Amanda Knox: Plane Lands in Seattle

By Jeralyn, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 03:13:36 PM EST
Tags: Amanda Knox (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Update: 6:43 pm MT: It's over. Amanda had a range of emotions from happy to teary. Here's Amanda walking from the plane into the terminal with lawyer Ted Simon; Here's Ted speaking at the press conference; Here's Amanda speaking.

Update: 6:10 pm MT: The plane has landed. It's now arrived at the gate. Here's a picture of the media waiting. [More...]

You can watch a live stream of the Knox family press conference here. It's supposed to begin at 5:45 pm PT. The feed just went live and is at the airplane gate. Here's another live feed of a news chopper tracking her plane.

This is reminding me of OJ's car chase. It's not just the Seattle stations, but CNN, MSNBC, CBS and the BBC that are following the plane now.

****

Amanda Knox is on a British Airways flight from London to Seattle, due to arrive at 5:15 PT. Her family will hold a press conference at the airport.

British Airways had the good sense to ban the media from the business class section, which on the 747, is upstairs.

Update: The media will be out in force.

< Occupy Treasury: HAMP'd | Tuesday Night Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

Amanda Knox: Plane Lands in Seattle | 39 comments (39 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Look for TL's friend and mine, (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Peter G on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 05:08:43 PM EST

NACDL second vice president Ted Simon, from Philadelphia, the U.S. member of the Knox legal team, at that press conference. He's the one with the longish hair and a full beard. Another terrific lawyer; one of his special areas of expertise is U.S. citizens in criminal trouble abroad.

In your opinion, what effect did (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 05:12:13 PM EST

spiked blond hair of one of Ms. Knox's attorneys have, if any? I think he had on jeans yesterday in the courtroom. Kinda casual.


whatever works! (none / 0) (#6)
by Peter G on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 05:33:56 PM EST

Honestly, what do I know about Italian court etiquette or protocol? About as much as I know about the appellate system in Italy, I.e., Nothing, garnischt, nada.


I linked to an article yesterday re Italian (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 05:39:41 PM EST

criminal code and procedure. But my friends are relying on CNN instead of me! Entirely different read on how many votes each person on appellate panel gets, for example. And whether the lay jurors are randomly selected from the region or kind of professional jurors for this purpose.


they are not professional jurors (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Jeralyn on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 05:55:15 PM EST

They just had to have a certain amount of education -- 13 years -- and some had served on other juries. One, a teacher, was interviewed today in The Guardian:

The six jurors - Angeletti and five women - were selected using more demanding educational criteria than those at Knox's and Sollecito's first trial. The lay judges for the appeal had to have spent 13 years at school and obtained a high school diploma. Angeletti said he had heard appeals in four other murder trials.

Technically, they are not called jurors but lay judges, joining the two professional judges.


Diogenes theorem (5.00 / 0) (#22)
by diogenes on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:54:23 PM EST

This educated jury, lauded for finding Amanda Knox not guilty, also made a finding of fact that upheld the calunnia (calumny) charge resulting from her accusation that club owner Patrick Lumumba was responsible for the murder, and Knox was sentenced to a three-year term and fined €22,000.
Diogenes Theorem states that people who are wrongfully convicted of one crime have separate criminal histories and that the bad karma contributes to the false conviction and the zeal of prosecutors, jurors, etc to get a conviction. Maybe if she hadn't thrown Lumumba under the bus then prosecutors and media would have been a bit less quick to throw her under the bus.


Soooo (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 12:18:35 AM EST

Diogenes has no concept of how suspects can be browbeaten into confessing to things they didn't do and implicating others who had nothing to do with the crime?

We have a recent example of exactly those things right here in the U.S. in a case covered by PBS Frontline called "The Confessions." Diogenes might want to look that up on the PBS Web site. He might be surprised, it seems.

And the guys in that case actually spoke the language in which they were being interrogated, y'know what I mean?


saw it (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by NYShooter on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 03:06:57 AM EST

Unbelievable!

Not that so many innocent young guys confessed to such a horrible crime, but that that Turd prosecutor still has a job.


Diogenes is correct (2.00 / 1) (#31)
by ks on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 12:40:48 PM EST

Knox has been cleared and apparently rightfully so but, imo, that chick is shaaadddyyyy. I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her. While the Frontline story highlights a continual and enduring problem, it's a reach to apply it to Know. She didn't confess and she certainly did more than "implicate" sombody else. The appeal court not only upheld that conviction, they increased the sentence.


