# Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent victims of a rush to judgment **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 12, 2009, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474 "2009-10-12T01:39:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/141 "2009-12-07T16:55:16Z")
This is the hidden cost of religious belief, honestly. We like to talk in abstractions about whether so-and-so theologian makes a good case or whether such-and-such group is more “smarmy” or “militant” than others. But the real tragedy is that when you have an overwhelmingly Catholic culture, of course they are going to believe that murders are the work of Satan and defer to authority when someone is arrested. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/142 "2009-12-07T16:57:18Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > Try [this](http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C306/) for starters. OK, so that’s another long page that is an unsorted list of theories and opinions. I may as well be reading the time cube page. If there is a compelling argument or piece of evidence, please say what it is, and/or link to the argument itself, directly. Otherwise I still don’t see the reasoning behind the conviction. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/143 "2009-12-07T17:02:15Z")
> [@Sam\_I\_Was](#): > > True, but that still leaves the composition of the jury itself, which as far as I know, wasn’t interviewed to ferret out any preexisting bias. The only reason I bring up double jeopardy is because had she been acquitted, the prosecution still had the option to appeal. I’m not sure that she would have been permitted to leave the country. I the defence has the right of appeal of the result of a trial then why shouldn’t the prosecution? ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/144 "2009-12-07T17:02:20Z")
I just looked at [the US Embassy to Rome website](http://italy.usembassy.gov/acs/emergency/emergency-arrest.asp) about the Italian legal system. There’s a lot of information there, including a link to– **Warning! PDF Link follows!** –[url=[http://italy.usembassy.gov/acs/emergency/emergency-arrest.asp](http://italy.usembassy.gov/acs/emergency/emergency-arrest.asp)]a 14-page _Prisoner’s Guide_. For those interested, that might give a bit of a glimpse of life in an Italian prison. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/145 "2009-12-07T17:05:29Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > I the defence has the right of appeal of the result of a trial then why shouldn’t the prosecution? Consider how much money a government can use to prosecute a case, and how much money the average person has to defend himself. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/146 "2009-12-07T17:08:29Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Consider how much money a government can use to prosecute a case, and how much money the average person has to defend himself. So because one party has a lot of money at their disposal they should have less rights? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/147 "2009-12-07T17:24:06Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > So because one party has a lot of money at their disposal they should have less rights? Governments don’t have rights. People have rights. In fact, at least in the U.S., rights are specifically defined as things the federal government cannot deny to individuals. So yes, governments operate at a handicap as far as this is concerned because they generally have more resources (tax money, armies, police) at their disposal. And I think that’s correct. Those advantages need to be mitigated for justice to be done. Otherwise, why have a concept like double jeopardy? If prosecutors believe someone is guilty, why not let them try him over and over again? Or why give people the right not to incriminate themselves? ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/148 "2009-12-07T19:09:28Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Governments don’t have rights. People have rights. In fact, at least in the U.S., rights are specifically defined as things the federal government cannot deny to individuals. So yes, governments operate at a handicap as far as this is concerned because they generally have more resources (tax money, armies, police) at their disposal. And I think that’s correct. Those advantages need to be mitigated for justice to be done. Otherwise, why have a concept like double jeopardy? If prosecutors believe someone is guilty, why not let them try him over and over again? Or why give people the right not to incriminate themselves? Luckily this isn’t the US so how rights are defined there is immaterial. Other countries deal with this by a variety of means, including having a limit on the number of appeals or even not allowing for an appeal process full stop. Something justs sits badly with me with the idea that only one side in a trial can appeal. It is fundamentally unfair. Personally I don’t care who/what either side is, if one can appeal then the other should be allowed to as well. There should be no favouritism in the law. