Knox judge says he suffered over guilty verdict

Submitted by Matt on Sat, 2014-02-01 22:12

Story here. Short version: Guilty->the convicts appeal->convictions overturned->prosecutor appeals->high court overturns the overturning and orders new trial->guilty. Net result: male convict was in Austria when this latest conviction was announced and voluntarily returned to Italy to surrender to the Italian authorities. Female convict is in the US and states she has no intention of surrendering to the Italian authorities here (e.g.: the embassy in D.C. or nearest consulate) for extradition to Italy. And there you have it. Whether the US will arrest and extradite her, I dunno. Personally, I don't know how they couldn't, but she's a photogenic young (white) woman who's "been through so much already, the poor dear...", so who knows. Excerpt:

'The judge who presided over Amanda Knox's second murder conviction says he suffered over the verdict, but that he and the jury reached agreement that she was guilty in the death of British student Meredith Kercher.
...
Nenci, another judge and six lay jurors reinstated the guilty verdicts on Thursday against Knox and Sollecito that were first handed down in 2009, sentencing Knox to 28 ½ years and Sollecito to 25 for the murder. An appeals court had acquitted the pair in 2011 and ordered them freed from prison, but Italy's supreme court threw out the acquittals and ordered a third trial, in Florence.

Lawyers for both Knox and Sollecito have said they would appeal, saying there was no proof that the two had committed the crime. Knox has said she will never willingly return to Italy to serve any sentence if the verdict is upheld.
...
A third person, Rudy Guede, was convicted in a separate trial and is serving a 16-year sentence.
...
Sollecito had attended the morning session of Thursday's court hearing but then drove to Italy's northern frontier with Austria and Slovenia. While the judges and jury deliberated, he and his girlfriend visited Austria, but came back to Italy to spend the night.

In an interview with U.S. broadcaster NBC News on Friday, Sollecito said he wasn't trying to flee Italy by going to Austria. He said he had been planning to take a trip outside Italy if acquitted, but turned back as soon as he learned he had been convicted.

"I didn't want to flee, or to get away because I actually went back," he said.

He said he checked into the first hotel once back in Italy because he was tired. Police found him there Friday morning, and confiscated his passport and ID papers, as mandated by the court, but then set him free.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

So many different spins you can put on this story. MRA's may put the spin that she is getting a break because she is attractive, but myself and many others think being attractive has worked against her this whole time as it seems to be why so much focus has been on her. And besides she cannot help that she is attractive. In the very few interviews she has given she wears little make up, which seems to represent the "real" Amanda because even in random candid shots (before and after the murder) she is without make up.

Consider her and Raffaele Sollecito, even when they mutually embraced and gently kissed during the original search of the home to comfort one another, only Amanda was criticized for her sexuality. The Italian media said she could hardly contain her lust. (video of this hugging and kissing can be seen on youtube). She was also criticized for the red panties she purchased after the body was discovered (she was unable to return to her home, so her and Raffaele stopped at a boutique so she would have some clean undergarments). Only attractive women would get so much attention for these things, and IMO, it has clearly worked against her.

Apparently, attractive female = slutty female = female with low morals = untrustworthy female = rapist/murderer.

BTW, there is potential for one more trial. I think it is equivilent to our supreme court.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Sat, 2014-02-01 23:44

Just found this. Puts a new 'spin' indeed on things.

I don't agree with your "attractive female = slutty female = female with low morals = untrustworthy female = rapist/murderer" path of assumptions, at least not as pertains American society. I can't speak to how things in Italy may be, however.

But now it seems to me to be a really nasty mess. Rafaelle Sollecito is in jail waiting an appeal trial for a crime it looks a lot like neither he nor Knox was present for. Knox is now looking at possible extradition should Italy request it. The Italian legal system doesn't view entire new trials as 2x-jeopardy if they arise from appeals. (In the US, no new actual trial wherein guilt/innocence is found can be ordered based on substantially equivalent evidence; if new evidence is found, it must tend to be exculpatory. Another reason is prosecutorial misconduct, also tending to favor the convict.). There's a good discussion of this whole process and different POV on trials in Italy here.

This will place John Kerry in the unenviable position of agreeing to the request amid objections from Knox's defenders here in the US based on 2 things:

1. She never got a fair shake and
2. She will be exposed to dbl-jeopardy in Italy and has been already, by US standards anyway.

Or, he'll deny Italy's request with only one possible basis: the Italian legal system's support of >1 trial of determination of guilt without significant changes in factors isn't consistent w/ US standards of justice, so we won't cooperate. In effect, it means we won't extradite anyone to Italy, ever. This'll really piss off Italy. It also sets a very bad precedent. If not Knox, then who? If Italy requests extradition of a suspected mob boss who is now living in the US who has mutiple Italian convictions, does the US also have to refuse based on the same grounds? Probably not, if said suspected mob boss isn't an attractive young woman, and even if someone else in Italy has confessed to the crimes he's been convicted of.

