Another Trial For Amanda Knox
(25 votes, average: 3.12 out of 5)
Loading...We had closely followed the first trial, in which Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were found guilty of murdering her British flat mate, Meredith Kercher, in Perugia. This was one of the most dramatic and internationally observed Italian trials of this decade, and Italy as the scene of crime and trial had come under close scrutiny, and had been at the centre of a bizarre media frenzy covering the case.
Now, Amanda Knox is back in court. She faces slander charges against the police, who she claims hit her during the questioning a few days after the killing in November 2007. Italian police strongly denied that Knox was subjected to any physical abuse, which is supported by an external inquiry. If Knox is found guilty of slander, she could face another six years in jail, on top of the 26 years she is currently serving.
Knox’s defense lawyers filed a motion to prevent the presiding judge, Claudia Matteini, from hearing Knox’s slander case because of her involvement in the preliminary hearings into the murder. A hearing today will take the final decision about whether Matteini is the appropriate judge to hear this case. The trial is likely to start on October 1.
Amanda’s parents, Edda Mellas and Curt Knox, have a court date of their own: They are scheduled to appear July 7, also on accounts of slander. They face heavy fines and jail time for repeating their daughter’s claims against the police.
There are hardly any neutral reports on Amanda Knox’ involvement in the murder, however the two following videos provide quite good and unbiased background to the case:
Sex, Lies and The Murder of Meredith Kercher [Part 1]
Watch Sex, Lies and The Murder of Meredith Kercher [Part 1] in Entertainment | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com
Sex, Lies and The Murder of Meredith Kercher [Part 2]
Watch Sex, Lies and The Murder of Meredith Kercher [Part 2] in Entertainment | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com
What is particularly unnerving about this case, is the sense that much of the testimony is contradictory: All three convicted of the murder deny their involvement, but cannot explain their inconsistent testimonies, and keep changing their account of what happened on the night of the murder. Barbie Latza Nadeau, a journalist who has followed the case from the start and has always provided excellent coverage and analysis, asks ten questions that Amanda Knox has never answered, even though they could set her free. That she never addressed them, indicates that her involvement in the murder may have been substantial.
Whether the lies aim to conceal that the convicted did partake in the murder – which frankly didn’t work – or whether they intend to cover up something else, remains a mystery. Any hints regarding the truth in this matter, even if they come from a separate trial, will be of high interest.
What are your thoughts on the trial? Why do you think Amanda Knox keeps lying? If she is truly innocent, why not tell the truth?
Rate this article by clicking here. (25 votes, average: 3.12 out of 5)Loading...Add your views/ideas/references below, no need to log in.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were unanimously found guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher because the evidence against them was overwhelming.
They repeatedly told the police a pack of lies in the days after Meredith’s murder.
On 5 November 2007, Knox and Sollecito were confronted with proof that they had lied and were given another opportunity to tell the truth. However, they both chose to tell the police even more lies.
Sollecito’s new alibi was shattered by computer forensic evidence and his mobile phone records.
Knox accused an innocent man, Diya Lumumba, of murdering Meredith despite knowing full well that he was completely innocent. She didn’t recant her false and malicious allegation against Lumumba the whole time he was in prison. She admitted that it was her fault that Lumumba was in prison in an intercepted conversation with her mother.
Knox’s account of what happened on 2 November 2007 is contradicted by her mobile phone records.
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito both gave multiple conflicting alibis. Neither Knox nor Sollecito have credible alibis for the night of the murder despite three attempt each. At the trial, Sollecito refused to corroborate Knox’s alibi that she was at his apartment.
Rudy Guede’s bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the house. He didn’t lock Meredith’s door, remove his trainers, go into Filomena’s room or the bathroom that Meredith and Knox shared.
He didn’t scale the vertical wall outside Filomena’s room or gain access through the window. The break-in was clearly staged. This indicates that somebody who lived at the cottage was trying to deflect attention away from themselves and give the impression that a stranger had broken in and killed Meredith.
Guede had no reason to stage the break-in and there was no physical evidence that he went into Filomena’s room.
The scientific police found a mixture of Amanda Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s blood on the floor.
There was no physical evidence that Rudy Guede went into the blood-spattered bathroom. However, the scientific police found irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito tracked Meredith’s blood into this bathroom.
Amanda Knox’s DNA was found mingled with Meredith’s blood in three different places in the bathroom: on the ledge of the basin, on the bidet, and on a box of Q Tips cotton swabs. Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s blood had united into one single streak on the basin and bidet which means they were deposited simultaneously.
