Is there a non-biased site that presents both sides fairly? I want to follow this case, I really do, but like getting into a movie that’s halfway over, it’s hard to put together what happened from the bit of information you get. Plus, apparently the tabloids are making stuff up.
I don’t have anything to add to the debate, but I’m really surprised that the above sentence appeared in a straight news story. Not even a “Knox claims…” or “According to Knox…”? The way it’s presented, it takes this to be a statement of fact, when in fact it’s a contentious point between the police and the defendant. To me, it signals that this is some shoddy journalism.
Hmm. Thisstory says that the judge was explaining what the jurors believed, not what he believed.
If you had been following along, you would remember that in Italy, the Corte d’Assise is composed of 2 judges and 6 laymen, with the judges presiding (similar to a US jury foreman).
The 2 judges write the final jury report; the laymen have no input on it AFAIK.
So in this case, it was in fact the judge(s) stating their reasoning.
Actually, I have some memory problems. I’m not sure that not remembering details from a three month old thread qualifies, however. Thanks for the snark, at any rate. It’s always nice to see that one’s offerings are taken in the best possible light.
Nor do I.
I’m just going by this sentence :
I suppose “jurors” could mean “judges.” It seems a bit of an awkward construction if that indeed is the case.
Your welcome for the snark. No extra charge. 
I know it’s a different justice system, and I also have to remember that even tho it uses a lot of the same terms, the rules are different.
The article you linked also has this:
So I think it’s fair to say that the article is not as well written as it should be for foreigners. It comes close to using “judges” and “jury” interchangeably, and tho judges sit on the jury, they are still above the laypeople in the Italian justice hierarchy.
…I recommend this thread from the JREF Forums:
The thread is currently at 113 pages, so getting through it is a hard slog but well worth it. It takes a few pages to get going, and the last thirty or so pages meander a bit. But for the most part there is a genuine good faith effort to look at the actual evidence provided in court. Having followed that thread for the last couple of months I have made the following conclusions:
- Amanda Knox was given a fair trial by the Italian justice system
- Amanda Knox is guilty of the crimes she was accused of
- In general the American media has been absolutely disgraceful in its portrayal of this case
It’s funny how people differ. I read the same thread. The only thing we would be able to agree on is that the American media did a poor job (though I suspect those opinions are formed from entirely different reasons).
Just wanted to point out she got the extra year because a person she knew to be totally innocent spent 2-3 weeks in jail because of her lies.
Yep, you read that right: he claims to have written to the court several times to give them this information, but he was ignored.
Why hasn’t this been done? The exact location is given; how long could it take to drive out there and move a brick or two?
Since when?
Did they verify that they had the murder weapon? No, they just grabbed a handy knife and declared it to be the murder weapon.
Did they verify that Knox was in the house when Kercher was killed? No.
From where I sit, that statement that they have to verify everything is ridiculous. The cops verified very little, made up what they felt they needed to, and then smeared Knox and Sollecito in the media for more than a year and a half.
I have no great hopes that this new information, even if accompanied by a confession from Aviello’s brother, will free these 2, but a little hope is better than no hope.
I wonder: if it’s proven that Aviello’s brother killed Kercher, will all those cops, prosecuting attorneys, judges, etc. all go to jail for a year for each 2-3 weeks that Knox has been incarcerated because of their lies?
Did the judges lie?
And they probably genuinely thought she was guilty - she knew the man was innocent.
cite?
…if the evidence is as weak as you assert, why was Amanda found guilty?
Why else would they want to put her in jail?
Even if the evidence wasn’t up to scratch, (and it seems like it was) they wouldn’t just randomly throw her into jail.
I have no opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of Knox and Sollecito, but there is a long history of various (hardly all) police and prosecutors getting an idea that a particular person must be guilt of a crime and moving heaven and earth to prove their belief at the expense of any effort to discover the actual culprit.
The "why"s rarely make sense and that argument/question is irrelevant.
Read thru the thread, check the cites and you’ll see that Italian justice isn’t the same as American justice, and IMO in this case is so tainted that there is no justice (yet).
…read this thread. Read the other thread on the JREF that I cited before: every single page.
Explain to me: if the evidence is as weak as you assert, why was Amanda found guilty? Is it possible that the evidence isn’t as weak as you claim?
I’ll bet the court and the prosecutors got lots of letters at that time. Sure, I have no problem with them going and digging up his wall, but I wonder if Aviello is going to ask for a reduction in his sentence before telling them exactly where the stuff is located, and then will be shocked to find that someone seems to have already moved the stuff, because it’s not there. I guess I wonder why Aviello’s statements have any credibility at all.
you don’t say.
Face it, the Italian justice system is not that corrupt, especially not with cases like this. Your (generic your) darling American is as guilty as sin 