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/149 "2009-12-07T20:12:20Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > Luckily this isn’t the US so how rights are defined there is immaterial. It was offered as an example. I think the principle is a good one. > [@](#): > > Other countries deal with this by a variety of means That’s why we’re having this discussion. > [@](#): > > Something justs sits badly with me with the idea that only one side in a trial can appeal. It is fundamentally unfair. And I think it’s fundamentally unfair that a government could continue prosecuting and re-prosecuting someone who a jury has already found innocent. Look at this this way: you’re accused of a crime and you didn’t do it, and you believe you can prove it, but you’re not positive. You’ve got enough money for a lawyer but you’re not rich. The public is not going to love you as a defendant. But you only need to convince one court you’re not guilty. Now consider the same situation, except even if you convince a jury, the government can appeal the verdict. And if that appeal doesn’t work, they can appeal again. And again. And they can get you thrown in jail by convincing any of those courts that you did it. You have to convince all the courts that you’re innocent. How do you feel about your chances now? Think it would affect your decision on how to plead? I’ve never been tried for murder in Italy, fortunately. But that sounds a lot less fair than allowing citizens (the ones who get thrown in jail) to appeal and giving the government (which employs the prosecutors and the police, makes the laws, and collects the taxes) only one shot. ---
**Author:** ![Crawlspace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Crawlspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crawlspace)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/150 "2009-12-07T20:52:44Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > Try [this](http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C306/) for starters. This site doesn’t even get the time of the Postal Police arrival correct. It claims 12:26, the Postal Police testified that it was 12:35, the defense claims it was after 12:46, the logged dispatch time. If they can’t get the facts of the case as presented in court correct, how much are we supposed to trust anything else? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_I\_Was](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eada6e/32.png) [@Sam\_I\_Was](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_I_Was)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/151 "2009-12-07T22:35:55Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > The Uniform Code of Military Justice is federal law, passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, aka two branches of the civilian government. I was speaking more in regards to its operation that to its origin. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/152 "2009-12-07T23:24:27Z")
> [@Crawlspace](#): > > This site doesn’t even get the time of the Postal Police arrival correct. It claims 12:26, the Postal Police testified that it was 12:35, the defense claims it was after 12:46, the logged dispatch time. If they can’t get the facts of the case as presented in court correct, how much are we supposed to trust anything else? Actually, according to a [blog entry](http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C308/P12/) two weeks later, which goes into much more detail regarding Knox’s phone activity on November 2: CCTV footage in the car park shows a black Fiat Punto (the same as the model driven by the policemen) arriving at 1225. The police themselves recorded their arrival at the cottage at 1230. I don’t see how this exonerates Knox. Moreover, that particular entry has a half dozen sources listed for it. What are yours? ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/153 "2009-12-07T23:30:44Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > OK, so that’s another long page that is an unsorted list of theories and opinions. > I may as well be reading the time cube page. :rolleyes: Yeah, it’s just like time cube. Give me a break. > [@](#): > > If there is a compelling argument or piece of evidence, please say what it is, and/or link to the argument itself, directly. > Otherwise I still don’t see the reasoning behind the conviction. I mentioned earlier in this thread what, for me, was the most compelling evidence (the staged break-in). However, not being a member of that trial jury, and only hearing the evidence through media filters (like you), perhaps that was not what _they_ had in mind foremost when they rendered their verdict. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_I\_Was](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eada6e/32.png) [@Sam\_I\_Was](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_I_Was)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/154 "2009-12-08T00:08:05Z")
