What evidence do you know about that an American girl was in the room with the dead English girl?

A statement came out from the Italian judge today that he and the jury have come up with an acceptable motive.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...y-verdict?lite

I'm pretty sure that the defense would argue that the aforementioned Yank wasn't there when the murder took place.

I didn't follow the case very closely and have no opinion about Knox's guilt or lack thereof. But the defense raises some good points, while the prosecutor's case was verging on the theatric.

And the fact that the second case (or I guess third case if you count the appeal that overturned the first verdict) is based upon a rather different theory ought to make you wonder whether there is a problem here, as that gives the impression that the prosecutor may just be lobbing crap against the wall in the hope that something sticks.

(I am also not comfortable with judges also serving as jurors on their own cases or with the lack of double jeopardy, although those issues are obviously not specific to this case.)

Nothing but a dead English girl.

Why has she had a Casey Anthony make over? Oh wait.....

Though I wouldn't rule Amanda Knox as innocent, I think she could well be seen as "not guilty" going on burden of proof. I think the person who killed Meredith Kercher is already serving time for her murder. Of course, this story is a big time waste for 24 hour cable news networks who love not reporting things that actually matter.

How about not proven and we can merge it with Scotland thread?

Interesting. How do we prove that you, Mrs. Danvers did not commit the murder? Just asking.

Again, the whole discussion strikes me as quite religious in nature.

I've been doing some reading on this case and it very much seems to me a travesty of justice on many levels.

Many of the aspects boils down to there not being any solid evidence that Amanda Knox was even at the crime scene on the night that Meredith was murdered.
The DNA "evidence" had been debunked by independent specialists and all the other clues only point to Guede, the one who's serving time.

You mean the Law and religion are both smoke and mirrors?

I think that the point being made is that a reasonable doubt standard does result in some guilty people being (fairly) acquitted.

I'm afraid there's probably a lot more to this case than we all know, and jurors are certainly a law unto themselves. The only thing I would say to her is to get off the TV, she just doesn't do herself any favours with her 'woe is me' attitude!

But reasonable doubt also causes innocent people to be convicted since there is no definition of "reasonable doubt" and there must be a unanimous decision and juries feel pressured that they must reach a consensus.

Last night on Dateline NBC, there was a case with very similar parallels to the Amanda and Rafael case. A wife and kids were murdered in their car in the family garage and the husband was accused since he discovered the bodies and there were a couple of small specks of blood on his shirt. Initially the prosecution claimed he killed them after he came home but later it was discovered that they were killed at least an hour earlier. The husband had an alibi for that time (was playing basketball with friends) but the police believed that he snuck out for a short period of time to kill his wife and kids. Later they found out he was womanizing and that convinced them more but there was a unidentified handprint on the car, a unidentified shirt at the scene that had a nickname on the collar, and the wife shoes were placed on the top of the car. The prosecutor paraded witness to the stand to confirm his womanizing and he was convicted but the appeal ruled that the judge shouldn't have allowed all those woman to testify.

The defense then demanded that DNA on the unidentified shirt should be checked again and it was discovered to belong to someone that had a foot fetish and attacked women over that fetish removing their shoes and had spent years in jail over those attacks. When he was questioned, he initially claimed he wasn't there and he dropped that shirt in a Goodwill box but when it was discovered that it was his handprint on the car, he finally had to admit that he was there but then told a cock and bull story that absolutely made no sense that implicated the husband. A second trial was held against the husband and the prosecution used the same evidence as the first trial but without the parade of women and again he was convicted.

Again upon appeal, the guilty verdict was overturned. The prosecutor wanted to try the husband again but this time he didn't have a case unless he put the "foot fetish" guy on the stand. His story was that he met the husband playing basketball and the husband asked for an untraceable gun which he provided. Then later the husband asked for a second gun to be delivered to his house and after he arrived, the husband shot his wife and kids and then with the second gun, the husband was going to shoot him but the gun jammed. For some reason he went over to the car and tripped over the wife's feet and her shoes came off and he picked them up and wiped them off and placed them on the top of the car. Then he ran. This time in my opinion, the jury got it right and found the husband not guilty.

The similarities:

• Amanda was sexually active and he was a womanizer so that causes suspicion.
• Prosecutors appear to have made a quick judgment of guilt.
• No forensic evidence against Amanda or Rafael and the blood specks on the husbands shirt was said to be blood splatter but could have likely came from when he found the bodies. If there wasn't any blood, then the police would likely wonder how he could just leave the bodies without checking if they were alive (catch 22).
• Both likely had the real killer with a MO that would likely indicate they acted alone but each told stories that appeared to be cock and bull to get lenient sentencing.
• A lot of forensic evidence against the likely killers.
• When one theory doesn't fit, the prosecutors change it.
• Even with mounting evidence of probable innocence, prosecutors continued to prosecute with the flimsiest of evidence.

No. I have found that the discussion involves matters of faith. [Some might call them matters of fancy].

The California Supreme Court has recently found application of fancy to be lacking moral turpitude. http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S196374.PDF