The Differences Between Amanda Knox and Laura Ling/Euna Lee
Giuseppe Bellini/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
It seems that to most Americans, the most frustrating part of the Amanda Knox verdict in Italy is that the U.S. college student wasn’t protected by the safeguards of fairness that are built into the American system of justice. Perhaps most people assume that the courts of other civilized, democratic countries – like Italy – generally operate as ours do, which we now know is not the case.
Italian juries are not sequestered, meaning they’re exposed to all of the salacious, wild and often unsubstantiated rumors whirling about in the press. Their juries also include judges, who carry more weight than the average-citizen jurors. And, as the New York Times points out, “in Italy a jury does not need to be unanimous but only needs a majority to convict on murder.”
It’s precisely because her trial was such a departure from one she would have received in the United States that Americans are so upset about Amanda Knox. Tim Egan has compared the trial to that of Joan of Arc, the Inquisition and the Salem witch trials.
So, it was inevitable that people start asking whether the U.S. government will be getting involved in the case. According to the Associated Press, “Sen. Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington state, has said she plans to bring her own concerns – including whether ‘anti-Americanism’ tainted the trial – to [Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton.” But Clinton has said that she hasn’t looked into the case.
It’s a big difference from the last time a sweet-faced American (two, actually) faced a railroading by a foreign country’s justice system – which also involved a Clinton save. Journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee were sentenced to 12 years in a labor camp for illegally crossing the North Korean border. Americans’ outrage in this case, however, was with the sentence, not the verdict. While people generally believe the evidence in Amanda Knox’s case is weak and no motive exists, Lee and Ling themselves admitted, “When we set out, we had no intention of leaving China, but when our guide beckoned for us to follow him beyond the middle of the river, we did, eventually arriving at the riverbank on the North Korean side.”
And though they undoubtedly deserved to be spared from their ridiculously harsh sentences, it likely helped that in addition to being moderately well-known themselves, they were working for a network owned by former Vice President Al Gore at the time of their capture, and that Ling is the sister of Lisa Ling, another famous journalist. Knox has no such ties.
Ultimately, Americans expect such unjust treatments by dictators like North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, who can be convinced to override the justice system if baited with a visit from a celebrity politician like Bill Clinton. But we don’t expect it from a country like Italy, where thousands of Americans visit, vacation, do business and study each year.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
I wish we were being given a clearer picture of who this young woman was before she moved to Italy. Her family — and what does her Dad do professionally to afford this? — has spent $1m (so far) trying to help her.
I think this case also hits a very deep chord in anyone who fears becoming entrapped in a foreign judicial system, possibly innocently.
The Seattle Times and West Seattle Herald have been doing a good job of profiling Amanda Knox and her family, since she is from this area. I met Amanda’s mom about a year ago — she’s a mom like me, who must be absolutely devastated (along with her dad) about this horrible event in their lives. The local community has been very supportive with fundraisers, etc. for their legal defense fund. But I’m sure the parents have declared bankruptcy.
In response to another comment. See in context »The Amanda Knox affair is a tragic one. However, your commentary reflects the ignorance of the average American on the manner in which justice is administered in practice as opposed to the propaganda we are fed in school.
“Italian juries are not sequestered, meaning they’re exposed to all of the salacious, wild and often unsubstantiated rumors whirling about in the press. ”
Can you name a single instance in which a jury did not convict after a change of venue (a necessity in order for sequestering to have any meaning)?
The US has the world’s highest incarceration rate – it didn’t get there through scrupulous application of the bill of rights.
http://www.cato.org/images/homepage/incarceration-rates2.png
A quick run-down:
Fourth amendment – this has been steadily weakened by recent diminishment of the exclusionary clause, there is no disincentive to exceed the scope of the search warrant, search warrants are sufficiently trivial to have issued that they are largely a procedural nicety.
Sixth amendment – in California you either schedule the trial within 60 days or you waive your right to a speedy trial, period. If your lawyer will not be ready by the 60 day mark or you wish for the nonsense in the press to abate before convening a jury (change of venue is expensive and rare) and you are unable to post bail, then you can be detained for several years. The states do not have the budget to try most cases, overall in the US 95% of cases go out on plea because defendants know that taking anything to trial is not just a double or nothing, but a 10x or nothing. In many counties in California 98% of cases go out on plea.
