[geolarson2]

I can honestly say I wasn't surprised. I too had followed this case for the past couple years. I'm not quite as optimistic that she'd have been acquitted over here though. By and large most jurors tend to give deference to the authorities in the person of the prosecutor. Having said that though I'm not entirely sure that with the scant and heavily contaminated DNA "evidence", the contamination of the jury pool via sensational media, the fact that the prosecutor is himself under indictment, the fact that the Italian Supreme Court already overruled the judge once during the trial (something uncommon from what I understand), I'm not sure that most American prosecutors would have pursued this case. Especially when they had a guy who confessed to the killing and early on said that Ms Knox and her beau had nothing to do with it. And like laranger the idea of having two judges on an 8-member jury panel does disturb me. One thing that I still haven't quite nailed down is whether there's a presumption of guilt and the defendant is then required to prove innocence, or if there's a presumption of innocence and the prosecutor is required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I've seen attorneys arguing from both perspectives. In many respects, and while this is technically the main trail, it has more the feel of an American grand jury to me where the prosecutor gets to do all the talking and the jury gives almost always votes to continue with the prosecution. And from what I understand, while in the US appeals are most often sought on technical grounds, sometimes on newly discovered evidence, rather than on a second look at the evidence, in Italy the appeals court can take a look at everything again (although as in the US, appeals courts tend to back up the lower courts from what I understand). There is also ultimately the European Court of Human Rights which I think can take a look once the Italian venues have been covered. My own take is that Ms Knox was guilty of being a young American woman in the wrong town at the wrong time with the wrong prosecutor. (Personally I prefer the British system where the media is largely cut out of the process--if I remember right they can report the crime, &c., but personal details such as a defendant's name are usually withheld, and jurors, as in the US are not allowed to watch the news or read newspapers, &c. during the course of the trial). Oh, and if you're accustomed to wearing underwear but aren't permitted to go to your apartment for, say, 3 days chances are you'd be out buying new knickers or boxers, too, no? I also understand that unlike in America, Italian juries don't have to come to a unanimous verdict to convict, and apparently that was the case here: not all the jurors voted to convict, meaning at least 1 believed she was innocent.