It's a reach to apply it to Knox why? (none / 0) (#34)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 03:42:56 PM EST

Are you familiar with the Italian police technique that was used on her to ask suspects to "imagine what might have happened"?

And I don't know where you get the idea that an appeals court upheld the verdict and increased the sentence. They had one appeal, and they were exonerated as a result of it. Note-- the court did not find "insufficient evidence" to prove guilt, it flat-out exonerated them.

I think you're getting your information from a TV miniseries or something.


They did actually (none / 0) (#35)
by CoralGables on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 03:51:57 PM EST

uphold the slander verdict and her sentence effectively amounted to time served and a fine. Everything else was discarded.


Factoids. Don't confuse us. (none / 0) (#36)
by oculus on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 04:03:58 PM EST

: My apologies (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by CoralGables on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 05:47:28 PM EST

Perhaps you should check your sources..... (none / 0) (#38)
by ks on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 05:25:54 PM EST

It's hilarious that you're snarking at me about being misinformed when you don't even know what happened "yesterday". Her slander conviction was upheld and her sentence was increased from 1 year to 3 years but since she was in jail for 4 years she was released. She was also ordered to pay 22,00 euros? to the falsely accused Lumuba.


NYT has an article up about the remaking (none / 0) (#23)
by oculus on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:55:59 PM EST

of Ms. Knox's public image before the appellate trial.


That's all very good but what (none / 0) (#11)
by brodie on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 07:08:29 PM EST

a shame for Amanda and her co-defendant and others intheir position that the Italian criminal justice system doesn't seem to have very high standards earlier on when the initial crucial decision on guilt is being decided. I hope this is sufficient worldwide embarrassment for them to at least tighten up what gets allowed in as evidence, especially the self-incriminating nonsense permitted with a defendant imagining what might have happened and the coercive treatment of suspects without their being allowed counsel.

Not that our system is perfect of course but generally we seem to have far more safeguards for the defendant at the trial stage compared to Italy which tends to concentrate on the appellate process to correct initial miscarriages of justice. I think I prefer our way -- though that situation has deteriorated under the Roberts Court.


: No system is without its flaws, (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 07:50:28 PM EST

and learning from the embarrassment of having the eyes of world on them when they make a huge mistake doesn't seem lasting. I lived in Australia during the Lindy Chamberlain trial. Amanda has plenty of company worldwide for what she's been through.

: I imagine (none / 0) (#13)
by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 07:13:02 PM EST

that the Itailian justice system will be tightened up.
I imagine that the economy will get better.
I imagine that my team will win the Super Bowl.
I kind like this....

yes, Ted is a good friend of ours (none / 0) (#5)
by Jeralyn on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 05:33:56 PM EST

He also represented the kid in Singapore who got the caning sentence. Ted got the lashes reduced from 9 to 4 and prevented him from getting jail time. He also represented Ira Eichhorn.

I'm not sure what his role is in the Knox case. A book on the case said he was doing PR work, not legal work on the appeal, but I don't know if its accurate.


I plan to keep his name handy for future (none / 0) (#8)
by oculus on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 05:41:31 PM EST

travels I am even afraid to take prescription and over-the-counter meds out of orig. containers, no matter how bulky.


: you should always keep (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Jeralyn on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 06:02:03 PM EST

medication in the original containers, here and abroad. Some states like Washington, require it. While you may ultimately get off if you have a valid script, it may not won't stop you from being arrested. You can find more here (written by me for lawyers.com)
Back to Amanda now please.

I live in Seattle (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by hitchhiker on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 09:38:33 PM EST

My daughters are 21 and 23, played soccer against Knox's high school team, both did college study abroad in Europe. You send them off knowing that bad stuff can happen, hoping it's not going to land on them, marking the days until you meet them at the airport, safely near again.

Every mother I know has been following this story with horror from day one, and all of us are celebrating this day.

If the press can turn an ordinary 20-year-old smoking pot with her new boyfriend into some kind of satanic, drug-addled, murdering sex fiend and help get her convicted of a savage assault on her roommate . . . I don't what to say.

She had resources. Parents who would not give up. Access to counsel. Good looks. Education. And it so easily could have been not enough. Sometimes the law really does scare me.

: well said (none / 0) (#21)
by Jeralyn on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 10:48:44 PM EST

Thanks for posting that.

