 PM EST

What will Ms Knox do now?

Door 1) Will Ms Knox sell her story, go on talk shows, make a lot of money, and become a celebrity, maybe a DWTS participant, or a Survivor show. She could really make the big bucks, but of course that kind of life style has a lot of risks for substance abuse, and running with the wrong people. If you can keep track of the people in that lifestyle, they seem to get into a lot of trouble.

Door 2) or will she take the more circumspect path, settle down and live a quieter more exemplary life that ends with a good husband and cute children though of course that doesn't preclude a job but one out of the limelight like teaching or nursing.

I am guessing it will be ???

You know I don't have the foggiest idea what she will do. I need a good helmsman to take charge here, and I will go back to my cabin and read.

Why limit her "real job" options to (none / 0) (#187)
by oculus on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 05:11:12 PM EST

teaching or nursing? This is 2011.


: Teaching and nursing are (none / 0) (#189)
by shoephone on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 05:25:45 PM EST

"exemplary" professions. Everything else is suspect...

Read the wikipedia summary yesterday... (none / 0) (#1)
by magster on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 09:54:57 PM EST

... having not followed the case. Not sure what the prosecution's burden is there but the prosecution's case is so full of holes it's hard to see how the verdict wouldn't be overturned. She is very fortunate they admit additional evidence and have a de novo trial on appeal.

I don't see her as "lucky" (none / 0) (#2)
by honora on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 10:17:39 PM EST

She has spent (what should have been her college) years in a foreign jail, for a crime she didn't commit. All of this because she was a pretty American.


I differ. (none / 0) (#3)
by Gerald USN Ret on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 10:47:18 PM EST

I don't know whether she killed anyone or was involved in the killing, but she led a life such that she was suspect.

Being suspect in any justice system is many times the most important factor for a jury trial.

People are human and being on a jury doesn't absolve them of that mixture of weaknesses, misconceptions, and foolish thinking.

When you have to come in front of a jury, you are rolling the dice no matter how the justice system is set up.

Hey all I am really saying is to avoid trouble try at least to live a life above reproach and suspicion.

That way you probably will never face a jury trial.

If you like the idea of "living on the wild side" of "pushing the envelope" or say such things as "that is the old morality which is so outdated" you may one day find yourself in deep dark water in a swift violent current with no flotation device. It is usually then that people suddenly get religion.


Gerald... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by lentinel on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:10:00 AM EST

Your advice, that if you do nothing beyond reproach or suspicion you won't have to face the justice system, is the inverse of saying that if you face the justice system, you must have done something reproachful or suspicious or worse.

The jails are full of people who have just been at the wrong place at the wrong time, or looked like someone else, or were the wrong color or religion.

The definition of what is and what is not "suspicious" changes quite frequently - often at the whim of the Party in power.


I will never again buy into the (5.00 / 4) (#23)
by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 10:36:33 AM EST

B.S. story that only guilty people seek legal representation immediately. If there is anything that the internet has done, it has revealed incredible abuse of power by our own American authorities time and time and time again. And the police intimidation in small town Alabama is atrocious. I don't think I would agree to live here if we could not afford our own representation and had someone on retainer. They lie and railroad people like nothing I've ever seen before. They are 1000% shameless around here. One of these days law enforcement is going to do something around here and make the big news papers.

I've learned my lesson about blatantly trusting authority figures, they are only people, just like me. They are capable of great acts and horrible atrocities and if I'm called in for questioning on ANYTHING...ANYTHING AT ALL....I will have my lawyer with me. If they ever arrest me for anything, I will be saying nothing without my attorney present.


: You want to start "not talking" (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by oculus on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 11:58:40 AM EST

ASAP. Don't wait 'til after your theoretical arrest.

I have no real disagreement (none / 0) (#33)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 12:43:56 PM EST

except this. He did not write you "won't." He wrote:

Whether we like it or not, bad things happen to good people, but if you hang out at your local bar rather than your local church I opine that your chance of trouble is much higher at the bar.

You are known by the company you keep in many aspects of life.

And to be transparent, I have no opinion either way re the guilt or innocence of the young lady in question.


Many successful child molesters would (5.00 / 3) (#37)
by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:04:44 PM EST

agree with you Jim....sheesh


Oh, you mean (5.00 / 2) (#52)
by Zorba on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:45:39 PM EST

Teachers, Boy Scout leaders, priests and pastors, and such like? Not that most people in those roles are child molesters, by any means, but still. Not everyone "hanging out" at their local church, or whatever so-called "wholesome" activity (as opposed to, OMG, the "local bar") is exactly destined for sainthood. "Sheesh" indeed, MT.


Oh please, everyone! (2.00 / 0) (#89)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:54:32 PM EST

Why don't you just hang up a pinata, label it "Christian" and flail away at it???

I never said Christians were perfect, just that hanging out in bars is more likely to get you in trouble than at your local church.