Eighth amendment – there is a maximum bail schedule – however, this can be trivially be circumvented by “overcharging”, a prosecutor can make the bail arbitrarily high by having literally dozens of charges. There is no accountability for prosecutors who charge crimes they know that they cannot prove, in fact it is standard practice as it makes it easier to coerce defendants to “plead out.” This is one area where Italy is clearly superior to the US. In Italy a prosecutor cannot plea bargain around charges that would have a sentence of 5 years or more – the knowledge that he will have to take the case to trial serves as a deterrent against overcharging past a certain point.
It seems horrific that one can be detained for a year in many countries in Europe when charged with a crime like murder. However, in practice in the US in “newsworthy” cases the bail is frequently set at a level that is above the defendants ability to pay, so in practice he has no bail.
You’re right that she would probably not have been convicted in the US, but not for any reason having to do with due process. She is a pretty white girl whose parents have spent a large sum on attorneys and the court already has a black man on the hook. Nonetheless, if she were convicted in the US, she would serve 25 years to life – with the term having as much to do with the whims of the parole board as anything else. In Italy she will serve 13 years. In the US she would be banned from any profession requiring certification and would have difficulty travelling to any Anglo-Saxon country (Canada and the UK would both send her home at the border). In the US, a felony is in some respects a life sentence.
Since the 1970s due process has come in an ever more distant third to the needs of district attorneys to increase their conviction rates and the prison industrial complex’s need to grow.
I have serious doubts about how much greener the grass is on this side.
Interesting post, jonbean. Thank you.
In response to another comment. See in context »It’s always sad when a nice looking young white woman is convicted of murder. It’s confusing. I’m sure the good senator is right- there must be some Italian conspiracy afoot here.
This is a silly article. What makes you think Americans even are aware of this trial or care? Or qualified to have an opinion worth respecting? There is no evidence presented to cast doubts on the verdict other than the fact that the Italian system is different than ours. Yeah, ours works so well, that’s why OJ got off, and innocent people are locked up all the time. A white female American – she has to be innocent! She’s white! She’s female! She’s an American!!
I am moderately proud of the US system of justice, but your description of Knox as someone who has no “ties” is frustrating. She is a celebrity. I have a friend who was shot and killed in Baltimore in the early ’90s. The Baltimore Sun reported the murder, combined with another unrelated murder in a 50 or 60 word column on the inside pages of the city section. His killer was never caught. The “justice” for him and his family was therefore inarguably inadequate.
At the other end of the spectrum, the US justice system when it has a suspect in it’s cross hairs is replete with cases where someone of questionable guilt without means to defend himself gets measurably more punishment for the same crimes as a more well to do suspect, who can fund a robust defense and/or draw media attention.
I think it’s extremely arrogant to criticize Italy’s system of justice based on differing jury rules. What makes you so sure sequestering juries, having no judges on the panel and requiring every juror to agree protects innocent victims or the falsely accused better? Both parties need consideration, and the end it should be judged on how well overall it functions, and that’s a question for Italians, not coffee sipping American AM TV watchers.
if anyone had seen the study of evidence presented on 48 hours and what was basically not presented more people would have a firm understanding of how Knox got a wrong deal.
Yeah, I saw the 48 hours expose. I can’t get over how the pretty wealthy people on my US television set somehow know EVERYTHING (and thank god for middle aged men who want harder penises and to women who want smooth skin since those commercials pay for these very truthy shows). The 48 hours on screen reporters (or is it the unnamed, lower paid researchers and producers behind the scenes) know more than Italy’s politicians, jurors, prosecutors and citizens. If only they flew in the CSI Las Vegas cast to work Knox’s case, then we could be positive that the Italians are as grossly incompetent, uncaring, and unmoved by obvious contrary evidence as we already proclaim they are.
In response to another comment. See in context »There’s really a mountain of evidence against Amanda Knox. It’s strange how the American media doesn’t really mention it, while credible U.K publications like the Times and Guardian provide a larger canvas. (But I guess they are part of the conspiracy.)
There’s been countless holes found by the police in Knox and her boyfriend’s alibi stories (which kept changing), through the use of phone records, surveillance cameras, and computer experts to determine, locales, cell phone use, and laptop use during specific time frames.
