Knox/Sollecito Appeal Verdict due Today

[SteveJ]

Meredith Kercher

Knox and Sollecito were found guilty of murdering Miss Kercher, 21, from Coulsdon in Surrey, at the end of a year-long trial in Dec 2009. The exchange student was found dead, with her throat cut, in the house she shared with Knox in the university town of Perugia on November 2, 2007.

Now Knox is appealing her convictions. If she is acquitted, she is set to get on the first plane back to the US. However the jury could uphold her sentence – or even increase it to life.

Day of Judgement - Telegraph

 

[mjs020294]

Not really been following tech appeal. Did they present much new evidence, what are her chances of winning the appeal.

 

[SteveJ]

As far as I can make out, mate, some DNA evidence was dismissed, yet the prosecution still hasn't explained certain activities (certified or alleged) of Knox & Sollecito. There doesn't appear to be an overall consensus about the verdict; apparently, bookmakers favour a reduction in sentences but not necessarily releases.

In Italy, public opinion – once largely hostile to Knox, seen as an angel-faced killer – has become more divided. One of the country's most widely read magazines, Oggi, has campaigned to draw attention to the weaknesses in the prosecution case. And an MP for Silvio Berlusconi's party, Rocco Girlanda, who visited her on Saturday, has become an important advocate of her cause.

But what little evidence there is suggests most Italians believe Knox and Sollecito were involved in Kercher's murder. In a viewers' poll conducted by Sky Italia after the prosecution wound up its case, only 27% of respondents thought the couple were innocent.

(Guardian)

 

[peterstorey]

My gut feeling is that it's not a safe conviction. I think Knox and Sollecito aren't telling the whole story though

 

[SteveJ]

My gut feeling is that it's not a safe conviction. I think Knox and Sollecito aren't telling the whole story though

I think you've got it in one, mate. I'm not sure that we'll ever know the truth, sadly.


True Justice For Meredith Kercher

 

[peterstorey]

A bit disturbing to have all those pix of the dead girl.

 

[SteveJ]

I guess the blog editors want to remind visitors of Ms Kercher, mate - as is often the case in trials, the victim is overshadowed by the accused.

 

[bsc]

I find Knox attractive.

That's all.

 

[Sir Matt]

The DNA that was the only solid evidence of Knox was actually residue from rye bread. That was the evidence used to convict her. The police have done everything they can to stop anyone from speaking out about the case, including having a website shut down.

It's been farcical. The evidence is either trumped up or unconvincing.

 

[SteveJ]

Amanda Knox: Guilty or innocent, five reasons why - Telegraph

 

[Tibs]

Foxy Knoxy looks a little like Rafa Nadal :S

 

[Solius]

I find Knox attractive.

That's all.

I would.

 

[SteveJ]

Live updates on the final day of the appeal here...

Knox & Sollecito appeal hearing - live updates | News | guardian.co.uk

...and here:

Knox & Sollecito verdict: live updates - Telegraph

Verdict expected around 8pm BST.

 

[Brophs]

The DNA that was the only solid evidence of Knox was actually residue from rye bread. That was the evidence used to convict her. The police have done everything they can to stop anyone from speaking out about the case, including having a website shut down.

It's been farcical. The evidence is either trumped up or unconvincing.

I agree with pete above. The conviction in and of itself probably wasn't the most convincing but they're clearly lying about something and I suspect they know - at the very least - what happened to her that night. Not that that makes them guilty, obviously.

 

[iSparky]

what do we reckon then? guilty or not?

 

[iSparky]

I find Knox attractive.

That's all.

i most certainly would, she is quite fit indeed

apparently the DNA evidence is all a bit shit and the sample that the prosecutors used in the last case was so small they couldnt re test it. i reckon she could get off her, dont think she is completely innocent but i would reckon she knows more than what she has said already. i dont think she did it though tbh

 

[Rood]

what do we reckon then? guilty or not?