So going to church ... (5.00 / 0) (#98)
by Yman on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 04:06:53 PM EST

... makes it more likely you'll have a good reputation, being judged by the company you keep, and all, huh, Jim? But then you go and post something like this.

Guess it depends on whether it's a Christian church that you like, right, Jim?


Let's see (none / 0) (#115)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 05:34:26 PM EST

right on schedule my Shadow show's up with a snark.


Just trying to see where ... (none / 0) (#120)
by Yman on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 06:25:50 PM EST

... you set the bar, Jim.

When you're not moving it, that is.


: My Shadow keeps snarking. (none / 0) (#129)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 07:32:56 PM EST

Gimmee a break Jim (5.00 / 0) (#116)
by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 05:44:39 PM EST

You are the one who claims that persons who hang out in specific locations with specific people are less "suspicious", and now you are going to get all huffed at me when I point out the obvious that career predators have people like you figured out? And if anyone has something to hide, immediately go to church every Sunday. It's what I would do. I'm not stupid. If I really had stuff to hide I'd make sure I was a deacon or something.


Oh please (2.00 / 0) (#126)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 07:31:34 PM EST

If it is in the South it is bad. If it is Christian it is bad....

Tracy, you define yourself, and you have lots of company so I guess you get first swing at the Christian pinata.

And yes, if you told me that Joe hangs out at Bill's bar said X and that Ted who hangs out at the First Baptist said Y... and X and Y conflict... yes I will first believe Y.

Would I change my mind later? Sure. But appearances count. That's just life.


The company I keep? (none / 0) (#130)
by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 07:45:02 PM EST

Mostly "military" people at this time.


You don't hang out on TalkLeft???? (none / 0) (#133)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:14:37 PM EST

Who's making your comments?


You realize, of course, ... (none / 0) (#161)
by Yman on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 07:36:52 AM EST

... that if you define "hanging out" as posting on TL, that you're "hanging out" with the very same people, right?

Heh.


Yes, and I enjoy (none / 0) (#166)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 09:26:31 AM EST

most of the people.

You? No.


Awwwwwweee, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#167)
by Yman on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 09:35:40 AM EST

You're gonna hurt my feelings.

But it is funny how you try the "guilt by association" trick with MT, while you're here "hanging out" with the very same people.

He's a funny little dude, that one is (5.00 / 1) (#168)
by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 09:41:17 AM EST

I wish I could meet some TalkLeft people in person. Talk ya'll into coming on post....just trusting the MPs with all of your civil rights and throw all caution to the winds of war...and having a beer at Mother Ruckers. Until then though, it is the internet and we may all be dogs :) We are dogs that often seem to agree though


That would be great (5.00 / 1) (#169)
by Yman on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:38:05 AM EST

Bit of a hike from Jersey, though. I haven't been there since the early 90s and they didn't even have guards at the gates. Personally, I'm usually on bases a few times a year and wouldn't have an issue with MPs, etc. - but it would be interesting to see Kdogs reaction. :)

I have an old friend who's a Colonel in the Air Cav at Rucker. Sounds like a great place to visit, although I think I'd have some serious issues living in Alabama (no offense Jeff).

Bet it would be one helluva party, though!


jeffinAlabama (none / 0) (#174)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:52:13 AM EST

and I are trying to get together for a poker date in Tunica. You're invited as was Dadler and Kdog.

But don't bring Yman.

We wanna enjoy.


That's just mean (none / 0) (#178)
by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:59:35 AM EST

You can't uninvite my friend that I hang with right in front of his screen like that Jim! Manners Dude! I would come but if Yman isn't invited, that just doesn't seem right.


: Well, you would be missed (none / 0) (#179)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:18:16 PM EST

but I respect your decision.
But since he was never invited, I didn't un-invite.
;-)

: Awwwwweee, ... thanks, MT (none / 0) (#181)
by Yman on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:28:51 PM EST

Have a blast and hopefully take some of Jim's money. my winger tolerance is just much lower than yours, although it would be a lot of fun to meet Jim. ;-)

You are expert at (none / 0) (#175)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:55:07 AM EST

"misunderstanding" and reframing. This is what I wrote:

Now go back and you will see all the comments re Christians so you should have had no problem understanding.

And you did. You just wanna be nasty.


and that was for Yman. (none / 0) (#176)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:56:03 AM EST

It's the same principle, Jim (none / 0) (#180)
by Yman on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:26:19 PM EST

I'm a Christian, and I have no problem with what MT said. But judging by your posts, I guess you have to be the right kind of Christian to be the 'good" kind, huh, Jim?

: You always attack and you always (none / 0) (#182)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:36:19 PM EST

attack first.
You are a stalker.

That's you Jim and that's fine (none / 0) (#132)
by ruffian on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:13:55 PM EST

I honestly would have no such predisposition.


: I would and I have long understood (none / 0) (#135)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:16:28 PM EST

that the basis of this is some relatives who were born with a pint too much. (Which is an Irish saying, think.)