Then there’s DNA evidence. It’s strange how convicts on death row are now being found innocent by testing 20 year old DNA samples, but in this case the defense declared that the samples were tainted. The fact that the weapon which the DNA samples were found was rinsed in bleach is pretty shady.
Comparing Amanda Knox to Laura Ling and Eunice Lee doesn’t fly: there wasn’t a mountain of evidence against the Current TV journalists, and the two weren’t being charged with murder. There really is no basis to a comparison. Italy has nothing to gain by showing anti-Americanism sentiments–the love Obama.
Read a bit more on the case here:
http://trueslant.com/harmonleon/2009/12/06/american-hottie-goes-to-italian-prison-guiltier-than-oj/
Ms. Libby,
You wrote: “Italian juries are not sequestered”. US juries are not sequestered either as a rule. Only the rarest of cases (e.g. the O.J. Simpson case) is this practiced.
The system they have is “fair” in the sense that all of the same rules that were applied to her trial as are applied to every other trial in Italy. Perhaps I am ignorant but I do not believe that that she was treated differently than an other criminal defendant in Italy. If I am wrong, let me know.
While I would agree that I prefer our system to theirs, we don’t get to decide which judicial systems other countries use. I would only note that their system is fairly typical for Europe and indeed the world as a whole.
“While people generally believe the evidence in Amanda Knox’s case is weak and no motive exists…” Really?
Word up to Harmon Leon. Amanda Knox is hardly in league with Ling or Lee, and Italy is not North Korea.
A more comparable analysis can be made of the hikers in Iran, who have had to fight to keep their story alive in American media like Ling and Lee’s families did. The Knox trial received substantially more media coverage than either of the others, especially in light of the fact that Meredith Kercher was murdered in November of 2007, and the saga has been an international media sensation for nearly two years.
[...] by the incessant wailing of various journalists and bloggers who are now making all sorts of wild comparisons and claims. Indeed, it’s a shame that so many of them only felt the need to comment on the case once a [...]
lets face it its always wrong if its against the americans ,you pick holes in the laws of the country where the crime was committed with what seems like blind stupidity face facts the fuckers should fry. before making bullshit remarks read the facts. guilty guilty guilty..
Yes, your insightful “fuckers should fry” comment has indeed demonstrated to me that it’s the Americans who are stupid. Well done.
In response to another comment. See in context »it doesn`t take much intelligence to read evidence, my opinion on corporal punishment has no relavance because in my country sadly nobody fry`s
In response to another comment. See in context »Sara, that’s the problem with people like Englander, they have not actually read all the facts.
In response to another comment. See in context »The evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is overwhelming.
Amanda Knox’s DNA was found on:
1. On 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.
2. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the ledge of the basin.
3. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the bidet.
4. Mixed with Meredith blood on a box of Q Tip cotton swabs.
5. Mixed with Meredith’s blood in the hallway.
6. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the floor of Filomena’s room, where the break-in was staged.
7. On Meredith’s bra according to Dr. Stefanoni AND Raffaele Sollecito’s forensic expert, Professor Vinci.
Amanda Knox’s footprints were found set in Meredith’s blood in two places in the hallway of the new wing of the cottage. One print was exiting her own room, and one print was outside Meredith’s room, facing into the room. These bloody footprints were only revealed under luminol.
A woman’s bloody shoeprint, which matched Amanda Knox’s foot size, was found on a pillow under Meredith’s body. The bloody shoeprint was incompatible with Meredith’s shoe size.
Two independent imprint experts categorically excluded the possibility that the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat could belong to Rudy Guede. Lorenzo Rinaldi stated:
“You can see clearly that this bloody footprint on the rug does not belong to Mr. Guede, but you can see that it is compatible with Sollecito.”
The other imprint expert print expert testified that the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot.
An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. Sollecito must have applied considerable pressure to the clasp in order to have left so much DNA. The hooks on the clasp were damaged which confirms that Sollecito had gripped them tightly.
According to Judge Massei and Judge Cristiani, Rudy Guede’s visible bloody footprints lead straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the house. He didn’t lock Meredith’s door, remove his trainers, go into Filomena’s room or the bathroom that Meredith and Knox shared.
