Amanda Knox verdict in Italy

I've been closely watching the trial of American student Amanda Knox who was charged with killing her roommate in Perugia, Italy. Yesterday the verdict came back as guilty.

Needless to say, I don't agree with that verdict and it has been an eye opener to find out how the 'justice' system works in Italy. There is no sequestering of the jury.....they have been totally free to speak with the press, watch reports of the trial on TV and in the newspaper.......one member of the jury even stated a month ago that Amanda was guilty and she would vote for a guilty verdict. The jury members were selected randomly with no voir dire to determine if that person can serve without prejudice. There were just 8 members on the jury.....and two of them were judges. It also doesn't have to be a unanimous verdict - just a majority vote.

The media in Italy has been brutal to Amanda.....depicting her as a sex crazed American who was mad at her roommate.....of course they gave no evidence of this scenario.....and the jury members could read all that. The media coverage even included using a nickname - Foxy Knoxy - that her team mates called her when she was an 8 year old soccer player.

As far as the evidence goes, there was no DNA evidence of Amanda in the bloody bedroom where the roommate was brutally murdered. With that much blood, Amanda would certainly have had some on her clothing and would likely have had marks on her hands or arms from the struggle. Amanda didn't help herself since she gave changing stories to the investigators......of course this was after 15 hours of interogation - without an attorney present.

I feel so bad for her family......her parents are divorced but they have been united in support of Amanda since this all happened two years ago. One family member has been there in Italy at all times for the past two years. Now they will have to go through the appeals process in Italy. I saw a very interesting thing about Italian law on Wikipedia (so I don't know if it's totally accurate):

Under Italian law, a defendant who testifies is not required to tell the truth. Defendants are permitted to lie and will not face perjury charges if they do so.[58] In contrast, witnesses must swear to tell the truth when they take the stand.

I know there are unfair things in the US justice system, but it is still head and shoulders above the Italian system. Do any of you think that Amanda is guilty? If so, what brought you to that conclusion? I really, really feel that Rudy Guede who definitely left DNA in the murdered girl's bedroom, acted alone and that Amanda and her boyfriend had nothing to do with it. What do you think?

Was Rudy the black man that they were talking about? I've watched some of it, but not all of it. It was on Dateline last night but I decided not to watch since I had seen so much of it before.

I don't believe Amanda or her boyfriend had anything to do with it either from all that I saw before on it.

I haven't been following it, but goodness, they call that a fair way to determine someone guilty of murder?!

If she is innocent, I sure hope she and her supporters come up with some way of proving it. That's just a shame.

Yes, Rudy is the black man who had visited the tenants who lived in an apartment downstairs from Amanda and Meredith. Amanda said she had been around him several times but her boyfriend hadn't met him. Amanda and her boyfriend Raffaele had only been dating for two weeks. Her friends she grew up with in Washington state said that Amanda was a very non-violent person who didn't even want to kill insects inside her house. This hardly sounds like a girl who would conspire with Rudy and her boyfriend of two weeks to kill her roommate. It is so much more likely that Rudy Guede (a known liar, drug dealer & thief) broke in, raped Meredith and then killed her.

I've always wanted to travel to Italy but now that I know more about their definition of justice, I'm not so sure. They can keep a person in custody for up to a year without bringing charges. A person who is arrested is considered to be guilty unless judged innocent. I definitely recommend that anyone who does travel to Italy and who values their freedom, to be VERY law-abiding while there. I read this in one reporter's article:

Another report indicates the court refused to let the defense present DNA evidence that might have strengthened the American student’s case. This, even though in Italy there is an automatic presumption of guilt which places the burden of proof on the defense and not on the prosecution. In other words, you must prove you are innocent while the prosecution has no need to prove that you are guilty. Guilt is assumed.

To be fair, other articles do say that a charged person is presumed innocent, but in practice it doesn't seem to work out that way. Another writer, Judy Bachrach, wrote:

The Italian legal system, ecclesiastical judge Count Neri Capponi informs me, will not work in Amanda’s favor. “Our system stems from the Inquisition and also from medieval law,” he explains. What this means, in effect, he says, is that justice in Italy “is based on the supremacy of the prosecution. This nullifies the fact—written in our constitution by the way—that you’re innocent until proven guilty.”’

Yeah that's what I have thought is that Rudy was the one guilty. And that's from the last 48 hours or whatever I watched on it.