Sollecito left a visible bloody footprint on the blue bathmat.
According to two imprint experts, the woman’s bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith’s body matched Knox’s foot size. The bloody shoeprint was incompatible with Meredith’s shoe size.
Knox’s and Sollecito’s bare bloody footprints were revealed by luminol in the hallway. Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s DNA was found mixed together in one of the bloody footprints.
An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. Sollecito must have applied considerable pressure to the clasp in order to have left so much DNA. The hooks on the clasp were damaged which confirms that Sollecito had gripped them tightly.
Amanda Knox’s DNA was found on the handle of the double DNA knife and a number of independent forensic experts – Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo and Professor Francesca Torricelli – categorically stated that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade.
Sollecito knew that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade which is why he twice lied about accidentally pricking her hand whilst cooking.
The defence experts were unable to prove that there had been any contamination. Alberto Intini, head of the Italian police forensic science unit, pointed out that unless contamination has been proved, it does not exist.
Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted that she involved in Meredith’s murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007. She stated on at least four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed. She also claimed that Sollecito was at the cottage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Harry,
thank you for the highly detailed account of the very complex proceedings. The testimonial contradictions certainly raise more questions than they answer.
Rebecca
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by c c, Vitzliputzli, Vitzliputzli, nobby-Lobby, nobby-Lobby and others. nobby-Lobby said: RT @JillyCL: MUST READ! RT @theromejournal New article: Another Trial For Knox http://www.theromejournal.org/2010/06/trial-amanda-knox/ … [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
well, u know u put it very well, that there are incosistencies in the ttrail, but all 3 of them cannot explain their inconsistencies which translates to series of lies. What i dont understand is that why did Amanda had to work so hard in changing her alibis and esp accuse an inocent person, if she is truly innocent and that this brother of a mob killer is the real murderer?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For those not familiar with this case Rudy Guede is guilty as sin. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are totally innocent. In Italy’s trial of the century, their justice system was broken.
Vast evidence indicates that Guede committed the crime but the police and prosecutor become fixated on a theory that would have no parallel in the history of crime. They believe that Amanda Knox got together with Guede, who she had seen around but did not know personally, for a sex orgy involving her, Meredith, and her new Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito. Meredith is murdered when she resists. Sexually motivated homicides are almost always committed by troubled males acting alone. There is no credible evidence that this crime was an exception.
No biological material of Amanda Knox was found in the room where the murder took place, none. Rudy Guede’s DNA was everywhere including in areas indicating sexual penetration. His palm print was there in the victim’s blood; his foot prints are there; he flees; he admits being there. Guede had no visible means of support and was not a student. Meredith had started dating an Italian young man and no one knew of a relationship between her and Guede. Rudy says he had consensual sexual contact with the victim and somebody else came in and killed her while he was sitting on the toilet. The defensive wounds on his hands were from his heroic attempts to fight off the real attacker. He doesn’t call police or an ambulance but instead goes to a disco to further party that night. The next day he flees to Germany.
In the weeks prior to the crime he had participated in at least three separate breaking and entering incidents in which he was armed with a knife and had no accomplices. He had a history of knife fights and he had motives of sexual desire and theft.
The prosecution claims that Amanda confessed but they have no video or recordings of her interrogation. Two days after the murder Amanda had written a 6 page email to 25 family and friends in which she detailed her version of the events. That version of events appears truthful in all respects and is presumed to be what she told police at least until they started playing tough with her.
The prosecution claims two pieces of DNA evidence link Amanda and Raffaele to the crime, but outside experts have heavily disputed the validity of these two items. Both were of trace amounts and could have gotten there through contamination or transfer by innocent means. Prosecutors explain the lack of DNA evidence with claims that that Amanda and Raffaele had cleaned it all up with bleach.
This case was one of the great travesties of justice of our time. Commentators in the US have condemned this trial in the strongest terms. Italian law prohibits publication of the trial record to the Internet meaning that the important public debate on this issue has been defined by second hand information.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The European tabloid press reached new lows every day in their coverage of this case. In the US where journalistic standards are very different, commentators have condemned this tribunal in the strongest terms. Here are the words of some commentators:
George Fletcher (Columbia University Law School Professor)
“I think this is a scandal of the highest order”
Bernard Shepard (President Birmingham, England Legal Society)
“The flimsy evidence on which she was charged would have been insufficient to have ever reached a British court.”
