Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

AnnaGilmour comments on The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom - Less Wrong

42 Post author: komponisto 13 December 2009 04:16AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (632)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: AnnaGilmour 15 December 2009 05:32:20PM *  4 points [-]


These are the concerns as delineated. From the above linked blog.

"The case for appeal is complex and rests on several very firm claims of prosecutorial misconduct:

1.The defense was denied the opportunity to present its own DNA experts;

2.A neurologist acting as witness for the defense testified that Knox could have been subjected to such intense stress, between the horror of the killing and police intimidation that she falsely remembered details that initially implicated her former boss;

3.Allegations of police intimidation and misconduct were not investigated;

4.DNA evidence appears shoddy, and is the sole source of evidence linking Knox in any way to the crime;

5.Mignini, the chief prosecutor, stands accused of criminal abuse of office;

6.Mignini threatened and began to carry out a rigged prosecution against a journalist whose coverage he disliked;

7.Press were allowed to influence jurors and judges in the case;

8.There is evidence police knowingly presented false evidence, fabricating unsubstantiated theories of the crime;

9.There are questions about the legitimacy of imprisoning Knox for two years before even bringing her to trial;

10.Jurors may have slept through defense testimony, flagrantly ignoring facts of the case that conflicted with prosecution claims;

11.The prosecutor openly announced his determination that the trial should be treated as a guilty unless proven innocent process: investigation of possible collusion between the prosecutor’s office and the presiding judges were never properly investigated."