Oh, awesome. Bookmarked.

Amanda Knox is already fluent in Italian. I know, that's not the point, but I couldn't resist pointing that out.

I am very disturbed by the entire Knox thing. When I was a (non-student) editor for a criminal law review, the review was working to publish a piece that compared certain aspects of the American justice system to the Italian. (They were unable to publish the article ultimately because they could not get a copy of a filing translated properly for verification purposes). I suspect that the explanation for how and why she was convicted rest in those difference, which makes her conviction look, feel and amount to a wrongful conviction to an American. But, and this I cannot know, if it's a "clean" conviction in the Italian system, how can we really object to it? Well, morally, sure, but since conviction is a social construct, if the conviction conforms to the social construct of justice, what's the basis for objecting? On the other hand, I understand that her appeal will be--in marked contrast to an appeal in the US--a retrial of the case on its merits. Which might be an excellent thing. /derail

Continuing the derail: Crush, is it the consensus here in the US that Knox did NOT commit this murder?

The consensus in the UK is that she did commit the murder. But then the reporting of the trial in the UK has been heavily sympathetic to the Kercher family, whereas I understand across the pond the opposite is the case.

Bookmarked it as well!

The consensus in the US seems to be that there is no physical evidence against her sufficient for conviction and some analysis goes so far to say that the evidence is insufficient even for indictment.

As I recall, despite the fact that Knox shared the cottage with the victim, and was accused of having killed her after kinky sex games, the only DNA at the crime scene was of the first man convicted (not Knox's boyfriend) and Kercher. A knife recovered from Knox's boyfriend's house has evidence that Knox used it, but I don't recall that there's any blood evidence from Kercher on it and I do recall that there was testimony that it did not accurately match the wounds.

A great deal of the outrage in the American legal community has to do with the pre-trial procedures, as well as the types of character arguments which definitely got a great deal of media-play both in Italy and the US. However, the accounts of her pre-arrest interrogations sound an awful lot like most of the pre-arrest interrogations I encountered as a defense attorney. I find the outrage interesting, given that our police investigators are often no better.

Like the link, thanks Miko!

To continue with the derail, I'd be interested in how in the UK they come to the consensus that she did commit the murder. Based on which evidence? I'm just trying to figure this out in my own mind, and perhaps the American media provides a more sympathetic picture of the story, and it would be interesting to hear an alternative take, especially from someone with legal qualifications. I've followed this case somewhat, and I'm interested in different points of view on it.

More about the derail: How did I never hear of this? How is it that even before it showed up on the blue, I knew more about the Montreal Massacre than this?

I don't think that I ever heard of it either but I don't tend to follow cable TV outrage type stuff.

The evidence in the UK is that a knife was found in Knox's boyfriend's house that had Knox's DNA on it and Kercher's blood.

There's also Knox saying that she was in the house at the time of the murder but that it was committed by a man who owned a nearby bar and that she was in another room hearing the screams while this man (who was completely innocent) killed Kercher.

An article in The Sunday Times gives a lot more detail about the case. I don't know how much of this was publicised in the States.

I don't know that it got a lot of coverage, except in Seattle and at the New York Times. I recall one NPR story a few months ago and the day of the verdict. A couple print outlets picked up the verdict, wondering whether the Sec. of State was going to get involved. I avoid television news, so I don't know how much coverage it got on tv.

I miss criminal appellate practice an awful lot, so I spend a fair amount of time following stories that have a substantial legal issue involved, rather than just a human tragedy angle. This one does, in part because the Italian system is so odd compared to the US one. For instance, "In Italian criminal cases, the jury includes two professional judges, one of whom is the presiding judge in the case." This is so bizarre, but the issue of professional jurors comes up in academic circles from time to time as a means of ensuring the presumption of innocence, as well as a means of properly testing the burdens of proof.