John Q. Kelly (Attorney in OJ Civil Case. Larry King Live 9-Oct-09)
“It’s probably the most egregious, international railroading of two innocent young people that I have ever seen. This is actually a public lynching based on rank speculation, and vindictiveness.”
Steve Moore
“In the U.S., this type of prosecutorial misconduct would almost certainly have resulted in a mistrial, and likely jail time for the prosecutor.”
Peter Van Sant (CBS News Correspondent)
“She’s an innocent woman. And I would stake my reputation as a journalist [on that] and I have been in this business for a quarter century.”
Judy Bachrach (Vanity Fair Editor,Guest on CNN)
“I have always thought that Amanda was going to go to a Kangaroo court and unfortunately I’ve been proven correct.”
Doug Preston (CNN Larry King Live 5-Dec-09)
“Let me tell you about my own experience with Mignini. When I was writing the Monster of Florence he called me in for an interrogation. I had irritated him with my theories and he accused me of being an accessory of murder; he accused me of involvement in satanic rights and satanic sects.”
Tim Egan (New York Times Columnist)
“Preposterous made-up sexual motives were ascribed to her.”
“What century is this? Didn’t Joan of Arc, the Inquisition and our own American Salem witch trials teach civilized nations a thing or two about contrived sexual hysteria with a devil twist?”
Paul Ciolino (Private Investigator retained by CBS)
“This is a lynching. This is a lynching that’s happening in modern day Europe right now and it’s happening to an American girl who has no business being charged with anything.”
Judge Michael Heavey (Seattle area Superior Court Judge)
“The prosecutor’s office, police and prison employees have made illegal and false statements to the press. These false reports have wrongfully poisoned the well of public opinion against Amanda. A Perugian judge, Claudia Matteini, was caught up in this false speculation and has repeated and added to the false speculation in her opinions.”
S. Michael Scadron(Retired U.S. Dept of Justice Attorney)
“Despite all the discussion about evidence, this case has never been about the evidence. This case has always been about a corrupt public minister hell bent on restoring his sullied reputation and saving face. Amanda became his prize demon and Raffaele was simply collateral damage. We’ve had our witch hunts in the USA and boy oh boy, this one’s a doozy.”
Senator Maria Cantwell (Dem. Washington)
“The prosecution did not present enough evidence for an impartial jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Knox was guilty.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
PhanuelB – It is easy to say the justice system is broken. Unfortunately if you want miscarriages of justice, you can go to any country in the world. Including the country from which all your so called experts come from. Read around a little, and you see thousands of lives destroyed by the US justice system. Real travesty’s of Justice, regularly.
However, you state what happened. Rudy Guede did it and Amanda and Raffaele are completely innocent.
Then why did Amanda say she wasn’t there, then she was, then it was committed by another guy, then it wasn’t etc etc. If she is totally innocent, why keep changing the story? Why not tell the truth? Was it really because the Police were so rough on her?
I don’t say she is guilty or innocent. But all the people you quote above are just Publicity seekers, trying to get on Oprah. Really need to think about the bullying of the international community saying they are a bunch of savages thinking that they will cave in to your superiority.
And get out and read some of the things that have happened in your own country. Ones where Dems, GOP, Judges, Journalists, and Oprah etc did not scream foul seeing there day in the lime light. Where people (normally black or poor) are convicted for much longer on much less. Go ahead and disagree with the verdict, but “great travesties of justice of our time” is a bit much.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Simon:
The best recent examples of injustice in the United States were the Wenatchee trials in the state of Washington in the 1980’s. Here a corrupt police officer named Robert Perez got convictions of about 40 people on various charges related to the sexual abuse of children. Some served their full sentences. All were later exonerated and most had their lives destroyed.
In the United States we identified the problem and corrected it. The Italians should do the same in Amanda’s case. In part because of international criticism of US foreign policy, we have more experience in self examination and addressing flaws in our society than do the Italians.
One of the most important aspects of this case is that the trial record is not available to the public. No one really knows what happened during Amanda’s interrogation. She may have been asked to imagine what might have happened; she says she was struck, and she may have been lectured about false memory syndrome. Italian authorities were ever so careful to make sure that any conversations they participated in were not recorded. They did this so that they would never face public scrutiny of their actions at a later date.
The evidence is massive and overwhelming that Rudy Guede did it. His DNA was inside the victim. The American girl didn’t put it there.
