Amanda Knox found guilty.

[manning]

I hope she is sent back, she was found guilty. The bits that I have read seem to indicate she is guilty. US news sources havn't been the most reliable way to read about this case. Especially CNN.

Do you know the complete story? Like all of us, no. The idea here is for a jury to hear both sides and then convict if ther is no reasonable doubt of quilt

Sure wouldn't want you on my trial.

He's guilty. Why? Because I read the details in the news.

Is she guilty? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Is there reasonable doubt? In our system it looks like it.

This is one reason I like living here. Our founding fathers saw this coming based on what was happening in England and provided for it.

 

[epcot.girl]

She may well be a sociopath, but if so, she is a sociopath whose DNA is nowhere to be found at a crime scene overflowing with DNA of the victim and that of Guede.

I've been wondering about this (not picking on you EMom - your post is just the most recent that mentions this! - the question is to everyone in general). I haven't looked into this case much (and I have no opinion either way of Knox's guilt/innocence), but this point keeps coming up - the lack of DNA of Knox and Sollecito at the crime scene. Wasn't the crime scene at the house shared by Knox and Kercher? If so, surely it's a bit suspect if not a shred of Knox's DNA was at the crime scene (whether she was involved or not)? Obviously it's ludicrous to think that an area contaminated with multiple sets of DNA could be cleansed of just a couple of those sets, but some of Knox's DNA would be expected to be found there surely, if only because she lived there?

 

[RitaE]

I've been wondering about this (not picking on you EMom - your post is just the most recent that mentions this! - the question is to everyone in general). I haven't looked into this case much (and I have no opinion either way of Knox's guilt/innocence), but this point keeps coming up - the lack of DNA of Knox and Sollecito at the crime scene. Wasn't the crime scene at the house shared by Knox and Kercher? If so, surely it's a bit suspect if not a shred of Knox's DNA was at the crime scene (whether she was involved or not)? Obviously it's ludicrous to think that an area contaminated with multiple sets of DNA could be cleansed of just a couple of those sets, but some of Knox's DNA would be expected to be found there surely, if only because she lived there?

The crime scene is considered to be Meredith Kutcher's bedroom. I'll let you Google the pictures yourself if you are interested but let's just say it is quite bloody and graphic. Knox's DNA was found in the bathroom and other places in the apartment.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

Now as I said, this isn't a case that I've been following except for my relatives in Portugal do believe she is a sociapath.

OK, this made me LOL. We need more people like you discussing this case.

 

[Imzadi]

Remember the Roman Polanski case? The US submitted an extradition request to the French government, which refused to comply. He was later arrested in Switzerland, and the Swiss also refused to extradite him. Extradition requests aren't automatically complied with, even among friendly nations.

Switzerland was also not on that list someone posted about extradition agreements with Italy, along with Fiji & Mexico, if that was even a complete list.

 

[Borishack]

But there's precedence for a judge simply deciding to do what the hell he wants, the law be damned - Judge Baugh in Montana being a prime example. That is one of the oddities of the US legal system.

Actually, the above is exactly what the critics of the Italian justice system say is going on there

There's certainly enough precedent.

Interesting, but there are always odd outliers. As stated earlier, we honor the overwhelming majority of extradition requests we get.

And the thing that was argued was that he could be tried in an Italian court as an Italian national.

I don't think we or anyone else has to worry about the U.S. offering to try Knox (although at least one person in this thread offered that up as a possible way to "game " the extradition treaty to help Knox, since it states a person can not be extradited if they have already been tried for the same crime in both countries). We have absolutely no legal basis for jurisdiction to do that. The crime didn't happen in the U.S. and the victim wasn't American.

And here are some true words spoken by Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz:

"As popular as she is here and as pretty as she is here -- because that's what this is all about, if she was not an attractive woman we wouldn't have the group love-in -- she will be extradited if it's upheld."

