Knox and Sollecito; guilty

0098386

Suspended
Original poster
Jan 18, 2005
21,553
2,886
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8394750.stm
American student Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend have been found guilty by an Italian court of the murder of British student Meredith Kercher.

A jury found Knox and Italian Raffaele Sollecito, 25, guilty of murder and sexual violence.

Miss Kercher, 21, a Leeds University exchange student from Coulsdon, Surrey, was found with her throat slit in her Perugia room in November 2007.

Knox, 22, had denied killing Miss Kercher during a sex game.

The verdict of the jury, who included two judges, was confirmed by the trial judge.
Sentenced to 26 years.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,538
7,787
CT
I wonder if she really did it. From what I heard of the case it sounds like she didn't get the fairest of trials.
 

Gregg2

macrumors 603
May 22, 2008
5,809
344
Milwaukee, WI
Yeah, there was no DNA evidence on her or at the crime scene. One "expert" interviewed claims that it's not possible to not leave DNA evidence behind at the scene of a violent struggle, or to not take incriminating DNA from the scene. I don't understand the basis of the conviction. Perhaps the newspapers and magazines will be able to do a better job of explaining that than they have time for on TV.
 

lrjr

macrumors newbie
Jun 28, 2003
20
0
Yeah, there was no DNA evidence on her or at the crime scene. One "expert" interviewed claims that it's not possible to not leave DNA evidence behind at the scene of a violent struggle, or to not take incriminating DNA from the scene. I don't understand the basis of the conviction. Perhaps the newspapers and magazines will be able to do a better job of explaining that than they have time for on TV.

The only people who heard all the evidence were those in the court room and it is their oppinion that the accuseds guilt was shown. You will never be able to fully understand the basis of conviction without actually being there, you dont see the witnesses give evidence and you cant therefore properly discern their credibility. No magazine article is ever going to be able to explain what happened in that court room properly.

Also on the DNA point there was a rather famous Scottish criminal case where there was no DNA evidence and a conviction was still secured and upheld on appeal- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4098795.stm
 

ucfgrad93

macrumors P6
Aug 17, 2007
17,525
8,141
Colorado
The only people who heard all the evidence were those in the court room and it is their oppinion that the accuseds guilt was shown. You will never be able to fully understand the basis of conviction without actually being there, you dont see the witnesses give evidence and you cant therefore properly discern their credibility. No magazine article is ever going to be able to explain what happened in that court room properly.

Also on the DNA point there was a rather famous Scottish criminal case where there was no DNA evidence and a conviction was still secured and upheld on appeal- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4098795.stm
Agreed, if it really was bad justice, then they can appeal.
 

Cougarcat

macrumors 604
Sep 19, 2003
7,766
2,545
I find it funny (well, sad, really) that the media focuses on Knox and pretends Sollecito doesn't exist. All the headlines read "Amanda Knox guilty," if you were just skimming the news articles you wouldn't realize two people were convicted. Why? Because Knox is hot. :rolleyes:
 

pilotError

macrumors 68020
Apr 12, 2006
2,240
4
Long Island
I think the real shame of it is they were there and know what happened, yet the parents will always wonder what really happened to their little girl.

Maybe the Jury got it right, maybe they didn't. I find some of the evidence to cast doubt (knife used, DNA, etc.), but with three people (first guy got convicted in a separate trial), nobody came forward to tell the truth. They tried to blame it on some homeless guy at first. If it wasn't for that, I would have thought more highly of her.

All three have plenty of time to think about it now though...
 

Gregg2

macrumors 603
May 22, 2008
5,809
344
Milwaukee, WI
I find it funny (well, sad, really) that the media focuses on Knox and pretends Sollecito doesn't exist. All the headlines read "Amanda Knox guilty," if you were just skimming the news articles you wouldn't realize two people were convicted. Why? Because Knox is hot. :rolleyes:
Sollecito is Italian, no? The American media are focusing on Knox because she is American.
 

Sdashiki

macrumors 68040
Aug 11, 2005
3,512
8
Behind the lens
Italy is about the most dysfunctional country in Europe. I don't know if they were guilty, but it's pretty clear this conviction wasn't based upon credible evidence.
Reasonable doubt takes a back seat to Italian machismo and anti-American sentiment that was appropriate at the time of the murder (dont tell me you forgot it happened in 2007...bush's endtime)

Whether they did it or not, reasonable doubt for MURDER wasn't met at any point and no one disputes this from a logical evidential standpoint. But, me being American and they Italian, I have no clue how their justice system works, but from where I stand, it dont work very well at all. No sequestering? Prosecutors under review during the trial? Wow.

Video for a quick comparison between US and Italian justice systems:
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-364971
 

Loge

macrumors 68030
Jun 24, 2004
2,678
1,147
England
Sollecito is Italian, no? The American media are focusing on Knox because she is American.
Maybe, though the British media also focused on Knox; anyone just glimpsing some of the newspaper headlines on Saturday would have thought that Sollecito got off.
 

pilotError

macrumors 68020
Apr 12, 2006
2,240
4
Long Island
You also have to remember that in the Italian system, they only have to have a majority to convict, it doesn't have to be unanimous. The results of the vote on each count should be filed within the next 90 days to see how the jury was swaying.

Apparently the prosecution pulled out a nice video reenactment of what they thought happened, which apparently was pretty influential when they showed it to the jury.

