On your first question, I’d say “probably”. The prosecutor could still push murder one. But the difference between murder one, two, or manslaughter is merely a state of mind. So if the defendant is already admitting to a lesser state of mind, the prosecutor will have a very hard time proving a higher state of mind, absent solid communication evidence (e.g. prior recorded threats to the victim, credible witness testimony about expressed mental state, etc.).

So I’m on the jury for a murder one case. The judge does not instruct me that I can vote for a lesser charge, so I have to aquit even though I believe the defedant is guilty of murder 2.

Can that defendant be tried again, but for murder 2?

If at the outset, Knox had told (what we consider the truth): “Yes I was involved, this is what happened, it was an accident, I was scared, I didn’t know what to do, etc.”

Is there a better chance that she would have been charged with manslaughter/second degree as opposed to murder one?

If the chance is not better, then I can understand why people lie even if they killed by accident.

“This is funny to me. Chicken Little wants to know: Doesn’t anyone want to know that the sky is falling in America, and thus the world?”

Well, I think there are 2 issues here. First, lack of interest in Chicken Little, and the interest in a unique Murder/sex/innocence/guilt Case.

Chicken Little:

Most people don’t think the sky is falling, or is ever going to fall, and those that may entertain that possibility, do not because it’s too scary to think of because it hits home. If true, it means that it affects you, me, our famililies, people we love, our neighbours, everyone. As well, I think the intricacies of politics and the big picture of it, is highly, highly complex. I mean, I consider myself quite intelligent, and some of your blogs are way over my head.
Also, the U.S. government/corporations/citizens are not on trial. They are not being asked to take accountability e.g. the billion dollar bail outs, ridiculous consumer spending, – hell, in the states, you can sue McDonalds for spilt coffee on your lap, NO SELF-RESPONSIBILITY for health and for healthcare (even though I enjoyed Michael Moore’s film “Sicko”, there was not ONE MENTION of self-responsibility for health and he is obese himself). The reason no one cares about Chicken Little is because the sky has not already fallen. If (and when it does), I wonder if we’ll still be able to blog as easily, or put this much energy into theorizing.

Murder/sex case:

It’s way easier for people to talk about something that is far removed from us. Like, “those people are so weird and dysfunctional, I would never behave like that”. The story does not affect us personally. It was not our loved one who died. It is not our loved one on trial. So we have the luxury of discussing – how the hell something like this could have happened? without being emotionally crushed by the discussion.
And of course, because a precious life has been taken, the issue of accountability is at the forefront. This story demand accountablity.

Chicken little does not demand immediate accountability – and you know how many people are interested in prevention don’t you? A very, very small minority. That’s why we have 1 in 2 dying of heart disease and 1 in 3 having cancer. That’s why the economy is the way it is, and crime and violence is that way they are. Most people don’t care until the boom is lowered.

I think if the prosecution sticks to a charge of murder one, then it’s up to the judge, when he instructs the jury, to decide if any other charges can be decided upon.

But if you are a juror, and the judge instructs you only on a charge of murder one, but you think it’s murder two, you have to acquit.

So I guess the way it would work is the defense counsel, before or during the trial, approaches the prosecutor and asks if he wants to make a deal. If the prosecutor says no deal, defense is out of luck.

For the reasons I said above, I don’t think this prosecutor has been open to any deals.

You mean if a prosecutor says, hey kathy, “I’m charging you with murder one”, I can’t say to the prosecutory, “no way man. I’m innocent of murder one, I want to plead guilty to manslaughter, because that’s the truth, not the one you’re spinning”.

You mean it doesn’t work like that?

If it doesn’t, then that’s not truth and justice. I think (many, many emails ago I asked you this question). If someone is charged with murder one, and they plead innocent, what does that mean? So you’re telling me that could me any number of things? Yes judge, I’m completely innocent – no involvement. Yes judge, I’m innocent of premeditation, but I was a bystander, Yes judge I’m innocent of murder one, but I did kill accidently. So when you plead innocent, can your defense lawyer not make your case for manslaughter to the judge/jury?

And secondly, you mean if they are found guilty, there will be no book or movie? So you mean this is opposite to the US? If this is Italian law, it is wise. No one should be able to profit from this kind of pain.

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/Kermit03PerugiaPossSequenceOfEvents.pps

Amazing Powerpoint with timeline on top of photo-map of the town, with routes mapped, etc. A tour de force!

So I was itching to blog about Gaza, and the meaning of that for Obama and the world. But I agreed with my wife that doing so might not be the best idea.

So that’s the only reason I got onto this Foxy Knoxy story. I mean, I was surfing YouTube, watching all the Israel/Gaza videos, being frustrated not to be blogging about it. And, in the side bar, I saw a link to the Foxy Knoxy story. Got watching it, got hooked, and blogged away.

Now this little diversion onto Foxy Knoxy represents by far the biggest interest this blog has attracted in its 5 years of life.

This is funny to me. Chicken Little wants to know: Doesn’t anyone want to know that the sky is falling in America, and thus the world?

What a wonderful discussion. Kathy’s last comment takes us back to my original theory two posts ago. I don’t believe the murder was premeditated — least of all by Rudy and Raffaele. Amanda, I believe, was looking to humiliate Meredith, and didn’t decide to kill her until the very moment she stabbed Meredith. Impulse.

But Kathy, you watch too much TV. You keep says “X should plead to …”. I keep telling you, defendants can only plead to what the prosecution offers.

And this prosecutor sounds like a grand-stander. The very last thing he wants to do is to settle this case before he get world attention for his performance.

It will be almost better for his legend if Amanda and/or Raffaele is acquitted in a dramatic trial (a la OJ). He’s still be able to write the book and get a movie done.

So Kathy, please take out of your reasoning the idea that any of these defendants could have pleaded to a lesser charge. There’s no evidence they ever had the opportunity, and every indication that they actually did not.

So their only choice is to go for acquittal. That’s what helps make this a made for TV trial. Too bad the judge is excluding TV. Would have out-OJ-ed the OJ trial.