He didn’t scale the vertical wall outside Filomena’s room or gain access through the window. The break-in was clearly staged. This indicates that somebody who lived at the cottage was trying to deflect attention away from themselves and give the impression that a stranger had broken in and killed Meredith.
Guede had no reason to stage the break-in and there was no physical evidence that he went into Filomena’s room or the bathroom. The scientific police found a mixture of Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s blood on the floor in Filomena’s room. They also found irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito had tracked Meredith’s blood into the bathroom.
The murder dynamic implicates Knox and Sollecito.
Barbie Nadeau wrote the following:
“Countless forensic experts, including those who performed the autopsies on Kercher’s body, have testified that more than one person killed her based on the size and location of her injuries and the fact that she didn’t fight back—no hair or skin was found under her fingernails.”
Judge Paolo Micheli claimed that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito knew precise details about Meredith’s murder that they could have only known if they were present when she was killed.
Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted that she involved in Meredith’s murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007. She stated on at least four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed. She also claimed that Sollecito was at the cottage.
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito both gave multiple conflicting alibis and lied repeatedly. Their lies were exposed by telephone and computer records, and by CCTV footage. Neither Knox nor Sollecito have credible alibis for the night of the murder despite three attempt each. At the trial, Sollecito refused to corroborate Knox’s alibi that she was at his apartment.
Legal expert Stefano Maffei stated the following:
“There were 19 judges who looked at the evidence over the course of two years, faced with decisions on pre-trial detention, review of such detention, committal to trial, judgment on criminal responsibility. They all agreed, at all times, that the evidence was overwhelming.”
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were unanimously found guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher because the evidence against them was overwhelming.
They repeatedly told the police a pack of lies in the days after Meredith’s murder.
On 5 November 2007, Knox and Sollecito were confronted with proof that they had lied and were given another opportunity to tell the truth. However, they both chose to tell the police even more lies.
Sollecito’s new alibi was shattered by computer forensic evidence and his mobile phone records.
Knox accused an innocent man, Diya Lumumba, of murdering Meredith despite knowing full well that 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.
Knox’s account of what happened on 2 November 2007 is contradicted by her mobile phone records.
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito both gave multiple conflicting alibis. Neither Knox nor Sollecito have credible alibis for the night of the murder despite three attempt each. At the trial, Sollecito refused to corroborate Knox’s alibi that she was at his apartment.
Rudy Guede’s bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the house. He didn’t lock Meredith’s door, remove his trainers, go into Filomena’s room or the bathroom that Meredith and Knox shared.
He didn’t scale the vertical wall outside Filomena’s room or gain access through the window. The break-in was clearly staged. This indicates that somebody who lived at the cottage was trying to deflect attention away from themselves and give the impression that a stranger had broken in and killed Meredith.
Guede had no reason to stage the break-in and there was no physical evidence that he went into Filomena’s room.
The scientific police found a mixture of Amanda Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s blood on the floor.
There was no physical evidence that Rudy Guede went into the blood-spattered bathroom. However, the scientific police found irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito tracked Meredith’s blood into this bathroom.
Amanda Knox’s DNA was found mingled with Meredith’s blood in three different places in the bathroom: on the ledge of the basin, on the bidet, and on a box of Q Tips cotton swabs. Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s blood had united into one single streak on the basin and bidet which means they were deposited simultaneously.
Sollecito left a visible bloody footprint on the blue bathmat.
According to two imprint experts, the woman’s bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith’s body matched Knox’s foot size. The bloody shoeprint was incompatible with Meredith’s shoe size.
Knox’s and Sollecito’s bare bloody footprints were revealed by luminol in the hallway. Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s DNA was found mixed together in one of the bloody footprints.
An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. Sollecito must have applied considerable pressure to the clasp in order to have left so much DNA. The hooks on the clasp were damaged which confirms that Sollecito had gripped them tightly.
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.
The defence experts were unable to prove that there had been any contamination. Alberto Intini, head of the Italian police forensic science unit, pointed out that unless contamination has been proved, it does not exist.
Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted that she involved in Meredith’s murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007. She stated on at least four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed.
The English translation of Judge Massei’s sentencing report can be downloaded from here:
http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=53735