The True Justice site also posts this [long Powerpoint presentation](http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/powerpoints_13_we_now_examine_the_compelling_evidence_for/) which doesn’t do much for me in the way of convincing me. Their tendency to mock the opposing side and accuse prominent Knox supporters of doing so simply for monetary gain is not the way to win converts, in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/155 "2009-12-08T13:05:21Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > And I think it’s fundamentally unfair that a government could continue prosecuting and re-prosecuting someone who a jury has already found innocent. Look at this this way: you’re accused of a crime and you didn’t do it, and you believe you can prove it, but you’re not positive. You’ve got enough money for a lawyer but you’re not rich. The public is not going to love you as a defendant. But you only need to convince one court you’re not guilty. Are there any countries that allow either side unlimited appeals, never mind giving the Government unlimited appeals? You seem to be arguing against something that nobody has offered support for. Quite simply, thinking that both sides should have the right to appeal if one side has the right to appeal is NOT the same thing as offering unlimited appeals, no matter how much you pretend it is. Your argument has a simple converse: You’re accused of a crime and you did do it and you believe you can offer “good enough” evidence to get off, but you’re not positive. You’ve got loads of money and the public is going to love you as a defendant. You only need to convince one court you’re not guilty. Sounds remarkably like OJ’s case to me. > [@All Gay Freedom Airways](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-gay-freedom-airways/4012/29): > > Now consider the same situation, except even if you convince a jury, the government can appeal the verdict. And if that appeal doesn’t work, they can appeal again. And again. And they can get you thrown in jail by convincing any of those courts that you did it. You have to convince all the courts that you’re innocent. How do you feel about your chances now? Think it would affect your decision on how to plead? Again, nobody is arguing for unlimited appeals. My understanding - and I could well be wrong here - is that an appeal goes to the next highest level. Usually this is a court of appeals. After that comes, often, a supreme court. In Europe there is also the European Court. However in the end you will eventually run out of places to appeal to. Again, is there _anywhere_ that offers unlimited appeals? > [@All Gay Freedom Airways](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/all-gay-freedom-airways/4012/29): > > I’ve never been tried for murder in Italy, fortunately. But that sounds a lot less fair than allowing citizens (the ones who get thrown in jail) to appeal and giving the government (which employs the prosecutors and the police, makes the laws, and collects the taxes) only one shot. A lot less fair seeing as it is a process that, as far as I am aware, doesn’t exist anywhere (although I am open to being shown to be incorrect there). ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/156 "2009-12-08T13:50:10Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > Are there any countries that allow either side unlimited appeals, never mind giving the Government unlimited appeals? You seem to be arguing against something that nobody has offered support for. The word “unlimited,” or the concept, doesn’t appear anywhere in my posts. I don’t know how many appeals of them there might be in Italian courts. We have limited on appeals here, too, even though the government does not have the right to appeal a verdict. I think appeals for the state can influence the case by making it harder for the defendant to prove he’s not guilty. Even if the appeals are limited I think that remains the case. > [@](#): > > Your argument has a simple converse: You’re accused of a crime and you did do it and you believe you can offer “good enough” evidence to get off, but you’re not positive. You’ve got loads of money and the public is going to love you as a defendant. You only need to convince one court you’re not guilty. And that’s wrong, of course. But should a government get to appeal just because it thinks the verdict is incorrect? The government isn’t wronged if a guilty person goes free (although the victims may be, and it may hurt the notion that the courts are fair). An innocent person is wronged is he’s put in jail. The government doesn’t have nearly as much as stake as the person who is being put on trial, and only a small number of people are rich enough to really overwhelm a prosecutor’s office. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/157 "2009-12-08T14:16:40Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > The word “unlimited,” or the concept, doesn’t appear anywhere in my posts. I don’t know how many appeals of them there might be in Italian courts. We have limited on appeals here, too, even though the government does not have the right to appeal a verdict. I think appeals for the state can influence the case by making it harder for the defendant to prove he’s not guilty. Even if the appeals are limited I think that remains the case. The implication is clear though, in phrases like “And if that appeal doesn’t work, they can appeal again. And again.” and “why not let them try him over and over again?”. > [@Marley23](#): > > And that’s wrong, of course. But should a government get to appeal just because it thinks the verdict is incorrect? The government isn’t wronged if a guilty person goes free (although the victims may be, and it may hurt the notion that the courts are fair). An innocent person is wronged is he’s put in jail. The government doesn’t have nearly as much as stake as the person who is being put on trial, and only a small number of people are rich enough to really overwhelm a prosecutor’s office. In the case of murder, if there genuinely is a chance that a murderer has been acquitted then yes, there should be an appeal process. Again, it all sounds like the OJ trial. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/158 "2009-12-08T14:35:07Z")
