The Nardoni Trial

On Saturday, Alexandre Nardoni and Anna Carolina Jatoba were convicted of murdering Isabella Nardoni in a case that shook Brazil ever since it hit the news in March 2008. (See a brief summary of the case in English here) After plenty of forensic evidence gathered after the crime and a brief jury trial last week, Isabella's father and stepmother were condemned to 31 years and 26 years respectively. The defense is appealing to see if they can get another trial, which could potentially reduce their sentences.

Despite the wealth of evidence, there were also complaints that given the nature of the case - the brutal murder of an innocent child by a middle class couple in Sao Paulo - that Brazilians were too eager to condemn someone for the crime. Something so senseless needed to make sense, and someone had to go down. What became known as the Caso Isabella became something of a national obsession, as the girl's mother sobbed on national TV and the accused couple, stone faced, insisted on their innocence.

In this case, the evidence seemed pretty clear: forensic teams found traces of Isabella's blood in the couple's car and in the apartment, found evidence that Isabella had been strangled, and also found fibers and patterns from the window netting on Alexandre Nardoni's shirt, the same window where Isabella was thrown to her death. But there's not always so much evidence, and even if there hadn't been, the couple would likely have found themselves being accused as guilty.

So the question that arises is, in a case of murder with no real witnesses except the accused, are the suspects considered innocent until proven guilty, or what essentially happened in this case: guilty until proven innocent? While the law may state one thing, a jury can very well have a different view.

What do you think?

Comments

[Denise Ton Tiussi]

Acho que quando um caso envolve assassinato, e especialmente em um caso de infanticídio, o julgamento segundo a ótica de um ser humano - ou um grupo deles, como é o caso de um corpo de jurados - tende a transparecer uma noção de justiça muito mais clara do que qualquer lei ou pricípio legal pode prever.

E isso envolve o conceito de justiça. Quando se pensa em justiça como sendo um grupo de normas que regem uma sociedade um caso com provas inconclusivas pode ser entendido como algo não passível de condenação. No entando quando imagina-se que justiça é algo que traz "paz de espírito" fica mais fácil compreender a lógica de porque somente seres humanos podem julgar réus acusados de crimes de morte. Porque crimes que envolvem a vida são sempre únicos e cheios de sutilezas. E acredito que nada pode ser mais "justo" do que o julgamento feito por membros da sociedade. Membros estes que são leigos em conhecimentos jurídicos, mas que compreendem toda a dor e a delícia de ser um indivíduo.

[Rafael]

IMO, the prosecution didn't press them enough. Always there is some contradiction.

[brazinglish]

Things were pretty crazy here in São Paulo with all the coverage and being the daughter and granddaughter of Law graduates, I stayed up to watch the sentencing live, of course (which is soooo CourtTV*).

The people standing outside acted like Brazil had just won the World Cup — fireworks and all — and it was very disturbing. But the mob will be the mob.

I could say a million things here, but I'm biased: I'm a lover of all things logic (*cough* and procedural dramas *cough*), and watching a case driven solely by forensic evidence unfold like it did IN BRAZIL was amazing. I could not believe my eyes.

In fact, I like forensics so much, the most emotional moment for me didin't even have much to do with the murder: it was when the forensic scientist responsible for the whole investigation (whose deposition lasted SIX hours) heard the verdict and started crying. Thirty years of her professional life were put on the stand, it was her trial too.

(wait for backlash)

Anyways. They went in there guilty and there was nothing any legal system in the world could do to change that.

* = we have truTV here now, btw. I'm loving it! Bring on the madness!

p.s. I obviously wanted to be a coroner when I was a kid, but chickened out as I was growing up. Favorite childhood book:
http://www.amazon.com/Alarming-History-Medicine-Hippocrates-Transplants/dp/0312167636/ref=reg_hu-wl_item-added

[Paulo Correa]

By brasilian law all convictions of 20 years or more automatically are given an appeal. This does not prevent the convicted of yet appealing on other grounds, including on the lenght of the sentence. On the issue of pre-judgement of the accused, the media had access to all evidence and the public made the leap to the conviction. The jury , although, not perfect, we are part of an imperfect world, based its' conclusion on the presented evidence and the rules given by the judge. Therefore, when you presume that the couple would have be found guilt even if there was way less compelling evidence,all that you are doing is practicing the exercise of futillity.
I am in agreement that the overwhelming majority of all similar cases, homicides, do not get the forensic attention or care they deserve or warrant. In this particular case all the variables of an excellent media attention were there, as mention by you.