Amanda Knox found guilty

What on earth was the jury thinking? There was literally no evidence.

"After one of the most closely-watched trials in Italy, an American college student and her former Italian boyfriend were found guilty of murdering her housemate two years ago in this picturesque university town."

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/world/europe/05italy.html?_r=1&hp

It?s called politics.

Wasn't there? All the reports I read in the paper said they all expected her to be found guilty.

The part that gets me is the jury wasn't sequestered. They were allowed to watch any news they wanted to. Also, get influenced by any outside faction that had an agenda.

J.R.

Just read the Guardian article on the trial. Seems fair enough to me, though I don't know anything about the Italian court system.

Apparently she changed her story repeatedly throughout police questioning, was on drugs and was laughing when the body was taken away by the police.

I really haven't followed this case but wasn't Casey Anthony charged with the murder of her daughter and other counts against her BEFORE they got all evidence. She was charged and indicted by a grand jury with first degree murder befor the child's body was found, she was charged with child neglect which was dropped then recharged etc. She got life in prison but when the child's body was found, the state indicted her again and is asking for the death penalty

IDK...I could be wrong, i didn't follow it closely.

I don't know, but what does Casy Anthony have to do with this?

So, which of those things make her a murderer?

The fact the jury found her guilty.

When you say there was literally no evidence. It just reminded me of the Casey Anthony case where she was indicted before all the evidence was accumulated. There was some, but not enough to completely charge her for first degree murder.

Well, that's circular logic if I ever saw it. Figures.



Well charges/indictments typically do come before convictions.

I watched more of it on 48 hour mystery and I must say, their "trials" are a joke. You cannot allow the jurors to leave at the be of the day and hear/read gossip and pure speculation. Here we have hearings as to what evidence can and can't be introduced. They tainted the jury.

There are a lot of other things as to why their trials are biased against the defense.

Right now I can say that I doubt she would have been convicted in Canada or America.

Where is the proof beyond all reasonable doubt? I was not convinced. I believe she was forced into a confession. It happens all the time.

From a quick read of wiki there wasn't really much that tied her into the murder at all.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8396433.stm this is quite an interesting article.

I tend to agree that the whole trial has not actually shed any light on what actually happened.

If a trial finds her guitly they obviously saw sufficient evidence to prosecute her. They would have looked this in far more detail than any of us have and the impression I've had from the media (the only source I have any real access to) gives that she was guilty. She was apparently a 'she-devil' too.

Love the fact the court was allowed to call her that.