[QUOTE=Mijin] If there is a compelling argument or piece of evidence, please say what it is, and/or link to the argument itself, directly. Otherwise I still don’t see the reasoning behind the conviction. [/quote] Nobody’s given a decent explanation as to why Sollecito and Knox’s alibis do not match up for the night of the murder. Nobody’s explained why Knox attempted to frame a man she knew was innocent. Nobody’s explained why Knox repeatedly lied to police from the outset of the investigation, nor why she repeatedly changed her story (was she in the house when the murder happened, or not?). Nobody’s properly explained away the fact that two bottles of bleach were bought by Sollecito, and the “murder weapon” showed sign of bleach cleaning, when Knox and Sollecito both claimed they were asleep. Nobody’s explained why both Knox and Sollecito turned their phones off within minutes of each other on the night of the murder, then turned them on again the following morning, when they claimed to be asleep, etc. etc. Frankly, the speculation within this thread that they changed story to avoid a rap from the police for marijuana possession is perhaps they stupidest thing I’ve ever read here. Marijuana possession, for personal use, is virtually decriminalized in Italy ([cite](http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:x3hGvSsx44QJ:www.tc.columbia.edu/centers/cifas/drugsandsociety/background/EuropEnforcProc.html+european+laws+on+marijuana&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&lr=lang_en)): > [@](#): > > Italy : a “pragmatist” success > > - Italy passed its first law in 1930, in which it prohibit drugs consumption, but only in publlic places. > > - In 1954 a new law says that “possession” of cannabis is forbidden. In 1974 a new one considers it is a serious offence leading to jail only for large quantities. But the private use AND possession is not prosecuted. > > - And finally a 1978 law clearly states that the “consumption of drugs”, of all sorts, is “completely depenalized”. While possession could lead to an administrative fine. > > - It is very well accepted now. 2 years ago some distinctions were made between possession in public and private places. But nothing else. This could easily have been checked with a little Googling. Even if it wasn’t decriminalized, who in their right mind would implicate themselves in a murder investigation, by lieing, to get out of a drugs rap? Like I said, if they’re innocent, they’ve done an amazing job of making themselves look guilty. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/159 "2009-12-08T14:40:16Z")
> [@amanset](#): > > The implication is clear though, in phrases like “And if that appeal doesn’t work, they can appeal again. And again.” and “why not let them try him over and over again?”. I made no such implication, and if you think I did, I am now clearing it up: I was talking about more than one appeal, not an infinite number. I don’t know how many stages of appeal there are in Italy, but unless there are fewer than two, I think “again, and again” and “over and over again” are acceptable. > [@](#): > > In the case of murder, if there genuinely is a chance that a murderer has been acquitted then yes, there should be an appeal process. And how do you define “a chance?” Generally (and I’m not a lawyer) appeals are based on the way the trial was conducted. An appeal by the prosecution based on the verdict just sounds like a request for a do-over. > [@](#): > > Again, it all sounds like the OJ trial. The problems with the OJ trial, if I can boil all of it way down, were twofold: the prosecution did a bad job while the defense did a good one, and DNA evidence was not as accepted and understood as it is today, so the jury wasn’t swayed by it. Which one of those factors should be open to appeal? ---
**Author:** ![sugar\_and\_spice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@sugar\_and\_spice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sugar_and_spice)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474/160 "2009-12-08T15:28:57Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > Nobody’s explained why Knox attempted to frame a man she knew was innocent. Nobody’s explained why Knox repeatedly lied to police from the outset of the investigation, nor why she repeatedly changed her story (was she in the house when the murder happened, or not?). Uh, well I’ve seen her parents argue that she did this because she was interrogated by police for hours on end, and was manipulated into accusing the bar owner. You can say you don’t like her explanation but that’s not the same as saying no explanation exists. > [@](#): > > Nobody’s properly explained away the fact that two bottles of bleach were bought by Sollecito, and the “murder weapon” showed sign of bleach cleaning, when Knox and Sollecito both claimed they were asleep. Do you have a cite where this was presented at the trial? I’ve found articles from 2007 where the police say they have receipts, but I don’t ever remember reading of them being presented as evidence at the trial. Genuine question. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-are-innocent-victims-of-a-rush-to-judgment/513474.md?page=9)