The people I quote are not publicity seekers. They are speaking up out of moral conviction. Judge Michael Heavey in fact took on considerable professional risk to speak up. If he was motivated by self interest he would have stayed away from the issue. Same goes for Steve Moore. He’s a former FBI agent which I forgot to mention in the post above.
For those interested in the truth of the case, please visit the excellent new website injusticeinperugia dot org where there are specific rebuttals to Harry Rag’s nonsense above.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
PhanuelB,
None of the people you list attended every court session. They are completely unaware of most of the evidence that was presented in court. None of them have read the Micheli report or an accurate translation of the judges’ sentencing report.
This explains why they are completely ignorant of the basic facts of the case. For example, Paul Ciolino claimed that Knox had never met Rudy Guede despite the fact she testified at the trial that she had met him on a couple of occasions.
Judy Bachrach has made countless factually incorrect statements. She claimed that Guede’s DNA was all over Meredith’s body even though there was only one instance of his DNA on Meredith’s body.
She stated that Knox wasn’t provided with an interpreter on 5 November 2007. She obviously wasn’t in court when Knox’s interpreter on that evening, Anna Donnino, gave evidence at the trial.
She claimed that the defence teams weren’t allowed to produce evidence from their DNA experts. She obviously must have missed the court sessions when DNA experts for both Knox and Sollecito testified. Judy Bachrach knows almost nothing about the case.
Tim Egan knows even less about the case that Judy Bachrach and that takes some doing. He too claimed that Knox didn’t have an interpreter on 5 November 2007.
He also claimed that there was no forensic evidence against Knox and Sollecito.
He didn’t even know how many judges and jurors are involved in a criminal trial.
Judge Michael Heavey claimed it was untrue that sexual violence was perpetrated against Meredith. For Judge Heavey to insinuate that Meredith consented to any of the horrors that were inflicted upon her is beyond belief.
He stated that Meredith’s DNA wasn’t on the blade of the double DNA knife despite the fact that a number of independent forensic experts categorically stated that it was.
The Washington Commission on Judicial Conduct has filed a complaint Judge Michael Heavey, alleging he violated the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct for his support of Amanda Knox.
Peter Van Sant erroneously claimed that Mignini had alleged that Meredith was killed as part of a satanic ritual. He even managed to misspell Mignini’s name.
Why should anyone trust anything these people say about this case?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Let’s do a point by point.
1) None were there. CBS put people in Perugia to investigate and look at police evidence. Preston couldn’t be there because a corrupt prosecutor expelled him from the country. US news organizations know how to go to a place where they don’t speak the language and get the story. Those who weren’t there have every right to study the case to see if justice was done. Italian law does not permit public access to the trial because a corrupt and dysfunctional judicial system does not want public scrutiny.
2) Paul Ciolino is one of America’s leading private investigators. His statements made on CBS 48 Hours were entirely accurate. AK, RS, and MK didn’t “know” Rudy. AK knew who he was, nothing more.
3) Guede’s DNA was on and in Meredith. It is not disputed that there was sexual contact.
4) AK was not provided with a qualified interpreter.
5) Judy Bachrach is right about physical evidence the defense wasn’t allowed to examine. The motivation document states on page 381 that the defense will not be allowed to test a semen stain found underneath the victim. The defense has not been provided with all fsa files from Patrizia Stephanoni’s work
6) Judy Bachrach stated the there “wasn’t an ounce of hard evidence against her.” That statement is true.
7) Judge Heavey obviously never denied that a brutal crime occurred. He presumably refers to autopsy results that did not definitively establish injury from a sex act as is sometimes observed in sexual assaults. A sex act that results in someone’s death is presumed to be non-consensual.
8) Independent experts have stated the sample on the knife said to be of Meredith was of such trace amounts that it could not be accurately tested.
The commentators I cite are knowledgeable about the case and have been selected by major news organizations to speak to the public on the issues. Their condemnation of this tribunal is been universal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. Paul Ciolino claimed the following on CBS:
“Amanda and Raffaele never laid eyes on Rudy, never met with him and never hung out with him… didn’t know him.”
It is clearly contradicts Knox’s own testimony:
Carlo Pacelli (CP), Patrick Lumumba’s lawyer: In what circumstances did you meet him (Rudy)?
Amanda Knox (AK): I was in the center, near the church. It was during an evening when I met the guys that lived underneath in the apartment underneath us, and while I was mingling with them, they introduced me to Rudy.
CP: So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors downstairs?
AK: Yes. What we did is, they introduced me to him downtown just to say “This is Rudy, this is Amanda”, and then I spent most of my time with Meredith, but we all went back to the house together.