Many (5.00 / 1) (#121)
by lentinel on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 06:27:41 PM EST

rogues hide behind an assumed Christian identity.

Bush, for example.


And Obama??? (none / 0) (#128)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 07:32:08 PM EST

: Yep. (none / 0) (#143)
by lentinel on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 10:54:54 PM EST

He's a "brother in Christ", according to him.

Disagree with so many things you said... (none / 0) (#4)
by magster on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 11:14:09 PM EST

... some people are simply a victim of circumstance, like having a roomate who is dating a murderer in the same jurisdiction as a prosecutor who believes Satanic sex rituals are endemic problems.


How can either of you have a firm opinion (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by oculus on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 11:23:16 PM EST

of the guilt or innocence of a young woman whose trial you didn't attend?


I believe (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by NYShooter on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 12:02:24 AM EST

both posters gave their opinions regarding issues surrounding the case. I don't see either one giving their opinion as to the young lady's guilt or innocence.

Advice: less projection, more comprehension.


: Oculus got this right (none / 0) (#21)
by Salo on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:21:02 AM EST

Poster asserted that Meredith was dating Rudy Guede. I've not seen this asserted elsewhere. My understanding is that Meredith was dating a housemate who was in his home city over the holiday and is thus, no suspect. Guede dealt drugs to someone in the house. Meredith as far as I know didn't take drugs. Not sure on that but -- No drugs in Meredith's autopsy.
Other housemates let this particular man into the life of the house. Not Meredith.

Omniscience (none / 0) (#6)
by magster on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 11:25:54 PM EST

Always (none / 0) (#7)
by CoralGables on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 11:55:47 PM EST

succinct and veracious.
(except maybe where Polanski is involved)


This satanic myth is not in the Judge's dossier. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Salo on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:38:29 AM EST

The Judgement in Italian is very objective and circumspect. The lurid stories are strawmen concocted by Knox's PR company.

The full translation of the Judgement is available and it is exhaustive.


A rambling inconsistent statement to the cops... (none / 0) (#17)
by Salo on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:01:55 AM EST

...will turn you into a possible suspect though. Trying to pin the murder on your boss in same interview is also a rather big red flag to. The timing of the Postal Police's independent & unexpected arrival and the couple's presence there also Extremely troubling.

Judges in the first trial seems to have done a respectable job. I remember the OJ trial and how Clark, Darden etc were rubbished. Turned out they got it right. Even the racist cop got the details right.

Here you have an English girl with mixed Indian blood, an Ivorian who raped her and possible accomplices who are whitebread American and Italian respectively.


please leave your (none / 0) (#26)
by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 11:17:06 AM EST

race labels out of the discussion.


: Incredible. (none / 0) (#29)
by Salo on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 11:57:09 AM EST

This is exactly what Knox was attempting to pin on Lumumba.
Me leave it out? Pffft. She attempted to send down her boss. The guy was lucky a Swiss professor followed the news.
The racism directed at the Italian justice system is the real problem afaic. They have a system that is very forgiving toward defendents. The abuse directed at their system by American commentators is astonishing.

she did commit a crime... (none / 0) (#127)
by diogenes on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 07:31:42 PM EST

The maximum sentence for slander--i.e. throwing her boss under the bus by falsely accusing him of murder--is three years in Italy. I'm sure that many here would agree that we need to deter false accusations of innocent people for murder, so prison is in order.


: Only one year in California (none / 0) (#136)
by MKS on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:22:33 PM EST

for false police report......misdemeanor.....
Perjury, following through on the false report with sworn testimony, is a felony though.....

: time served? (none / 0) (#162)
by CST on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 08:00:04 AM EST

Not so. (none / 0) (#12)
by Salo on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:28:32 AM EST

Knox behaved very strangely when interviewed by the Police, made inconsitent statements in police interviews. kercher's friends who met Knox and the flatmates thought she was guilty. Knox even treid to pin the murder on her boss a guy called Pat Lumumba who has sued her in court for defamation, Slander and ruining his business. Her statementS to the cops look like guilt as well.

From my understanding of the DNA evidence, Knox's boyfriend was placed on the immediate scene with a bra strap, and a knife belonging to her boyfriend had traces of both victim and Knox on a blade. Even if this has been garbage in garbaged out by the defence, it's more than enough for me.

Additionally, the pair were at the scene when cops unexpectedly rolled up to return phones to Kercher.

The pair are deeply suspicious.


Wasn't there an issue regarding (5.00 / 1) (#137)
by MKS on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:24:40 PM EST

her confession being coerced?

Some of the details of coercion sounded pretty bad.....


Yes (none / 0) (#145)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:45:53 AM EST

Confused, frightened, at that point only primitive conversational Italian, tough treatment by police, no lawyer present, questioned for 10 or 12 hours straight or something like that. She did not behave well in police custody, for sure, but that does not make her a murderer.