Me: Not liking how this is going. While I still believe women in general but attractive younger women especially (add bonus points for each further attribute: white, thin, blond, blue-eyed, heterosexual) get much more of a benefit of doubt when facing accusations than not just men but anyone else outside that category, in this particular case, I'm a lot less certain of the convicts' guilt (aside from the one who confessed) than I was a day ago. This looks like a no-win for everyone involved. The Brits have a saying to describe this kind of situation: making a "pig's ear" of something. Sounds about right.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2014-02-02 16:38

I dont have any additional response to the OP, but I have read alot about the case and this is how I understand the details:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda-knox-found-guilty-court-sort/story?id=22306461

Rudy Guede was originally sentenced to 30 years. His sentence was later reduced to 16 years. I understand the reduction occurred because there is some legal policy in Italy that says if more than one person committed a crime, but it is impossible to know who did what, the jail time can be shared between them (or something like that). This is why Guede implemented Amanda and Raffaele. At first Rudy Guede confessed to acting alone, as soon as he realized how implementing Amanda and Raffaele could reduce his jail time, he pointed the finger at them by claiming they did it. (At one time he said he was in the bathroom with headphones on, and when he came out, they had killed Meredith). When Amanda and Raffaele were found guilty in the first trial. Rudy's jail time was immediately reduced in half. I'm not sure, but I think his jail sentence could go back up to 30 years if Raffaele and/or Amanda are found innocent.

It is really an interesting case.....

Amanda and Raffaele have the unfortunate timing of being in the flat when police arrived and they looked suspicious.....

Amanda and Raffaele had an uneventful night staying at his place (made dinner, watched movie, smoked pot, fell asleep). In the morning Amanda returns home (no one else is home). She gets ready to shower. She notices some small drops of blood on the bathroom floor, she thought the blood was from Meredith menstruating. She showers. She gets the mop out as she wants to return to Raffaele's house to clean (he does not own a mop). A neighbor found cell phones on the ground between the two houses and calls police, the phones are tracked to Meredith's house,so police go there and find Amanda and Raffaele. Police search the home and find Meredith's body locked in her room. Her room is a bloody crime scene. Rudy left lots of physical evidence behind.

The prosecution team later argues that Raffaele and Amanda were cleaning up the crime scene when police arrived.

Where they lived and how Amanda is connected to Rudy....

The home they lived in consisted of a downstairs apartment were 4 guys lived and the upstairs apartment where Amanda and her 3 roommates lived. Rudy Guede had been acquaintances with the guys who lived downstairs. He occasionally sold pot to the guys and sometimes played pick up basketball games with the guys in front of their home. Rudy Guede had no occupation and no known residence. Amanda knew who Rudy was as he was the only black guy in the area. There are some claims that either she and/or Meredith might have purchased some pot from him in the past. A week before the murder Amanda and Meredith were invited to a party by the guys downstairs and Rudy was at the party. At that party Rudy had commented to the guys that the girls were attractive and asked if they were single.

There is little to no motive for Amanda other than it is possible for roommates to get upset with eachother (it's a huge leap to assume they would be so upset they turn to murder, especially involving the cooperation of two other people and rape). Amanda hardly knew Rudy, he is not the type of person she associates with.

Rafaelle really has no motive, they keep implying that he was so attracted to Amanda he would have done anything for her. Rafaelle is a highly intelligent guy, he's never been in any trouble and he had only met Amanda about a week before the murder. There is no evidence to suggest he was that emotionally invested in her, that he would do anything for her like help rape and kill her roommate. Raffaele claims he has never met Rudy.

There were two reported pieces of physical evidence against Raffaele and Amanda. One was Raffaele's DNA on Meredith's bra clasp, collected several WEEKS after the murder (The DNA was the size of a skin cell which travel in the air as dust). DNA belonging to 4 others was also on the clasp.

There was also a knife found at Raffaele's home which prosecutors claim had Meredith's DNA on the blade and Amanda's DNA on the handle. The DNA samples are so small it can't be determined what type of cells they came from. Testing of this DNA was not done to USA crime standards. After the first trial, defense ordered more accurate testing, and it was then determined inconclusive about being Meredith's DNA on the blade.

Neither Amanda nor Raffaele have a history of crime or violence or sexually deviant behavior. No former lovers for either has come forward to suggest they were into sex games or group sex. By all accounts they do not meet the profile of a person capable of this crime. Both of them were students, were employed, doing well and had adequate funding (no money problems).

The first two links cover the physical evidence about the bra clasp and knife.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheBraClasp.html

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheKnife.html

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2012/09/26/raffaele-sollecito-i-spent-that-night-with-amanda-knox/

edit: after double checking I noticed some of my details were wrong so I deleted them.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Thu, 2014-02-06 01:24

I just want to clarify my statement: attractive female = slutty female = female with low morals = untrustworthy female = rapist/murderer.

I don't think this path of assumptions happens frequently, just occasionally (and not as far as "rapist/murderer" but at least as far as "attractive female=slutty female").

I believe MRAs have proven that women usually get off easier for crimes compared to men.

I think in life in general attractive people of both genders get more positive benefits compared to unattractive people. I also think unattractive women have it worse than unattractive men in some ways. So it all kind of evens out.

But I do think on occasion attractive women get unfair assumptions about them. For example I have some extremely attractive female friends and on some occasions people have thrown undeserving insults, sexual innuendos, etc. towards them.

So while I agree that being attractive usually has benefits, occasionally it doesn't, and in regards to Amanda Knox, I think this is one of those times where being attractive has worked against her.

update: "nuts or sluts" is the legal tactic. If the opposing side can prove a woman is a slut, it is just as good as proving she can't be trusted. Attractive single women, often get the assumption they are more sexually active (read more promiscuous) and often their number of sexual partners or sexuality overshadows their case.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Tue, 2014-02-04 17:12