CP: Did you also know him, or at least see him, in the pub “Le Chic”, Rudy?
AK: I think I saw him there once.
CP: Listen, this party at the neighbors, it took place in the second half of October? What period, end of October? 2007?
AK: I think it was more in the middle of October.
[An interlude in which the judge Massei asks the interpreter to not do a simultaneous translation in which her voice is heard at the same time as Amanda’s, but to translate short phrases consecutively. Because everyone wants to hear the answer in English, and it is being recorded. He advises Amanda to speak in very short phrases.]
CP: On the occasion of this party, Miss, was hashish smoked?
AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.
CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?
AK: Every once in a while with friends.
CP: Which substances were they?
AK: Marijuana.
2. According to the Micheli report and the judges’ sentencing report, which you clearly haven’t read, there was only one instance of Rudy Guede’s DNA on Meredith’s body. It was found on a vaginal swab.
3. It’s simply not true that Knox wasn’t provided with an interpreter on 5 November 2007. Do you actually know what Dr. Donnino’s qualifications are?
4. The judges’ report didn’t state that there was a semen stain. The defence lawyers claim it is. Judy Bachrach’s statement is still misleading. The defence experts still presented evidence.
5. There is plenty of hard evidence against Knox: the double DNA knife and the blood she tracked into the bathroom, the hallway, Filomena’s room and her own room.
Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s blood had united into one single streak on the basin and bidet which means they were deposited simultaneously.
Knox even admitted that she was involved in Meredith’s murder.
Her boyfriend left an abundant amount of his DNA on a small piece of Meredith’s underwear and left a visible bloody footprint on the blue bathmat.
The trail of Rudy Guede’s visible bloody footprints prove that he didn’t stage the break-in or go into the blood-spattered bathroom.
Knox and Sollecito still don’t have credible alibis for the night of the murder despite three attempts each and they lied repeatedly to the police. This will always be considered a clear indication of guilt.
There is corroborative testimony by credible witnesses.
The staging of the break-in and the clean-up can only have been carried out by Knox and/or Sollecito.
Knox’s mobile calls on and her conversations with Filomena and the postal police on 2 November 2007 prove that Knox and/or Sollecito locked Meredith’s door and stole her mobile phones.
Knox knowingly accused an innocent man of Meredith’s murder. She even admitted to her mother that she was responsible for the accusation and that it was unjust on 10 November 2007. She never recanted this allegation the whole time Diya Lumumba was in prison.
The commentators you cited are clearly not knowledgeable about the case. I’ve provided irrefutable proof that they have got basic facts wrong. For example, Timothy Egan didn’t know how many judges and jurors are involved in a criminal trial in Italy and Paul Ciolino’s wrongly claimed that Knox had “never laid eyes on Rudy, never met with him and never hung out with him… didn’t know him.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
gee isn’t that convenient that “everyday” something new confirmed and justified the arrest of Amanda. “non of the stories” used as testimonies were substantiated, ever…
This whole thing is ridiculous… people are focusing on Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito while the real killer(s) are in the shadows. The chain of nefarious lies and deception surrounding the case by the media, is clear here as it has been all over the place. Lots of people talking about what they “think” is pathetic. This is not how a murder crime is conducted. Where is the diligent investigation, the forensics, the detectives….they seem to be there, but they are clearly not doing a very good job… there needs to be many psychologists, and forensic
AS if a prayer had been answered an Albanian appeared with a story about seeing the 3 exit the house and that Amanda threatened him with a knife… RIGHT!!! HOW absurd!! Oh BTW, Aviello, says his brother was with an ALBANIAN when THEY killed Meredith… did Mignini investigate this lead?? by a well known Mafia informant? NO? And one is supposed to believe this case is cut and dry and AManda Knox & Raf Sollecito 2 young wholesome happy people with NO history of violence… killed and were violent people? for the love of life!!! this is ridiculous, preposterous.
LIES!!!