 

[JanaDee]

I've been wondering about this (not picking on you EMom - your post is just the most recent that mentions this! - the question is to everyone in general). I haven't looked into this case much (and I have no opinion either way of Knox's guilt/innocence), but this point keeps coming up - the lack of DNA of Knox and Sollecito at the crime scene. Wasn't the crime scene at the house shared by Knox and Kercher? If so, surely it's a bit suspect if not a shred of Knox's DNA was at the crime scene (whether she was involved or not)? Obviously it's ludicrous to think that an area contaminated with multiple sets of DNA could be cleansed of just a couple of those sets, but some of Knox's DNA would be expected to be found there surely, if only because she lived there?

It was a 4 bedroom apartment, with 2 other young women living there. They all had their own bedrooms. Meredith's bedroom was considered the main crime scene.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Do you know the complete story? Like all of us, no. The idea here is for a jury to hear both sides and then convict if ther is no reasonable doubt of quilt

Sure wouldn't want you on my trial.

He's guilty. Why? Because I read the details in the news.

Is she guilty? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Is there reasonable doubt? In our system it looks like it.

This is one reason I like living here. Our founding fathers saw this coming based on what was happening in England and provided for it.

The people who are so sure she's not guilty are doing the same thing though. I doubt most of us really know what exactly was happening in the courtroom and what the jury heard. You can look at it from our media reports and say Oh of course there is reasonable doubt but that doesn't mean it played out that way in the courtroom.

Just look at Casey Anthony. I watched way too much of that trial and was absolutely shocked by the verdict. It must have come across differently in the actual courtroom because based on the juror interviews they had the complete opposite feelings about the lawyers and witnesses as those watching on tv or reading media reports.

 

[bcla]

I've been wondering about this (not picking on you EMom - your post is just the most recent that mentions this! - the question is to everyone in general). I haven't looked into this case much (and I have no opinion either way of Knox's guilt/innocence), but this point keeps coming up - the lack of DNA of Knox and Sollecito at the crime scene. Wasn't the crime scene at the house shared by Knox and Kercher? If so, surely it's a bit suspect if not a shred of Knox's DNA was at the crime scene (whether she was involved or not)? Obviously it's ludicrous to think that an area contaminated with multiple sets of DNA could be cleansed of just a couple of those sets, but some of Knox's DNA would be expected to be found there surely, if only because she lived there?

I thought the crime scene was Meredith Kerchner's bedroom. They simply shared a 4-BR apartment, but it has been noted many times that Knox wasn't terribly close to her. So I wouldn't find it unusual at all that they didn't find any of their DNA at the particular crime scene. I thought the only thing they found was some of Knox's (or Kerchner's) DNA on a knife, but it was more than plausible that she cut herself with it at some point simply using it for the intended purpose.

The other odd thing is that Kerchener's brother I think says that perhaps they'll never know what truly happened.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

I really can't speak to the way people feel when they look at Amanda Knox. On a theoretical level I'm actually a firm believer in "gut check" feelings. For instance, I felt in my very soul that Casey Anthony had killed her daughter from the first time I saw her on camera. I never read anything about the case that ever made me change my mind either. But even with that firm belief, I have to maintain that Double Jeopardy in our legal system is a standard that needs to be maintained. I will say that I've never experienced the gut check feelings about Amanda Knox that other people report. When I see her I see a young girl, socially odd, who is and was scared witless. As for the book writing. What other options have Knox and Sollecito had? Their defense fees now (and still going) have totaled in the millions of dollars. Much of this has gone unpaid and donated, but they and their families have still had to shoulder a significant financial burden. What else COULD they do other than sell their stories?

I think most people felt in their soul that Casey was guilty from the first time she was on camera because the first time time she was on camera she was smiling away in court, her daughter had been missing for a month, and she had not reported it. I don't think we needed too much in the way of "gut feeling". Still, none of that should, nor did, convict her. As it should be.

