Inmates Defend Amanda Knox at Appeal Hearing

Five inmates testified in for Amanda Knox today at an appeals court hearing in Italy.

Prosecutors are doing everything they can to say these witnesses are hardened criminals who can't be trusted.

Whatever happened to "what's good for the goose is good for the gander?" Prosecutors never say that when they call criminals as snitches to prove someone guilty. Then they say things like "you have to lay down with dogs to catch the fleas" or that the criminal may be a bad person but he's telling the jury the truth. [More...]

Just last week in the Chicago terror trial of Tahawwur Rana, the prosecutor, in telling the jury to believe David Coleman Headley, a former DEA informant with two prior heroin convictions who admitted to plotting the Mumbai bombings that killed more than 160 people and to planning an attack in Denmark, and who escaped the death penalty and extradition to India in exchange for his testimony, told the jury in closing:

“What would you have your government do — tell Mr. Headley, ‘I’m sorry, you’re a despicable person and we’re not interested in what you have to say to us’?

The "hardened criminals" prosecutors rely on every day to get convictions, especially in courtrooms across America, are all being paid, either with money or promises of leniency (and freedom is a commodity far more precious than money.) The "hardened criminals" testifying for Amanda Knox are getting neither.

A prosecutor urging a fact-finder not to believe someone because he or she has a criminal record is laughable. What they really mean is hardened criminals can only be trusted when the Government calls them as witnesses.

< Saturday Morning Open Thread | Bill to Require Warrant for Location Tracking Introduced in Congress >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Read the link (none / 0) (#1)
    by diogenes on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 04:02:12 PM EST
    "Guede did not reveal the identity of his alleged accomplice, according to the witness."

    If Guede had actually named the accomplice, perhaps Allesi's story would have a wee bit of credibility.  And what of the fifth inmate, who said, "The fifth witness, Luciano Aviello, told a completely different story, saying that his brother and an accomplice had killed Kercher."

    As TL always says, this type of testimony can only be used to corroborate existing hard evidence or to find leads to find the "real killer."

    Please stop misquoting me (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 09:06:16 PM EST
    I never said that, I always complain exactly the opposite of what you wrote. There should be a requirement that snitch testimony be corroborated and backed by independent evidence, but there isn't. That's one of the reasons it is so dangerous.

    very confusing case (none / 0) (#2)
    by pitachips on Sat Jun 18, 2011 at 05:07:16 PM EST

    thank you (none / 0) (#4)
    by sj on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 09:27:39 AM EST
    for continuing to highlight this.