: Just heard that a typical Italian (5.00 / 2) (#149)
by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:52:58 AM EST

police tactic is to demand that the suspect "imagine" what happened. Knox's confession contains the word "imnagine" in it--so it did not even purport on its face to be factual.....
And, the confession contained factual inaccuracies....
Like torture....Garbage in, garbage out.

That's why (none / 0) (#165)
by jbindc on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 09:17:10 AM EST

there was a second slander trial that started this past year - brought by the police. I can't find what happened but there were witnesses that said she was never hurt and had no injuries or anuything like that.


oops (none / 0) (#16)
by lentinel on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:00:56 AM EST

Amanda just testified that "I wasn't there, I wasn't at the crime scene. I didn't know rudy, I didn't even know his name...) (My emphasis)

In the summer of 2009 Amanda testified that she had met Rudy.
(according to Twitter @BLNadaeu)

She keeps lying. (none / 0) (#18)
by Salo on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:03:08 AM EST

Lying and lying.

It is amazing.


: Salo, you have reached the limit (none / 0) (#27)
by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 11:21:45 AM EST

of chattering. See our comment rules, you are limited to four comments a day on this topic. You are arguing for guilt and this is a defense site. Your language is objectionable.
No more comments from you today on this case. They will be deleted.

The US press are so sloppy. (none / 0) (#20)
by Salo on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:12:01 AM EST

Lester Holt just getting details wrong and wrongerer. He stated that Knox and Sollecito found the body...

Bzzzzt.

The door was locked to the victim's room. The front door To house ajar. Knox and Sollecito did not follow cops into her room. The body was covered by duvet.

Good on the appeals process details though. The Italians have a very lenient judicial system. The appeal is a do over.


So odd for a defendant to give his/her own... (none / 0) (#22)
by magster on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:25:28 AM EST

... closing argument. Part of me likes the practice because it is their life on the line, but I'm sure the defendant's attorneys hate this part.

language alert - site violation (none / 0) (#24)
by sj on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 10:39:20 AM EST

In addition to your completely revolting conclusions, you have violated site language restrictions.

that comment has been deleted (5.00 / 3) (#25)
by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 11:14:41 AM EST

the commenter needs to read our comment guidelines before posting again.


: Thank You (none / 0) (#32)
by CoralGables on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 11:59:12 AM EST

What is the burden of proof? (none / 0) (#28)
by magster on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 11:25:01 AM EST

Is this a de novo trial, or is there an appellate standard that gives the original verdict deference and puts the burden on Knox?

This is going to sound (none / 0) (#30)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 11:57:34 AM EST

stupid but I never really paid much attention to this until I watched the Lifetime movie about Amanda and then I did watch the documentary too on this case. Frankly, watch both left me kind of confused as to what really happened but I found that the DNA evidence was pretty weak it seems.

I'm With You (none / 0) (#34)
by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 12:57:14 PM EST

The first case was totally different in regards to the press. I paid attention just because it was in the news, but I didn't follow the case, just kept up as much as the news kept up with it.

This time around she is a media darling, and it ticks me off that it's almost impossible to get an accurate account of what happened and the proceeding investigation.

I am confused, the same news agencies are running the story totally different although the facts are the same. What was once rock solid DNA evidence is now sketchy at best.

I know that my opinion of her guilt is different then the original trial. Last time they had her dead to right, but the media just flipped and now she's an angel in the wrong place/time.


The family of Amanda Knox (none / 0) (#105)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 04:19:13 PM EST

tried to stop the airing of that movie because it followed the flawed investigation and conviction that was under appeal. Maybe now that Amanda can speak openly about her whereabouts and actions, she wouldn't have more than a very brief and insignificant role in a remake of that movie.


: The movie (none / 0) (#122)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 06:41:33 PM EST

really was not favorable to her but the documentary was therefore I ended up very confused after watching both of them. The movie never really discussed the DNA evidence at all and focused more on her and her boyfriend's "strange" behavior.

CNN (Blackberry) reports Ms. Knox (none / 0) (#35)
by oculus on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 01:49:03 PM EST

gave her argument in fluent Italian.

She's had almost four years (5.00 / 1) (#146)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:46:46 AM EST

in an Italian prison to learn the language.


If she is aquitted (none / 0) (#36)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 01:58:10 PM EST

I wonder if she'll ever want to breathe a word of Italian again....


With the DNA evidence impeached... (none / 0) (#38)
by magster on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:05:00 PM EST

... what's left? Poor alibi? Implicating someone who had no involvement, even if that was done under duress?

Can't see how the conviction is upheld based on what I've read (which has mostly been done the last day or so).


exactly... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by kempis on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:20:37 PM EST

Without the DNA evidence, what case is there? The testimony of Rudy Guede, whose DNA was all over the crime scene, who was apparently bargaining for a reduced sentence? Amanda Knox's "strange behavior" during more than ten hours of interrogation? Amanda Knox's "character"? If doing drugs and having sex makes one a likely murderer, it's a wonder anyone survives youth. Most of us would be dead or serving life sentences.