I also believe Adam Kaufman killed his wife, but I absolutely believe he should have been found not guilty, as he was. Based on EVIDENCE, which was seriously lacking or downright non-existent in the Amanda Knox case. AND, I don't think she murdered anyone. AND I think the Italian justice system is a joke.

 

[RadioNate]

I've been wondering about this (not picking on you EMom - your post is just the most recent that mentions this! - the question is to everyone in general). I haven't looked into this case much (and I have no opinion either way of Knox's guilt/innocence), but this point keeps coming up - the lack of DNA of Knox and Sollecito at the crime scene. Wasn't the crime scene at the house shared by Knox and Kercher? If so, surely it's a bit suspect if not a shred of Knox's DNA was at the crime scene (whether she was involved or not)? Obviously it's ludicrous to think that an area contaminated with multiple sets of DNA could be cleansed of just a couple of those sets, but some of Knox's DNA would be expected to be found there surely, if only because she lived there?

It was found in expected places like their shared bathroom. The crime scene was Kercher's room. Amanda Knox and Kercher weren't the only roommates and Knox had lived there for roughly 2 months. It wasn't like they were roomie bffs.

But there was overwhelming evidence of Guede's DNA at the crime scene. Without being too graphic…his DNA was mixed with hers. His bloody handprint was found on her pillow. It's pretty clear he was guilty.

How on earth would Knox and Sollecito clean and remove THEIR DNA from the crime scene yet leave Guede's and Kerchers DNA. It's impossible.

You point is EXACTLY what puts doubt about how Sollecito's DNA may have ended up on the mishandled bra clasp that is sighted. It was left in Kerchers room for weeks after the crime, moved around and handled with contaminated gloves by investigators. The trace amounts of Sollecito's DNA found could have happened easily though cross contamination. The knife that was supposedly the murder weapon, OF course Knox's DNA was on it. She used it to cook. Yet she managed to remove all of Kercher's DNA? But not a bread crumb?

All of this doesn't add up. Sociopath or not, she was what 20? 21? and suddenly she's a criminal master mind who murdered someone in a weird sex ritual and was able to selectively remove DNA?

 

[epcot.girl]

Do you know the complete story? Like all of us, no. The idea here is for a jury to hear both sides and then convict if ther is no reasonable doubt of quilt

Sure wouldn't want you on my trial.

He's guilty. Why? Because I read the details in the news.

Is she guilty? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Is there reasonable doubt? In our system it looks like it.

This is one reason I like living here. Our founding fathers saw this coming based on what was happening in England and provided for it.

Veering a little OT here, but what is the bolded referring to? Genuinely curious. A jury trial system has been in place in England and Wales for centuries and is what the first jury trial system in the US was based on. In the modern UK legal system an 'innocent until proven guilty model' is used.

 

[epcot.girl]

Thanks to everyone for clearing up the DNA thing! That makes sense.

 

[RadioNate]

The people who are so sure she's not guilty are doing the same thing though. I doubt most of us really know what exactly was happening in the courtroom and what the jury heard. You can look at it from our media reports and say Oh of course there is reasonable doubt but that doesn't mean it played out that way in the courtroom.

Just look at Casey Anthony. I watched way too much of that trial and was absolutely shocked by the verdict. It must have come across differently in the actual courtroom because based on the juror interviews they had the complete opposite feelings about the lawyers and witnesses as those watching on tv or reading media reports.

See and I feel the exact opposite on Casey Anthony, while I DO believe she is responsible for Kaylee's death I watched the trial and wasn't surprised by the verdict at all. I think the jury reached the correct decision. It sucks but based on the evidence presented there was nothing shocking about the verdict.

 

[sunshinehighway]

See and I feel the exact opposite on Casey Anthony, while I DO believe she is responsible for Kaylee's death I watched the trial and wasn't surprised by the verdict at all. I think the jury reached the correct decision. It sucks but based on the evidence presented there was nothing shocking about the verdict.