Regrettably, I am unable to expend any (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 04:28:49 PM EST

more emotion re Ms. Knox.

: I'm sure she would be happy to hear that. (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by sj on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 04:54:16 PM EST

What happened to the boyfriend? (none / 0) (#12)
by MKS on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 07:10:33 PM EST

Staying in Italy I suppose.

Would you stay? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 08:11:49 PM EST

With a high profile case, a native population less than thrilled at the outcome of the appeal and an another appeal pending, I'd think getting the heck out dodge would be a more tempting idea.

Not to mention of whole satanic sex predator obsession. That's some scary sh!t right there.


: Somebody on CNN just said (none / 0) (#25)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 12:26:04 AM EST

his sister is distraught about just that (she's apparently lost her own job as a result of all this) and is hoping to get him to leave the country at least for a while.

He is staying in Italy (none / 0) (#16)
by Jeralyn on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 08:09:48 PM EST

I hope her recovery doesn't take long (none / 0) (#15)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 07:54:35 PM EST

The journey back to what she once knew as normal doesn't seem like it would be easy. At least I know I would find it difficult.

She was clearly very emotional at the press conference.

I suspect her reception will be (none / 0) (#18)
by brodie on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 08:18:06 PM EST

much more overwhelmingly positive as compared to the somewhat surprising number of nasty negativists who posted here yesterday expressing various degrees of skepticism and hostility to the favorable appellate ruling.


I just read the positive comments (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Jeralyn on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 08:42:40 PM EST

and there were plenty.


And I agree-- the positives were (none / 0) (#28)
by brodie on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 10:32:50 AM EST

in the majority. Just saying I was surprised at the number of skeptical and negative commenters (a quarter of those expressing a clear opinion?) in what appeared to me to be a bizarre railroad job by the prosecution where the evidence was made to fit the satanic storyline and where the mass media coverage was predominantly against Knox in the period leading up to her trial.

Shades of McMartin in some respects.

But then I didn't attend the trial, and according to a regular poster in the previous thread that's necessary in order to assert a firm opinion one way or the other about her innocence or guilt. I wasn't aware of this rule until now but I will try to henceforth conform my views on criminal cases accordingly.


: Nobody's rule. Opine away. (none / 0) (#32)
by oculus on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 01:04:20 PM EST

prosecution's theory? (none / 0) (#27)
by markw on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 09:44:58 AM EST

I haven't followed this case that carefully, but have been trying to read up on it more recently. One thing that I don't understand is the prosecution's theory of the case. Was there any evidence that Guede knew Knox and Sollecito before this event occurred? If not, did the prosecution assert that they knew each other anyway and somehow covered their tracks? Or did the prosecution assert that they somehow met each other that evening and instantly put together and carried out a bizarre Satanic plan?

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how the prosecution could even come up with this case, much less that anyone would buy it, though I suppose the phone DNA "evidence" helped them get the conviction the first time around.

Sorry I didn't ask this in the earlier thread. Just thought of this now and didn't want the question to get buried in an old thread.

whoops (none / 0) (#29)
by markw on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 11:03:30 AM EST

Whoops, I meant "phony DNA 'evidence'" rather than "phone".


Good questions (none / 0) (#30)
by brodie on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 11:08:06 AM EST

But you might implicitly be overestimating the integrity and adherence to fairness and justice of her prosecutor in that trial. I strongly suspect he was fitting the facts into a pre-fabbed Evil Seductress storyline, an approach which would appeal to jurors base emotions and prejudices and not any higher sense of proper justice.

See for instance the good piece in yesterday's LAT by Nina Burleigh whose book on the case was recently published.


: Nina Burleigh: (none / 0) (#33)
by oculus on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 01:48:36 PM EST

LAT

ROME (AP) - The Italian judge (none / 0) (#37)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 04:55:02 PM EST

ROME (AP) - The Italian judge who was part of the jury which acquitted Amanda Knox said Wednesday the American and her ex-boyfriend might know the "real truth" about who killed her British roommate.
Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann said in a state TV interview that "maybe" the two defendants know what happened in the 2007 slaying of Meredith Kercher in the flat the two women shared in Perugia, the Umbrian town where they were student.
Hellmann, who was also one of the eight jurors, said "the real truth could be different." But based on trial evidence, the jury acquitted them, he said. In Italy, the presiding judge is part of the jury, along with another judge, and six civilians.