Saturday, February 19, 2011

Follow the Amanda Knox case on my Social Media Law site


Last summer, I taught a Social Media Law course in Northern Italy. In that class, we followed the Amanda Knox case from an open minded international perspective, and how social media tools shaped public opinion, both in the U.S. and abroad.

As you may know, the case is in the appeals stage, which is much different from a U.S. appeal. I will be posting updated articles on the case here:
http://www.perrybinder.com/socialmedialaw.htm

Italy's Court System - The Amanda Knox case started in the Court of Assize (2 Judges and 6 jurors). The presiding Judge must be a member of a Court of Appeals; beside him/her sits a lay judge. Decisions are made by the giudici togati (Judges) and giudici popolari (Jurors) together at a special meeting behind closed doors, named Camera di Consiglio, and the Corte d'Assise is required to publish written explanations of its decisions. The lay Judges are paid for every day of actual exercise of their duty; and, in these instances, are considered public officials. They continue in office for two years. Lay Judges wear a sash in the national colours and are not technically jurors, as the term is understood in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. In Italian, Giudice (Judge) refers both to the eight of them together as a collective body and to each of them considered separately as a member of that body. Since lay Judges are not jurors, they cannot be excused, unless there are grounds that would justify an objection to a Judge. Also, they are not sequestered.

Amanda Knox appealed her conviction to the Appeals Court of Assize (2 new judges and 6 new jurors) – Same composition of judges and lay judges as the Corte d'Assise, but the Giudici Togati are senior to the judges of the first court. The Corte d'Assise d'Appello must also publish written explanations of its decisions. This appeal includes a complete review of the evidence – in effect a retrial.

3 comments:

  1. The evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is overwhelming. They gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they were doing on the night of the murder. Neither Knox nor Sollecito have credible alibis despite three attempts each. All the other people who were questioned had one credible alibi that could be verified. Innocent people don't give multiple conflicting alibis and lie repeatedly to the police.

    The DNA didn't miraculously deposit itself in the most incriminating of places.

    An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was found on Meredith's bra clasp. His DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17.

    According to Sollecito's forensic expert, Professor Vinci, Knox's DNA was on Meredith's bra.

    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.

    There were five instances of Knox's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood in three different locations in the cottage.

    Knox tracked Meredith's blood into the bathroom, the hallway, her room and Filomena's room, where the break-in was staged. Knox's DNA and Meredith's blood was found mixed together in Filomena's room, in a bare bloody footprint in the hallway and in three places in the bathroom.

    Rudy Guede's bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith's room and out of the house. This means that he didn't stage the break-in in Filomena's room or go into the blood-spattered bathroom after Meredith had been stabbed.

    The bloody footprint on the blue bathmat in the bathroom matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot, but couldn’t possibly belong to Guede. Knox's and Sollecito's bare bloody footprints were revealed by luminol in the hallway.

    It's not a coincidence that the three people - Knox, Sollecito and Guede - who kept telling the police a pack of lies are all implicated by the DNA and forensic evidence.

    Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted that she was involved in Meredith's murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007. After she was informed that Sollecito was no longer providing her with an alibi, she stated on at least four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed. At the trial, Sollecito refused to corroborate Knox's alibi that she was at his apartment.

    Knox accused an innocent man, Diya Lumumba, of murdering Meredith despite the fact she knew 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 on 10 November 2007.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Harry - you cut and paste the same misinformation everywhere on the web. You are like a rash that won't go away. Your posts are discredited by the evidence. Go to www dot injusticeinperugia dot org for a full exposition of this miscarriage of justice. The Perugian justice system is out of control on this one. it is an international scandal.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks For Providing grt information about Social Media Law site.
    Taylor Hampton Solicitors

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.