Yeah, just watching the MSNBC coverage (none / 0) (#41)
by magster on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:24:54 PM EST

... it seems her Achilles heel is never having had a consistent or verifiable alibi. That bugs me too, but if we're talking reasonable doubt, she wins. (I still don't what standard of proof applies to this proceeding).


Agree. On the basis of reasonable doubt, she (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by byteb on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:43:40 PM EST

wins and needs to go free but I'm troubled her changing stories and lack of verifiable alibi too.

There's something not quite right with her.


I think her alibi, and Sollecito's (none / 0) (#147)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:48:20 AM EST

was that they spent the night together in his apartment. Don't know how you can "verify" that.


: No (none / 0) (#163)
by jbindc on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 09:12:48 AM EST

Sollecito said he couldn't remember if Knox was with him or not that night. He also said he was downloading files and watching cartoons on his computer, but computer experts said there was no activity on it that night.
As for Knox's alibi - which one? At one point she said she woke up at Sollecito's house and left at 10 am the next morning. Except, a shop owner puts her in his shop near her flat at 7:45 am.
Her next story was that she and Sollectio were at her flat. Finally, she falsely accused Lumumba of the murder.

How many people have that very same (none / 0) (#99)
by sj on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 04:09:33 PM EST

"Achilles heel"? I know I do. I have a verifiable "alibi" for maybe a couple of nights a month.

On a good month... ::sigh::


Certainly at least two words (none / 0) (#39)
by CoralGables on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:19:16 PM EST

Arrivederci Italia


Her lawyers argued (none / 0) (#45)
by jbindc on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:37:25 PM EST

n Thursday, defense attorneys argued Knox had been denied a translator and was discouraged from getting a lawyer when she was arrested, and portrayed her as a young girl, inexperienced with world travel and unable to speak Italian.

(from CNN a couple of days ago)


This resonates with my reading (5.00 / 2) (#65)
by Towanda on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:14:27 PM EST

today, for research reasons, of a 1920s case in Chicago of the case of an Italian immigrant woman who was sentenced to be the first woman to hang in Illinois history. She spoke so little English that she could not understand the sentence until it was explained to her the next day, by more than a dozen other women prisoners in the Cook County jail at the time. (The Chicago Tribune had decided that far too many women were going free and waged a horrible campaign against the woman, complete with every stereotype ever seen in print, some that ought to have been unprintable.)

Fortunately, she endured only two years in jail before she won a stay and a retrial, never field, so she went free. And I like this: Her case was taken up by half a dozen young Italian American lawyers, pro bono, including one woman lawyer only 23 whom no Chicago law firm would hire, so she had to open her own office. She, it turned out, as well as the other women prisoners took on the task that turned the tide; they all helped the immigrant with her hair and American-style outfits as well as learning English to return to court a different woman.

Anyway, what went around in this country comes around on an American in an interesting way today.


I tried a criminal case where defendant (none / 0) (#81)
by oculus on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:42:35 PM EST

spoke only Spanish and testified he couldn't even communicate w/his lawyer. However, I knew the lawyer was fluent in Spanish and had him served with a subpoena. Anyhow, there soon was a stipulation about the lawyer's fluency in Spanish.


: Well I'm just an ignorant redneck (5.00 / 1) (#139)
by Rojas on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:20:40 PM EST

But even I know that there are enough variations in the so-called Spanish that our neighbors speak that they simply cannot communicate. This is a point of pride for you?

: Serving opposing counsel with a (none / 0) (#138)
by MKS on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:27:22 PM EST

trial subpoena?
Hardball.....But stuff like that happens in California....

She did the very same thing at her first (none / 0) (#106)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 04:20:49 PM EST

trial - gave her own defense statement in fluent Italian. You must not have followed the first trial, either.


: Correct. Only got hooked today. (none / 0) (#107)
by oculus on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 04:25:03 PM EST

: Not so fluent (none / 0) (#148)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:51:08 AM EST

That was American media's interpretation, but from what I've heard, it was largely memorized and not particularly fluent. By then, she'd learned a bunch more Italian than she knew at the time she was arrested, but still was said by people who actually do speak Italian to be halting. Just sayin'.
American media coverage of this case has not been good, IMO.

"The Criminal Justice System in Italy" (none / 0) (#42)
by oculus on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:31:08 PM EST

I just read this. Found via google. Can't seem to copy the URL. Anyhow, no info re standard of proof at first level of appeal. Looks like the highest court doesn't take new evidence--more like U.S. appellate courts.

link: (none / 0) (#43)
by oculus on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:33:05 PM EST

here


Hmmm... (none / 0) (#44)
by magster on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:37:09 PM EST

... I swore I read that new evidence impeaching the original witnesses was submitted via new testimony, as well as evidence of flawed DNA.