According to the authorities, there were a couple of things that really didn't add up, one was that they said there was a break-in, but she didn't enter the girls room and nothing was taken. Yet somehow on her forced confession, she knew what position the body was in.

So was it scared reaction to an accident? I don't think anyone but those three will ever know.
 

yojitani

macrumors 68000
Apr 28, 2005
1,855
10
An octopus's garden

RedTomato

macrumors 601
Mar 4, 2005
4,011
312
.. London ..
Yes, all this is extremely odd.

One of the worst things for me, and something that I haven't seen remarked on before, is the destruction of the hard drives of three seperate laptops (one belonging to Sollecito and two to Knox.) by the police forensic expert examining them.

How is it possible to destroy a HD while examining it? Don't you have to leave it untouched?

http://www.forensicon.com/articles/hard-drive-imaging.asp

There are various forensic HDD imaging tools available - they are certified to make a read-only connection to a HDD to let you make a bit-for-bit duplicate of the HDD for investigation. They will block any write attempt, even accidental, in order to let you certify the original HDD was untouched in court.

http://www.span.com/product_info.php?products_id=8150
http://www.starmount.co.uk/productversion/612.html

and there are many others. From Wiki:

Wikipaedia said:
Principle 1: No action taken by law enforcement agencies or their agents should change data held on a computer or storage media which may subsequently be relied upon in court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_forensics

This isn't rare or exotic equipment, it's standard for any police IT lab, and it doesn't cost much.

So, given all that, how is it possible for the police 'expert' to 'destroy' THREE laptops in a row? Especially as these laptops could well have exonerated Knox and Sollecito or confirmed their guilt.

Destruction of evidence I call it.
 

takao

macrumors 68040
Dec 25, 2003
3,825
432
Dornbirn (Austria)
what i find interesting is all those comments about the italian justice system: wasn't it the US (or the UK?) a few years ago where the one teacher got a lesser penalty for sleeping with her pupil because she was "too good looking for prison" ?
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,008
16,453
The Misty Mountains
Thread revival...

26 Mar 2013: Italy court: Amanda Knox to be retried for Meredith Kercher murder

This is why you want the 5th Amendment and the Double Jeopardy provision. The U.S. would be very wrong to allow her extradition. I have no idea if she is innocent or guilty, but there is no reason why an individual should be subjected to multiple trials until the State gets the verdict it wants...

Amanda Knox was ordered to stand trial again for the murder of her roommate by Italy's top criminal court on Tuesday, but there appeared to be little the country could do to force her to return for the new hearings.

The Court of Cassation, Italy's final court of appeal, overturned the acquittals of both Knox and her then-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito over the 2007 killing of British student Meredith Kercher.

In a statement responding to the decision, Knox slammed prosecutors and vowed to fight on.
 

ucfgrad93

macrumors P6
Aug 17, 2007
17,525
8,141
Colorado
This is why you want the 5th Amendment and the Double Jeopardy provision. The U.S. would be very wrong to allow her extradition. I have no idea if she is innocent or guilty, but there is no reason why an individual should be subjected to multiple trials until the State gets the verdict it wants...
Agreed. While I think that she may have been involved, I don't think she should be extradited.
 

wrkactjob

macrumors 65816
Feb 29, 2008
1,357
0
London
Mmmm Foxy Knoxy.

I guess the US would drag its heels over any extradition requests, not looking so good for Raffaele though?
 

Tomorrow

macrumors 604
Mar 2, 2008
7,114
1,246
Always a day away
This is why you want the 5th Amendment and the Double Jeopardy provision.
Agreed. While I think that she may have been involved, I don't think she should be extradited.
I don't think she should either, but...

...the U.S. constitution doesn't apply in Italy.

If she doesn't get extradited, then Americans will soon realize they can commit any crime they like here then flee to Italy for safe haven, knowing that (to return the favor), Italy won't send them back for trial here.
 

unlinked

macrumors 6502a
Jul 12, 2010
695
1,199
Ireland
I don't think she should either, but...

...the U.S. constitution doesn't apply in Italy.

If she doesn't get extradited, then Americans will soon realize they can commit any crime they like here then flee to Italy for safe haven, knowing that (to return the favor), Italy won't send them back for trial here.
I think it is pretty normal for countries to to put restrictions on extradition e.g not extraditing citizens , not extraditing people who would face the death penalty. And of course the US has kidnapped people from Italy in the past.
 

eric/

Guest
Sep 19, 2011
1,676
12
Ohio, United States
I don't think she should either, but...

...the U.S. constitution doesn't apply in Italy.

If she doesn't get extradited, then Americans will soon realize they can commit any crime they like here then flee to Italy for safe haven, knowing that (to return the favor), Italy won't send them back for trial here.
She was already tried. Just keep trying until you get it right I guess?

Just heard, basically it's like an appeal by the defense. The trial has to go through 3 courts before it's done. The issue is that they 3rd level sent it back to the 2nd level, which means it's being retried. Said it could take as long as 3 years.

I could understand sending it to the 3rd level, but just going back through the evidence to try again to get it right, keeping her locked up for years? Outrageous.
 
Last edited:

redshift1

macrumors regular
Mar 2, 2010
155
0
Seems like an incredible waste of time and money not to mention the unusual interpretation of Italian law which allows almost unlimited bites of the apple by the prosecution.