The pathologist reported NO RAPE! The video says it….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One thing to keep in mind about the thumbs-up thumbs-down ratings: The same person is able to vote multiple times.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi PhanuelB. Strange. That shouldn’t be the case. The system logs the IP address of the person who votes, and then blocks further votes (so even if you have two people running off a wifi, it will block the second one). A few of us have tested it at different locations, and seems to be following that rule. Hope there isn’t a particular bug where you are…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
PR vs. journalism:
http://thelinc.co.uk/2010/02/panel-debates-is-pr-killing-real-journalism/
Why journalism is important:
http://thelinc.co.uk/2009/10/john-pilger-explains-why-journalism-matters/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Would the person who downvoted those links about journalism vs. PR explain the dislike? I’m curious…!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So if your ratings are below 50% then your post doesn’t get shown. That isn’t democracy. Posts that are of poor quality should be suppressed, but all you have here are people with pre-determined ideas voting down their adversaries. substantive posts should only be suppressed with 2/3 thumbs down ratings and the quorum should be more like 20-40 votes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi PhaneulB
Sorry for the delay in responding to your comment (a comment that required a response). I absolutely agree with you view. The system was recently installed and I was unaware that it would hide comments completely. This is not correct. The idea is people can quickly “agree or disagree” with others’ comments, without having to respond. But disagreement shouldn’t hide the comment (as though it is offensive – it is not, just opinion and/or additional views or information). All comments on this article have been useful to our readers to understand that no matter what was written in the article, there is much more to the case and many ways to view it.
Offensive or rude comments will simply be deleted, and therefore the rating system does not apply.
We are working on finding out how to fix that. My apologies as this has certainly had a material impact on the debate.
The Amanda Knox trial is not something we will be covering generally except we do have a readership of people living in Rome (expats, from both the UK and US among others) and people coming to Rome. The expats do have an emotional attachment to many of the issues around this case, including (like myself) getting quite defensive about the Italian Justice system.
Those English speakers coming to Rome may have no idea about the case, so we just wanted to say “it exists” – it is obviously of interest to occasional visitors.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Another Trial For Amanda Knox | The Rome Journal…
I found your entry interesting do I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Did Keith say he was defensive about the Italian Judicial System? Does this mean that The Rome Journal ediorial team take a partisan stance on this issue? Are you collectively afraid of incurring the displeasure of the Italian Judicial system?
Based on some past cases, you should be. Some months ago a man was convicted “in absentia” by an Italian court, while he was provably living in Britain and couldnt possibly have committed the crime. When challenged by the British High Court, the Italian Judicial System admitted the “evidence” of his fingerprints were mistaken. They apologised. Lucky he wasnt living in Italy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Certainly I have a strong opinion on this case, and as yet I haven’t personally written about it. It was incorrect of me to say that I am defensive about the Italian justice system. Trying to be succinct can be messy.
I don’t defend the criminal justice system here (I understand it is generally comparable in results to the UK, US etc), but I defend the fact that Italians should not bow to international pressure. It is important that if fixes need to be made (and they do, in all systems), then Italians should prioritise and fix for Italians within the Italian culture. There are two Italians involved to the same extent as Amanda Knox, but are simply not receiving the same level of attention.
The Italian justice system should serve the 60 million Italians, and it is only important that Italians are happy with it (if not, they should evoke change). Foreigners should be treated within the basic parameters of Internationally agreed Human rights. They may or may not like the way locals do things, but they have to accept it if they travel there.
If you read widely, you will find debatable cases and miscarriages of justice in all countries. Odd analogy’s are not data and inference from analogy is very suspect.
Some people in the US etc feel that there should be an official intervention, but as Australian Prime Minister Howards responded when directly appealed by Schapelle Corby. “My fellow Australians, if a foreigner were to come to Australia and a foreign government were to start telling us how we should handle [it], we would react very angrily to that.” Surprisingly wise words from a politician. Hilary Clinton (and others) may not have the backbone to express that (I am very surprised he did).
My defence of the Italian system is that it should be analysed, changed or kept by Italians and for Italians, with the only the mildest courtesy to international pressure. It is a grave injustice that Amanda Knox receives enormous resources and attention at the cost of many many other Italians whose cases need reviewing and would materially benefit from the huge resources of the media and others – alas, they don’t. If Hilary Clinton is serious about justice for her citizens, she has more than a lifetimes work in her own back yard.
I would defend that there is enough evidence in this case to be considered alongside and in chronological order with all current cases in which there is similar questions. This case should not concern the media or judicial system until all other cases have been reviewed – that would be a travesty of justice. Justice only for the connected and powerful ahead of justice for all.
Sorry if this seems a bit of an organised response. I had no intention to write about the details of this case, but the general philosophy that local issues require local solutions is very important to me, and The Rome Journal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] Another Trial For Amanda Knox [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I see you don’t monetize your website, don’t waste your traffic, you can earn extra cash every
month because you’ve got hi quality content. If you want to know how to
make extra bucks, search for: best adsense alternative Wrastain’s tools