GUILTY !

not saying she actually cut her throat but she was there and knows what happened - IMO obviously involved in some capacity or wouldnt be lying all the time

 

[SteveJ]

In the event of K & S are acquitted, the prosecution will appeal to the Italian Supreme Court (the absolute final arbiter in this case). There is also a slander trial involving the Knox family scheduled for November 15th. Given these two prospective events, it would be senseless to release K & S given that Knox would likely flee the country; far better to keep them imprisoned, at least until the end of Knox's Supreme Court appeal (if, that is, her current appeal fails).

 

[Brophs]

The worst thing in all of this is that the family will never fully know what happened, or why. Even if she remains in prison they won't really know what happened. All they'll have is the conjecture of the prosecution which could be miles off.

 

[Dave89]

Something about this case has never sat right with me

 

[SteveJ]

'Nick Squires reports from Perugia that Meredith Kercher's mother, Arline, and her sister, Stephanie, flew into the town's airport this morning on a flight from Stansted.

They joined one of Meredith's two brothers, Lyle, at a hotel in the university town. They are due to give a press conference this afternoon. Francesco Maresco, the Kerchers' lawyer, spoke outside court after Knox had given her address to the court and the jury went into their deliberations. He said:

"The Kercher family accepted the court's decision that they (Knox and Sollecito) were guilty and so they are now interested in seeing that sentence confirmed."

He said he did not think there would be tensions between the Kerchers and the Knox family when they sit together in the court room this evening to hear the sentence handed down. It is more the wait that creates tension, and the Kerchers are more interested in remembering their daughter outside the courtroom. Their attention is on that.'

(Telegraph)

 

[Brophs]

Something about this case has never sat right with me

Care to elaborate?

 

[iSparky]

Something about this case has never sat right with me

the main thing that never sat right with me about this was that none of the evidence that was presented during the trial was anywhere near convincing enough for a conviction

 

[Sir Matt]

In the event of K & S are acquitted, the prosecution will appeal to the Italian Supreme Court (the absolute final arbiter in this case). There is also a slander trial involving the Knox family scheduled for November 15th. Given these two prospective events, it would be senseless to release K & S given that Knox would likely flee the country; far better to keep them imprisoned, at least until the end of Knox's Supreme Court appeal (if, that is, her current appeal fails).

This, along with the presentation of the DNA evidence as legitimate, is the most ridiculous part of the trial. The family is being sued for slander for claiming that the Italian police mistreated Knox during the investigation. Whether or not it's true, the police shouldn't be getting their panties in a bundle over the family trying to support their daughter. Their whole attitude is pretty fascist about criticism.

Also, if they're found not guilty, you would be imprisoning innocent people. How does that even work? Yeah, they might be re-convicted, but you can't just keep them in prison after they've been found not guilty--whether or not they are going to leave the country.

 

[Wibble]

Beyond a reasonable doubt should be the standard

 

[Brophs]

This, along with the presentation of the DNA evidence as legitimate, is the most ridiculous part of the trial. The family is being sued for slander for claiming that the Italian police mistreated Knox during the investigation. Whether or not it's true, the police shouldn't be getting their panties in a bundle over the family trying to support their daughter. Their whole attitude is pretty fascist about criticism.

Also, if they're found not guilty, you would be imprisoning innocent people. How does that even work? Yeah, they might be re-convicted, but you can't just keep them in prison after they've been found not guilty--whether or not they are going to leave the country.

Well, not really. They're receiving worldwide scrutiny and if they are seen to allegations of police brutality then it undermines their credibility even further. You don't need to slander someone - in the middle of a trial involving the same set of circumstances - to support your daughter. That said, pragmatically I don't think too many eyebrows would have been raised had they chosen not to proceed with that case. They still may not.

 

[Sir Matt]

Well, not really. They're receiving worldwide scrutiny and if they are seen to allegations of police brutality then it undermines their credibility even further. You don't need to slander someone - in the middle of a trial involving the same set of circumstances - to support your daughter. That said, pragmatically I don't think too many eyebrows would have been raised had they chosen not to proceed with that case. They still may not.

