Foxy Knoxy the Femme Fatale?

For the past four years, the Italian media have been riveted by the story of Amanda Knox.   If you don't know who she is by now, she is an American student who was studying abroad in Perugia, Italy, and was accused of the murder of her British roommate Meredith Kercher back in 2007.

It was also just announced that the verdict in her appeal has come in and will be read at 3:30 p.m. ET today.  While the Italian media have been all over this case like white on rice, the American media have been more restrained in their coverage of this story and I'm not sure why. 

Here we have an American student in a foreign country accused and subsequently convicted of murder who gets her appeal decision today.  Yet our media, while covering the story slightly more now that the appeal-reading nears, seems to treat her as an afterthought.  Yes, there are articles written about her every so often, but they merely remind an American populace who has forgotten her that "Oh yeah, that poor girl in Italy.  Glad that's not me."

I'm just surprised there is not more outrage in the U.S. If Amanda Knox were an American on trial in China or North Korea on charges of espionage, certainly someone from the Obama administration would have stepped in to negotiate for some sort of deal, even if that did not mean full release but a tempered jail sentence.   I have yet to hear anyone of any political clout comment on the trial, save for Maria Cantwell, Senator from Knox's home state of Washington. 

Below, the other players, from left to right: Briton Meredith Kercher, convicted killer/accomplice Rudy Guede [an Ivorian national], Rafaelle Sollecito [also convicted and in jail awaiting appeal; former boyfriend of Amanda Knox], and last but not least Foxy Knoxy as she has been dubbed by the Italian media.

The story itself, although gruesome, is fascinating because it appears that what actually happened to Mererdith Kercher (if I hear the phrase "killed during a sex game gone awry" one more time I've had it) remains unknown.   This case has everything from alleged bungled police investigation, alleged police brutality, and a media whose newspapers are allowed to portray whatever headlines they want with little regard to facts.

It appears that the judges in the case accepted the prosecution's version of events because they fit their views of what happened.  Certainly if nothing else a spotlight has been cast on the Italian justice system and its criminal investigative unit.

Regarding the criminal investigation: it seems clear that there was contaminated DNA evidence from the start and that there was a 47 DAY DELAY in obtaining DNA samples.  Furthermore, defense expert witnesses have argued that the analysis of the DNA evidence did not match internationally recognized standards and that there was not even enough DNA from Knox on the knife (the crux of the prosecution's case) to be correctly tested. 

All of this evidence was laid out by the defense before Judge Giancarlo Massei, Deputy Judge Beatrice Cristiani and six other judges at the Corte D'Assise of Perugia.  These arguments were rejected and Knox was convicted. 

And now, a little did you know... with regard to the Italian legal system (thanks, Wikipedia). The defense has limited access to prosecution documents during the discovery period.

-The jury is not sequestered.

-The "burden of proof" lies with the defense.

-Only witnesses must be under oath.

-There is no lay jury but rather "professional jurors" like in much of Europe.

-A simple majority of jurors is all that is needed to convict.

-The prosecution is allowed to use character defamation in court to try to make its case (Knox has been called "she-devil," "slut," and as recently as yesterday, "Jessica Rabbit" as the prosecution tries to paint her as a drunk, oversexed femme fatale). 

-An admitted, homeless heroin addict who helped link Knox to the crime has been a star witness in other trials in Italy.

-The prosecution used an animated cartoon depiction of events to show what they think happened in closing arguments.    

As much outrage as there was about Casey Anthony or OJ Simpson, they got a trial by jury of their peers, regardless of what anyone thinks about the result.  Sure, some will argue that the jury got it wrong in both of these cases.  Juries have made other mistakes in the past.  But in America, this is more the exception than the rule.

Apparently there exists no concept of reasonable doubt in Italy, and jurors there can read the tabloids to their heart's content during the trial phase. 

Is this a trial, or a TV show with different guest stars?   Here's hoping the appellate court gets it right this afternoon.

UPDATE: HER IMMEDIATE RELEASE WAS ORDERED PER A NOT GUILTY VERDICT...FOUND GUILTY ONLY OF SLANDER BUT GETS TIME SERVED.

Casey Anthony: Not Guilty?

In the movie "Legally Blonde," Elle Woods' professor asks her if she would rather defend a client who committed a crime malum in se (a regulatory or civil crime) or malum prohibitum (a crime that is inherently evil or violent).

After listening to her rival Vivian answer malum prohibitum, Elle changes her mind and says she chooses to defend a client accused of the "dangerous one" because she is not afraid of a challenge.

Apparently, Casey Anthony's defense team was not afraid of a challenge either. The prosecution in this case had a lot of DNA evidence, but were unable to connect it to Ms. Anthony. They might have been able to establish motive and opportunity but they did not connect Ms. Anthony to the crime itself, in they eyes of the jury.

Whether you think Ms. Anthony committed the crime (I believe she did), the defense in this case drummed their mantra of reasonable doubt, and it resonated with the jury.

I liken this trial to the OJ Simpson trial, as have many talking heads of late. The prosecution had all of the tools it needed (I'm looking at you, Marcia Clark) , but was unable to establish its case without reasonable doubt. It is a tremendous lesson in our justice system and the US Constitution.

Again, regardless of whether you think Ms. Anthony committed murder or manslaughter, there was room for reasonable doubt, which is the basis of our legal system. The prosecution had a burden of proof, and it did not air tightly demonstrate its case.

The differences in strategies of the defense and the prosecution is striking. The prosecution sought to portray her as a party animal and a whore, but the defense kept to it's mantra of reasonable doubt. The prosecution's major witness, the coroner, apparently did not do an adequate job. Really? An inability to establish cause of death? Didn't even open the skull of the baby? The prosecution did not once say, "This is, with certainty, how Casey killed her baby."

And the hiker who "found" the body? His story changed more often than the horse in Emerald City changed colors in "the Wizard of Oz." although Casey Anthony is clearly a liar and a sociopath, she still worked with her defense team. Whatever happened to Caylee, whether it was drowning or asphyxiation, the defense was able to show to the jurors that there still existed reasonable doubt.

It's unfortunate about the outcome for those who believes she is guilty, no cause or manner of death was established. There exists reasonable doubt. This case will likely be studied in law school for years to come, and perhaps The prosecution will appeal. Oh wait! Can we say double jeopardy? Maybe Casey's parents will be tied to the crime or cover-up. Who cam say? But until then at least one can say: Casey is innocent until proven guilty. And the prosecution couldn't do that.

Don't read too much into it. Take the outcome for what it is: the American justice system at work. like it or not, we want to adhere to the Constitution. It was written for a reason. And to all the lawyers and talking heads offering their two cents, you weren't at the trial; nor were we. The media crucified her, but the sequestration of the jurors clearly, along with the defense's case, led to a conclusion to this circus. You may not like it, but them's the breaks.