: Same here (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by CoralGables on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:44:57 PM EST

as to what was admitted this time. I believe there are two possible appeals so perhaps this level permits new evidence and the higher one doesn't?

: At the level of the pending first appeal: new (none / 0) (#46)
by oculus on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:39:03 PM EST

evidence is permitted. But, apparently not at the highest (next) level of appeal.

: Judges (none / 0) (#150)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:53:35 AM EST

in the Napoleonic system have much more involvement than in ours. It was the appeals judge who ordered up an independent evaluation of the evidence, and that's how the crappy DNA non-evidence in this case was eviscerated. Not sure about the crappy witnesses, whether that came from the court-appointed panel or the defense.

Boy, Knox looks miserable... (none / 0) (#47)
by magster on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:42:43 PM EST

Agree. (none / 0) (#49)
by oculus on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:44:06 PM EST

(But, why am I watching?)


: According to the article I read and linked to (none / 0) (#54)
by oculus on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:51:34 PM EST

above, the family of deceased victim and their lawyer have a seat at the table. Appears that a young man and an older woman with highlighted short hair are such people here.

: Sorry to say, but that was compelling (none / 0) (#55)
by magster on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:52:37 PM EST

... and so we watch.
Wow!

She gets some good news (none / 0) (#53)
by CoralGables on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:50:05 PM EST

Overturned (none / 0) (#56)
by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:57:47 PM EST

She and former boyfriend are to be released.

: My Italian (none / 0) (#59)
by CoralGables on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:00:12 PM EST

doesn't go much past Ragu, but didn't they uphold two of the six counts and it's time served and a fine? I may be very wrong on that.

Wow! (none / 0) (#57)
by Mr Natural on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:58:32 PM EST

What just happened applied .... (none / 0) (#58)
by magster on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:59:07 PM EST

.... to Knox's boyfriend too, right?

The Telegraph: (none / 0) (#60)
by Mr Natural on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:02:24 PM EST

She will walk free from Capanne prison, outside Perugia, after serving four years for a crime that the appeal court ruled she did not commit.
Her Italian former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito also had his murder conviction quashed.

Am I wrong? (none / 0) (#123)
by NYShooter on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 06:50:53 PM EST

The appeals court basically ruled, "not guilty," due to insufficient evidence, or words to that effect.

They did not state that, "......a crime..... she did not commit."

p.s. I'm not saying she did, or didn't." I haven't followed the case enough to have an opinion. Just want to know if Italian court meanings are similar to American. For instance, our courts say, "not guilty," and some other courts say, "not proven."


: My understanding explicitly not (none / 0) (#151)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:55:27 AM EST

"insufficient evidence," but a flat-out exoneration. Jury has the option of "insufficient evidence," or "not proven," and they didn't take it.

: Just like an American court (none / 0) (#164)
by jbindc on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 09:13:57 AM EST

No jury ever says a defendant is innocent or didn't commit the crime. Just that it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Have read comments (not here) that (none / 0) (#63)
by oculus on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:05:41 PM EST

U.S. tourists would never go to Italy again based on Ms. Knox predicament. Really bad for tourism. Any effect here?

I Just Read at MSNBC... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:10:24 PM EST

... that American hatred fueled the conviction back in 2007. Seems far fetched, same with the tourism.

Theses weren't tourists snatched off the streets, how anyone would use that as some reason not to visit Italy seems lame at best.


: Agree. (none / 0) (#66)
by oculus on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:16:57 PM EST

I've been there since (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by Towanda on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:19:32 PM EST

and plan to go again next year.

That said, I accompanied a couple of dozen college students, and there were times when we had to crack down hard on some antics. On the other hand, the local Italians encouraged a lot of the behaviors, because they made a lot of money from the American visitors. And most of the Italians lived up so wonderfully to the best stereotypes about a warm welcome that continued for a full month. Heck, they kept giving us free gelato. How could I not go back?


: I especially enjoyed visiting Perugia. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by oculus on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:23:50 PM EST

And we were in a very similar city (none / 0) (#71)
by Towanda on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:23:44 PM EST

since I just heard CNN atttribute Knox's treatment to being in a 14th century medieval town in Italy. So were we -- although ours, like Perugia, also dated back 2,000 years, and we lived near an ancient Roman arch still extant. Our town was not far at all from Perugia in Umbria, so stereotyping of small Italian towns is just silly, too.


Book time. (none / 0) (#67)
by oculus on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:18:40 PM EST

Would you spend four years (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:41:28 PM EST

in prison to make a million dollars? If this was a quip, I already asked you to refrain.


: Certainly not. And not a quip. (none / 0) (#82)
by oculus on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:43:35 PM EST

If she can manage (none / 0) (#70)
by lilburro on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:21:49 PM EST

NOT to write a book called "If I Did It," she should be okay.


I suppose she can anything she likes (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by oculus on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:25:03 PM EST

now, but refrain from libel and slander.


