Why should it be a "big" piece? When you are deciding to send someone to prison for a very long time, as a juror you should be looking for solid evidence to prove the accused is guilty. An accused who has lied only proves they are a liar, and that their testimony is unreliable. Disregard all of her testimony. What proof is there that Knox killed Kercher? All that is left is the bra clasp and the knife. This was thrown out by the appeals court, and rightly so. Then what is left to convict her? A story painted by the prosecution that Knox was strange, acted strange, didn't act "right", was a drug user, was promiscuous, was a foreigner, was a liar, etc. and all of this added up to someone who must be guilty based on their perceived personality and behavior. Then, if you know about police interrogation you would know that it is well established that lengthy interrogations often produce suspect statements that contain false confessions, details later shown to only have been previously known by the police, and made up stories that the accused think the police want to hear. So, again, much of what Knox was accused of lying about, was from an alleged forced statement, which she later recanted. To push that thought to an extreme, if you were tortured to make a false statement, would you consider yourself to be a liar?
This should also apply to the prosecution. We know all police lie. It's a court-approved tool they are allowed/encouraged to use whenever dealing with suspects. So all police testimony should be disregarded.
Some people think that to find the true details, read the police report. But police reports are slanted to assist the prosecution. They throw every false anecdote they can think of onto the wall to see which will stick.
I think it would be interesting to ask some Italians whether they think shes guilty or not. I haven't met an Italian that doesn't facepalm when you ask them about government, the judicial system, or really anything controlled by the state.
Every no-good saucy little tart deserves to bend over in jail and get a good whipping whether she likes it or not.
I think lying can mean much more than just saying the defendant is not credible. For instance, if someone is being investigated and says they were not at the scene of the crime and DNA shows they are there, that is a pretty powerful lie they have against the defendant. The defense always has the right to say why they lied (like I lied about being there because I was having an affair with her and didn't want to admit it). Also how the police got the statement is also relevant. But defendant's statements to police about the crime, and their lies, are very powerful in trial, which is why it is admitted even as hearsay statements. Again, defense can bring in evidence to explain statements . . . but ask many jurors if they believe statements on stand by defendants months to years after the incident and preparing for trial with an attorney or statements made shortly after the crime . . . many will find the statements made shortly after crime more reliable. But each trial is unique, and it is up to the jurors who get to hear both sides. To answer your last question, yes I would be a liar, but had a good reason to lie. I assume you think Knox had a good reason to lie. I'm not saying she didn't, but certainly something that will have to be explained (and hopefully believed) by the jury.
There is no more jury. The Italian upper court threw the case back to the appellate level, so the case will be again reviewed by a panel of judges. As for the lying used to build a case - yes - use lying to build upon a case that has a framework to build on. The problem with the case against Knox is that the there was no framework of a case to build on. No credible physical evidence. No credible witnesses. No credible theory for motive. No nothing. She was convicted on opinions, feelings, attitudes, suspicions, biases, discrimination, smears - not facts.
Read more: http://world.time.com/2013/03/29/th...ow-they-learned-to-hate-me-too/#ixzz2OwrBM1kC As for the opinion of so many Italians that Knox was guilty, you can thank a No 1 selling sensationalist book in that country that set the tone early for her trial. The book was so influential (yet so full of crap), that in reality, Knox had little chance of what we consider a fair trial. As, I have already said, Italians should be embarrassed by the case, because it makes their legal system look idiotic. And, in fact, that is the case and some leaders have come out and denounced the handling of this case. They better be pretty sure about their position before they jump all over a court and prosecutor, don't you think? http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/mps-amanda-knox-treated-unfairly-28621084.html
If she were a man accused of a sex murder of the young woman, we never would have heard of this. He/she would be in prison for a long time. The British parents of the victim think that Knox was involved. They know all the details and I haven't followed it (because I am above following crime cases). That tells me something. 3rd thought: The Italian public may be wreaking a proxy revenge for Americans accused there (e.g. CIA agents and previous cases) escaping their laws.
