Amanda Knox and ex-boyfriend guilty of Kercher murder.

Snarl
It's all good.

Yep. Good talking with you. Polite and fact driven. It's what we are here for.

Snarl

FlyersFan
If I see conclusive evidence of guilt, I'll gladly accept it.
So far ... I"m not seeing it.

It's all good. I've spoken for the deceased ... not here to participate in ganging up on the lone remaining voice from the opposition.

Out.

Your contributions are always appreciated. Particualrly with this case, where facts are overridden by emotion in so many examples. Facts..and the presumption of them or lack of them seems to define the debate on all sides. Your approach to sticking with the facts is always a nice thing to read.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

FWIW ... you were ahead of us all when you said it's gonna get down a discussion between nations. I don't see a good outcome there.

LeatherNLace

boymonkey74
Will the Italians ask for her to be extradited? should the US authorities hand her over If they ask?

The US constitution protects Amanda Knox from being extradited. Specifically, the 5th Amendment "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb". Knox was acquitted in her retrial; therefore, by US law, she cannot be retried again for the same crime; else it is double jeopardy and a violation of the US constitution.

But wasn't her first retrial a, well a retrial ?

So hasn't she already been tried twice for the same crime - first time guilty, second time innocent ?

This would mean that she needs 'Triple Jeopardy' to protect her from retrial - is there such a thing?

Perhaps her retrial in Italy could be said to not violate Double Jeopardy as it took place across seas, but i still don't understand how we can debate whether a retrial is valid when she's already had one.

Note: I'm not familier with this case, nor law in any detail, so maybe it's all semantics and painting myself dumb

reply to post by McGinty



Taken from an article in the Sunday Express >>>


Though opinion is divided over whether the US will extradite her, the Washington

machine is rumbling. Knox has been allocated her own state department attorney

Ted Simon, while Italy's interests (which can only be declared after this latest

ruling is bureaucratically confirmed) are in the hands of the Justice Department.


America's unofficial position has been that, despite sharing an extradition with

Italy since 1984, Knox cannot be sent back because of its double jeopardy laws,

making it illegal to try a person twice for the same offence . It would be

unconstitutional, it says to send her back where this applies. Yet there is a

strong possibility, according to legal brains, that the US has miscalculated.

Italy also has a double jeopardy law but the three, and possibly four

stage process which has so far seen Knox and Sollecito convicted, spend four

years in jail, been acquitted on appeal and re convicted when the appeal was

squashed, are all part of the same process.


"This is clearly not an issue of double jeopardy " said a London based

extradition law expert and barrister. "I don't see how the US can refuse to

send her back if she is still considered a guilty woman, once all the appeals

have been exhausted". . . .

reply to post by eletheia


That is all true, but the reality of the situation is that even if the government does agree to Italy's request for extradition Knox is still entitled to due process. She will most certainly fight extradition, which means that the case will go before a Federal judge. As I have posted before, once that happens the judge can order her held without bond, set bail, or release her on her own recognizance pending the outcome. Then, after hearing both sides of the argument he can order her extradited or he can refuse to extradite her for any number of reasons.

eletheia
reply to

 

"This is clearly not an issue of double jeopardy " said a London based

extradition law expert and barrister. "I don't see how the US can refuse to

send her back if she is still considered a guilty woman, once all the appeals

have been exhausted". . . .

What the London based "expert' is not taking into account is that there are numerous examples of interstate extradition that have been refused because the sitting judge didn't think that the best interests of justice would be served. The judge on this case could take issue with any of the evidentiary rulings, prosecutorial or judicial conduct and demeanor, or Italy's system. itself
This doesn't necessarily have to be about double jeopardy.

reply to post by FlyersFan



I have checked a lot of links, and in all those links that I have read -

that which I have outlined about the knife is part of the case! and apparently

it is only the links you have provided which go against the fact that there is a

knife in this case which contains the DNA (however small) of Amanda Knox on

the handle and Meredith Kercher on the blade and an explanation why it

possibly did not fully penetrate the victim.


The link provided by 'Snarky' provides a lot of detail regarding the above

and much more.

reply to post by azdaze




Hey ... I am no lawyer.... only reiterating what someone who is qualified

has said.

Looks like it's likely to end up as a political v justice situation?

If I were her - guilty or innocent - I'd get to France as soon as possible!

reply to post by eletheia


Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to needlessly argue a point. I am just pointing out that even if the State and Justice depts. review the case and grant Italy's request, it doesn't mean that Knox is automatically going back to Italy. We still have due process and procedure here in the USA ( in theory, but that's for another discussion) and Knox is entitled to that. With all that being said, Knox would have to show that there are extraordinary circumstances involved in this case for the judge not to extradite her, but it is a possibility.

Now let's just say that in fact the judge does refuse to grant extradition. What then? Do we get a huge outcry from Knox opponents saying that it isn't fair ? Do we get a dressing down of the US justice system as incompetent, even though many have pointed to Italy's system much the same way? Do those same naysayers that point out that regardless of what one may believe, Italy's system is still viewed as legitimate apply that evenly to the USA's ruling as well?

eletheia
reply to post by McGinty

 

Taken from an article in the Sunday Express >>>


Though opinion is divided over whether the US will extradite her, the Washington

machine is rumbling. Knox has been allocated her own state department attorney

Ted Simon, while Italy's interests (which can only be declared after this latest

ruling is bureaucratically confirmed) are in the hands of the Justice Department.