She owes some $$$ on her defamation ... (none / 0) (#74)
by magster on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:25:33 PM EST

... conviction. She may have to pen something to pay that off.


That may cause her not to write anything. (none / 0) (#75)
by oculus on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:28:12 PM EST

Future profits. Son of "Sam."


I doubt if that law applies (none / 0) (#83)
by brodie on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:43:49 PM EST

to those wrongfully convicted. Also this was a foreign court proceeding; Son of Sam relates to state court and state law violations and not rewarding those legitimately convicted.


: Of course. (none / 0) (#84)
by oculus on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:45:46 PM EST

Bidding war with book publishers (none / 0) (#78)
by brodie on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:39:18 PM EST

should bring in at least low-7 figures, plus the US tv networks paying out at least 6-figures to get the first interview. So she'll make a fair amount, less whatever she has to pay on the defamation case plus court costs.


I Would Think Her Family... (5.00 / 2) (#88)
by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:52:57 PM EST

... is financially devastated with the original trial and the appeal.


Yep major expenses for lawyers, travel (none / 0) (#100)
by brodie on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 04:09:54 PM EST

and probably wages/salary lost in all the time taken off to go to Italy in those four years -- assuming one or both parents were able to keep their jobs.


"Literally, we'll have nothing." (none / 0) (#108)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 04:28:48 PM EST

"One of the things Edda and I talked about with Amanda before she even went to Italy was, what happens if something goes wrong. Your parents are now 6,000 miles away from you. What do you do?" said Curt Knox, 47, a vice president for finance at Macy's. "At that point, we were thinking about, you know, medical."

[...]

In advance of the Sept. 16 hearing, they've drained their home equity and retirement funds to pay for a defense team of lawyers, forensic experts, investigators and a media adviser in Seattle. They decline to say how much, except that "it would be an extremely nice house in the Pacific Northwest."

"It's called being leveraged to the hilt," said Curt Knox. "Literally, we'll have nothing. And we'll do whatever it takes."


: What else can you do when your daughter (none / 0) (#113)
by ruffian on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 05:23:46 PM EST

is in trouble.
Anyway, he can join the club with his home equity gone and no retirment funds. At least he used it to a good purpose and did not get it ripped off by Wall Street.

I don't know much about (none / 0) (#76)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:32:27 PM EST

...the Amanda Knox case, but I'm pretty sure the Italian Justice system is hideous.

Case in point, seismologists tried in court for manslaughter for not properly warning citizens about an impending earthquake.

I am so happy for this young woman and her family (none / 0) (#118)
by samsguy18 on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 05:53:59 PM EST

When I realized the six jurors had one vote and they had to be unanamous... the primary judge had two votes and the secondary judge had one vote...I said a prayer !

: No, did not have to be unanimous (none / 0) (#156)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:06:40 AM EST

Every discussion of this I've heard said it's purely majority vote, and a tie goes to the defendant.
THe "jury" was made up of two judges and four "lay judges," whatever that is-- apparently sort of "professional jurors."

Ugh. (none / 0) (#119)
by lilburro on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 06:07:47 PM EST

Why is Fox News referring to this as the "'Knoxy' Verdict"? The network is disgusting, generally, but god, what a perfect example of Fox sexism.

You can (none / 0) (#131)
by CoralGables on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 07:51:31 PM EST

call it sexism if you want but in this case at least you can't pick on FOX. Googling Foxy Knoxy will get you 2744 articles in the US using the term and 4932 Worldwide.

While the British tabloids used it with a negative connotation, it appears she got the nickname back home in school in Seattle long ago and used it herself as a screenname online at times.

So in this case and maybe only this case, FOX gets a pass.


True (none / 0) (#140)
by lilburro on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 10:25:37 PM EST

I had heard it before, but that was the only outlet using that term today. It seemed particularly crass and left-field this time around, IMO.


: One small thing I have to (none / 0) (#158)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:08:06 AM EST

give to Fox is that they're not sexist that I've ever seen. With the number of truly ferocious female anchors and correspondents, they really couldn't get away with it just in house.

: Agreed in that (none / 0) (#173)
by CoralGables on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:25:11 AM EST

it was definitely unprofessional.

Come on guys/gals pay attention. (none / 0) (#141)
by Gerald USN Ret on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 10:36:20 PM EST

Donald
lentinel

I don't know if you listen to the people you talk to, but I do think you have a hard time reading what I write, so I will try again.

I will specify that the person we are speaking of is innocent of the accused crime.

Now I will rephrase a bit.
1. If one lives an exemplary life,
A) they have less chance to be before a jury,
B) and if they by unfortunate circumstance still face a jury, then they have a greater chance of escaping unscathed.

2. If one lives less than an exemplary life,
A) they have more chance of being brought before a jury,
B) and more chance of suffering mightily.

In other words, live an exemplary life, and the odds are twice in your favor of being o.k.

Live less than an exemplary life, and the odds are twice in your favor of NOT being o.k.