I think that shows an important point people need to keep in mind before being so critical of the Italian justice system. Everyone looks at what is presented and how it is presented to them differently. People who think she is guilty are probably just weighing things differently than those who think she is innocent.

 

[RadioNate]

I think that shows an important point people need to keep in mind before being so critical of the Italian justice system. Everyone looks at what is presented and how it is presented to them differently. People who think she is guilty are probably just weighing things differently than those who think she is innocent.

I really really really wanted Casey Anthony to be found guilty. I lived very close to her at the time of Caylee's (my niece is Kaylee with a K) disappearance. My Target was the Target where Casey passed the bad checks. I solidly believe that Casey did something to cause Caylee's death.

But the evidence wasn't there.

Initially I thought Amanda Know was guilty but the more I read, the more I learned it, just became clear that the evidence isn't there. For me Casey Anthony was 'reasonable doubt' it was look she's probably guilty but they can't even prove how Caylee died, they can't even prove there was a murder that occurred. With Knox (& Sollecito), for me, there isn't any evidence that I can find that points to her being involved at all except the prosecution saying she was.

 

[usnuzuloose]

It was found in expected places like their shared bathroom. The crime scene was Kercher's room. Amanda Knox and Kercher weren't the only roommates and Knox had lived there for roughly 2 months. It wasn't like they were roomie bffs.

But there was overwhelming evidence of Guede's DNA at the crime scene. Without being too graphic…his DNA was mixed with hers. His bloody handprint was found on her pillow. It's pretty clear he was guilty.

How on earth would Knox and Sollecito clean and remove THEIR DNA from the crime scene yet leave Guede's and Kerchers DNA. It's impossible.

You point is EXACTLY what puts doubt about how Sollecito's DNA may have ended up on the mishandled bra clasp that is sighted. It was left in Kerchers room for weeks after the crime, moved around and handled with contaminated gloves by investigators. The trace amounts of Sollecito's DNA found could have happened easily though cross contamination. The knife that was supposedly the murder weapon, OF course Knox's DNA was on it. She used it to cook. Yet she managed to remove all of Kercher's DNA? But not a bread crumb?

All of this doesn't add up. Sociopath or not, she was what 20? 21? and suddenly she's a criminal master mind who murdered someone in a weird sex ritual and was able to selectively remove DNA?

I saw a clip at one point someone was holding that bra clasp by two people with out gloves and then they dropped it on the ground. Evidence was sure contaminated by a lot of people.

 

[disney1990]

I really really really wanted Casey Anthony to be found guilty. I lived very close to her at the time of Caylee's (my niece is Kaylee with a K) disappearance. My Target was the Target where Casey passed the bad checks. I solidly believe that Casey did something to cause Caylee's death.

But the evidence wasn't there.

Initially I thought Amanda Know was guilty but the more I read, the more I learned it, just became clear that the evidence isn't there. For me Casey Anthony was 'reasonable doubt' it was look she's probably guilty but they can't even prove how Caylee died, they can't even prove there was a murder that occurred. With Knox (& Sollecito), for me, there isn't any evidence that I can find that points to her being involved at all except the prosecution saying she was.

I want people that are guilty to be found guilty. And people that are innocent to be found innocent.

 

[timmac]

I want people that are guilty to be found guilty. And people that are innocent to be found innocent.

A perfectly noble desire, but fundamentally exceedingly hard to do in practice.

 

[AndyLL]

If only the US system allowed the prosecution to appeal...Casey Anthony would now be rotting behind bars!

The US system does allow appellate court rulings to be appealed to a higher court... just like in this case.

We do have double jeopardy. By law, if a person is acquitted or found not guilty s/he can never be retried for the crime.

In the US if a jury acquits you you can not be retried.

If a verdict is overturned by an appellate court in most cases you can be retried.... just like in this case.

Yes, U.S. law does not allow someone who has been found innocent to be tried again for the same crime.

Knox was not found innocent in a jury trail. The verdict was overturned. She can be retried in that case which she was... just like in the US.