America's unofficial position has been that, despite sharing an extradition with

Italy since 1984, Knox cannot be sent back because of its double jeopardy laws,

making it illegal to try a person twice for the same offence . It would be

unconstitutional, it says to send her back where this applies. Yet there is a

strong possibility, according to legal brains, that the US has miscalculated.

Italy also has a double jeopardy law but the three, and possibly four

stage process which has so far seen Knox and Sollecito convicted, spend four

years in jail, been acquitted on appeal and re convicted when the appeal was

squashed, are all part of the same process.


"This is clearly not an issue of double jeopardy " said a London based

extradition law expert and barrister. "I don't see how the US can refuse to

send her back if she is still considered a guilty woman, once all the appeals

have been exhausted". . . .

Thanks for that. At least the whole double/triple/quadruple crap is being considered and the world hasn't gone mad in not noticing it.

Whether guilty or innocent Knox must be wondering just when is the right time to go off the grid and visit a Brazilian plastic surgeon.

azdaze
reply to post by eletheia

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to needlessly argue a point. I am just pointing out that even if the State and Justice depts. review the case and grant Italy's request, it doesn't mean that Knox is automatically going back to Italy. We still have due process and procedure here in the USA ( in theory, but that's for another discussion) and Knox is entitled to that. With all that being said, Knox would have to show that there are extraordinary circumstances involved in this case for the judge not to extradite her, but it is a possibility.

Now let's just say that in fact the judge does refuse to grant extradition. What then? Do we get a huge outcry from Knox opponents saying that it isn't fair ? Do we get a dressing down of the US justice system as incompetent, even though many have pointed to Italy's system much the same way? Do those same naysayers that point out that regardless of what one may believe, Italy's system is still viewed as legitimate apply that evenly to the USA's ruling as well?

LOL . . . There are many ways to look at things and all countries when it boils

down to it believe their own particular system is the best!

It could be said for instance that Italy's system is more thorough, thus leaving less

room for sentencing an innocent person to a guilty verdict? because it appears

that they have a three/four tier system of justice ....


Here in the UK there are often people caught drug smuggling in countries that

have the death penalty or life imprisonment for that crime. They expect to

be extradited by the UK, However hard it may seem I have no sympathy for

their case's. There are enough programmes that show what will happen to them

if caught but they always believe they wont get caught .... it will never happen

to them, invariably it does and then they expect to be extradited!!


I don't think its a case of a huge out cry of Knox's supporters etc. etc...For me

its more a case of the old saying "When in Rome ...." (LOL pun intended.)

My personal thinking is when in any other country you are subject to their

laws and you should respect that. That being said murder is murder

everywhere!?

If cart-wheeling, hygienically challenged Amanda Knox were innocent, then why did she lie? Why. Did. She. Lie???? I rest my case.

reply to post by Fylgje


People have been known to say things that are untrue while undergoing a police interrogation...they are experts at breaking people down, frustrating people and confusing people who eventually tell them what they want to hear. Add in possible language barriers and who knows what one might say or "confess" to.

Perhaps not true in this case, but it has happened...

reply to post by RedParrotHead
This is true. The Reid technique has been proven to get false confessions in independent studies. It is widely used in law enforcement, but I don't know if Italy uses it.

FlyersFan
Cases like this are why I am against the death penalty. Too many innocent people are in jail for life or on death row due to faulty evidence. As I said a few pages back - years ago I read the book - Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right, by Barry Scheck. I suggest folks read it. Perhaps they'll be more aware of all the lab errors that happen and how zealous prosecutors have put innocent people behind bars, all to get a 'win'. This is why, IMHO, evidence in a case like this has to be absolute. And I'm not seeing any absolute evidence.

Good job most civilised nations don't have the death penalty.
Perhaps America will catch up one day.

I also want to comment on how this story has been spun in the US and why flyersfan and and others can't help but defend Knox.
I hate it because they're reporting on this 'beautiful' all-american girl next door, in this evil, strange foreign land where law isnt practiced properly and she's basically been framed, this pretty girl, she doesn't look like a snarling psycho killer, she's young and pretty.

That is complete nonsense, the evidence quite clearly points to AK and RS.
There's very little room to argue, Knox was involved, a court has decided that twice now.
But no, poor Knox, how sad, with barely ever a word, just in passing, about the young lady who was actually murdered.

reply to post by stargatetravels


Thats why the Knox family hired a publicist to make sure she looked like that.
She has also just been convicted of slander also to do with the stuff in her book (Well she is doing a creative writing course afterall).

stargatetravels
I also want to comment on how this story has been spun in the US and why flyersfan and and others can't help but defend Knox.
I hate it because they're reporting on this 'beautiful' all-american girl next door, in this evil, strange foreign land where law isnt practiced properly and she's basically been framed, this pretty girl, she doesn't look like a snarling psycho killer, she's young and pretty.

That is complete nonsense, the evidence quite clearly points to AK and RS.
There's very little room to argue, Knox was involved, a court has decided that twice now.
But no, poor Knox, how sad, with barely ever a word, just in passing, about the young lady who was actually murdered.

So True Like I said in my first post on this thread ....


How often in life does the "cute Boy" or "pretty girl" (unlike the plain Jane's)

GET AWAY WITH MURDER?