As for the juries, they are just people. Here in this very country we watch people angling to get their case before a certain accomplished JURIST they they have the "book" on, or into a certain CIRCUIT and that is because they seek a certain verdict.

How can we then expect the JUROR who is no more than or less than a chance passerby to show that will of the wisp characteristic of even handedness, virtuousness, and total dedication to impartiality.

Especially when the lawyers take great care to stack the jury toward their side.

Come on guys and gals. Be sensible.

You cannot get away from the fact that with all things being equal, a good and even prudish person is safer in this world than a bad (dare we say using Mozart's words) "vulgar" person.

The lawyers, even at public expense, sometimes dress up defendants and accusers both, get them hair cuts, and try to present them in a more seemly way but all that falls by the wayside when their life and deeds are brought into the light.

Be exemplary friends, and when you walk in the dark places, broadcast light and take good dependable stout hearted friends.

that is about the most (5.00 / 2) (#142)
by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 10:40:30 PM EST

moralizing and preachy comment I've read yet. You are just like the jurors we all should fear, someone who thinks the defendant wouldn't be sitting there if he hadn't done something wrong. How sad.


No. (2.00 / 1) (#170)
by Gerald USN Ret on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:52:35 AM EST

No,
I am only giving some directions on how best to keep from being a defendant.

And if you become one, how an exemplary life becomes one of your best assets to avoid a guilty verdict.

No presumptions. Just cautions.

Why would you deny your clients these kinds of cautions? I find this strange.


Please, you have to understand that common sense (5.00 / 1) (#183)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:53:21 PM EST

is often unacceptable around here...


Sounds too much like parental admonition. (none / 0) (#186)
by oculus on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 05:09:34 PM EST

: Apparently, we should all be living the kind of (none / 0) (#188)
by shoephone on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 05:22:49 PM EST

existence that qualifies as "an exemplary life" to any and all foreign courts of justice.
Who knew the secret of success was so simple?Wow, thanks for that indespensible info, Gerald.

Obviously, you have never sat on a jury (5.00 / 0) (#144)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:24:57 AM EST

Either that or you are so certain you are right on everything that no argument, regardless of the level of reasonable, could possibly change make you take pause on your rigid beliefs.


He's a retired commander (5.00 / 1) (#159)
by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:08:29 AM EST

He's always been right about everything for as long as he can remember, because he outranks you


Actually I never have. (none / 0) (#171)
by Gerald USN Ret on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:58:46 AM EST

I have been called to jury duty many times, but never impaneled.

Lawyers for both sides do not like engineers. This is common and many of us have noticed it. We figure they don't want people that can think.

I have however set through several cases. Some serious.

Also I have testified many times in the Military Justice system but always as a witness.


: Or maybe it's just that they don't want jurors (none / 0) (#172)
by sj on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:16:34 AM EST

who think rigidly.
That probably works better as a witness. That kind of absolute certainty probably works well there. No matter how flawed the testimony. Mind you, I'm not saying that yours was. Just saying that confident certainty is very compelling.

Immersed as I am in reading (5.00 / 0) (#154)
by Towanda on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:04:28 AM EST

trial testimony and trial coverage in media in the 1920s just now, travesties of justice, I can say this:

Give me the facts of even a blameless life, much less -- no doubt -- yours or mine, and I can tell you exactly how a prosecutor and a prosecutorial press could twist your life story into a tale that would land you in jail, at best, but you could lose your life.

By the way, with all of your reliance on juries, you might be interested in reading about Clarence Darrow's defense in the Leopold-Loeb case, his closing speech considered one of his finest -- and about his decision to not have a jury trial. He figured that his clients would end up executed if they had a jury trial, while a judge would sentence them to life. And Darrow guessed right.


What the frick is an exemplary life? (5.00 / 1) (#157)
by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:07:02 AM EST

Nothing ambiguous there....sheesh. For a feminist I think I've led an exemplary life which in the eyes of other people but not ALL other people placed me within the classification of b*tch or whore or both. Exemplary...gotta love that one.

What was an exemplary life in Nazi Germany? Triple Sheesh...it just boggles the damned mind


Stout hearted? (none / 0) (#160)
by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:19:07 AM EST

Really? What the sam hell is that? Explain to me how stout hearted means anything...anything at all when it comes to anyone being innocent or guilty of breaking a law. I don't even know what stout hearted is other than a larded up heart suffering from coronary artery disease that's still managing to wheeze one more out.

Broadcast light? You mean always have a flashlight or something?

Prudish? Really? Hitler was pretty prudish wasn't he? So was Ted Haggard...but hey, check out this List of Prudes.


: Lyrics of "Stout-hearted men": (none / 0) (#177)
by oculus on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 11:59:01 AM EST

From "New Moon"
One of my Dad's faves.

Please stay on topic (none / 0) (#184)
by Jeralyn on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 01:31:47 PM EST

Amanda Knox related. Thanks.