They're making it a bigger deal than it is. It happens all the time in cases that the police are accused of mishandling cases. If the police had ignored it or offered evidence that they hadn't done the things claimed, it would seem like they were being honest. Trying to sue someone for slander seems more like trying to get them to shut up to me. There are just better ways to go about dealing with criticism than suing everyone. Whether or not their was police brutality, rights infringed upon, etc, if the family can't make any accusations(true or false) against the police without the threat of being sued, then the police can act with impunity.

Note: I'm looking at this from the American perspective on libel/slander, which allows pretty much anything to be said about public figures with very stringent requirements on them to determine slander/libel. Basically, slander cases aren't common because they're very hard to win.

 

[Pexbo]

If Knox is cleared, I bet she becomes some sort of celebrity. Playboy and whatever else will show interest in her.

 

[Brophs]

They're making it a bigger deal than it is. It happens all the time in cases that the police are accused of mishandling cases. If the police had ignored it or offered evidence that they hadn't done the things claimed, it would seem like they were being honest. Trying to sue someone for slander seems more like trying to get them to shut up to me. There are just better ways to go about dealing with criticism than suing everyone. Whether or not their was police brutality, rights infringed upon, etc, if the family can't make any accusations(true or false) against the police without the threat of being sued, then the police can act with impunity.

Note: I'm looking at this from the American perspective on libel/slander, which allows pretty much anything to be said about public figures with very stringent requirements on them to determine slander/libel. Basically, slander cases aren't common because they're very hard to win.

They can make accusations, they just have to be able to justify those accusations. Personally I don't think they should be pursuing this for pragmatic reasons but the family made comments that could seriously have affected the integrity of the arrests and prosecutions - and, by association, the trial. The Italians have a poor reputation for things like this and they may have felt that they couldn't allowed these comments to go unchecked with the glare of the world's media on them.

 

[iSparky]

If Knox is cleared, I bet she becomes some sort of celebrity. Playboy and whatever else will show interest in her.

foxy knoxy in playboy? interesting

 

[iSparky]

not long now, im not too familiar with how these things work, can the jury deliberate further if they need to?

 

[iSparky]

One of the CNN reporters covering this has just tweeted this

@RAGreeneCNN
Hope of Amanda Knox verdict by 8pm Italy time/2 p.m. ET fading as clock ticks by with no sign of jury decision.

 

[iSparky]

All the mainstream media channels now reporting that a verdict has been reached and will be read to the court at 20:30 BST

 

[rufus diabolus]

It seems pretty clear that they are guilty to some extent but there isn't enough evidence to prove murder beyond reasonable doubt.

What happened to the third bloke who was convicted? Did he not appeal?

 

[iSparky]

no i think the other guy did not appeal, they are saying now its not obviously going to be clear cut at all here, quite possibly the murder charge could be dropped due to the lack of evidence or the fact there is no concrete evidence at all to prove murder and that other minor charges she is facing could be given in the form of the 4 years she has already served

 

[Adzzz]

She's as guilty as a Dog with a mouth full of dog biscuits suspected of eating the dog biscuits.

 

[Sir Matt]

She's as guilty as a Dog with a mouth full of dog biscuits suspected of eating the dog biscuits.

Based on what? There's almost no concrete evidence in this whole trial. They might be guilty, they might not be, but I don't see how it can be proved without more substantial evidence than the dubious behavior exhibited by Knox.

 

[Adzzz]

I'm using the tried and tested Dog Biscuit method here.

 

[iSparky]

She's as guilty as a Dog with a mouth full of dog biscuits suspected of eating the dog biscuits.

they may well be, personally i dont think she is guilty. i think she is serving time for something she didnt do, i dont think she is completely innocent but the thing is, if the sentence is upheld on the basis of literally not one piece of sustainable tangible evidence it is going to make the court look like a joke

 

[iSparky]

I'm using the tried and tested Dog Biscuit method here.

you look like a dog...