featured_spectre Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 I have watched intently at this trial and even pouring through as many of the officially translated court transcripts as possible and I have the following to say... Considering that there was no dna evidence linking her to the case no murder weapon was ever found (despite the numerous attempts the Italian police tried to convince everyone a cooking knife was the weapon) and no witnesses to the incident Amanda Knox was initially convicted on circumstantial evidence and stories that kept changing by the police throughout the trial. To be frank, I was surprised she wasn't found not guilty in the first instance, let alone having to spend 4 years in prison to appeal to be free. I am glad that a thorough process and due diligence (even the prosecution screwed up and at the end admitted their evidence was flaky at best) that she was found not guilty. This may make me a not so popular person on here but I felt the need to say the above.
glennda Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 TBH from what i've seen about it in the press it sounded very much like she was inocent
witch Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 I agree, neph - the original prosecution was a joke. I don't know if she did it or not but there was little or no evidence to show that she did, and that is what matters AFAIC
Gatt Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 The prosection obviously didn't have Horatio Cain on the case!! Good the Knox, not so good for them....
MYK-IT Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Daily Mail's version of the outcome http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/daily-mail-guuilt/ Let us not forget Meredith Kercher and her family.
featured_spectre Posted October 4, 2011 Author Posted October 4, 2011 Yes the poor girls family are upset but even they said the appeal/retrial was done more fairly.
6Foot2 Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 Link: BBC News - Amanda Knox and ex-boyfriend guilty of Kercher Italy murder [Guilty verdicts re-instated]
featured_spectre Posted January 30, 2014 Author Posted January 30, 2014 I saw this...she is a prisoner of her own home now. She can't leave the US except to go to countries where they do not have an extradition treaty with Italy.
localzuk Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 Ridiculous verdict. The evidence presented is pathetic and flawed. The DNA evidence has been shown to have been contaminated, the knife has been proven to not be the murder weapon boot to mention a lack of blood evidence on it. I doubt the USA would allow her extradition.
sparkeh Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 This has got a long way to run before she ever would ever have to return to Italy. She can appeal which apparently could take another year. Then if the US decide to extradite her she can fight that in the US courts which could take more years with possible appeals. I kinda doubt she will ever go back.
Arthur Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 I doubt the USA would allow her extradition. Is the following correct...? America's extradition treaty with Italy prohibits the US from extraditing someone who has been acquitted. From the American perspective, retrying someone who has been acquitted is a serious abuse of government authority, even if there were problems with the original trial. It is unlikely that Italy could convince the US to send her back. (Source) Italy International Extradition Treaty with the United States "Extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted, acquitted or pardoned, or has served the sentence imposed, by the Requested Party for the same acts for which extradition is requested."
localzuk Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Yes, I think it is, as the USA has Double Jeopardy law over there and extraditing someone for a second trial would breach that.
localzuk Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Wasn't this an appeal of the appeal though? No. The result of the appeal was nullified and this was a complete new retrial.
Achandler Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 She was found guilty (dubious or not) She appealed and won, this was an even bigger farce of a trial, and she won. A judge decided the original appeal was definitely a farce and we are back to square one. I fail to see where double jepoardy comes into plan as it is her appeal that is the issue, not the original conviction. So she has to appeal again, and then if she loses that we are back to a trial, then an appeal. The middle two trials becoem irrelevant.
localzuk Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 As far as every report that has been given by the media, this was a retrial. It isn't a 'reappeal' as there isn't such a thing. It is a completely new process, starting from the beginning in a different jurisdiction (as the original jurisdiction was determined to be useless). Which is why the US extradition treaty specifies that someone won't be extradited if they've been acquitted. Otherwise, what's to stop there being another appeal, and another judge scrapping it and starting it all over again.
Achandler Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Interesting, so the original aquittal was overturned last year and it was a re-trial (possible a re-appeal). Either way so far she is guilty once, then aquiited (illegally, hence it got quashed) then guilty again. Currenlty she stands as guilty twice (aquited nil), until her next appeal of course. In relaity the US will never return her because extradiction agreements with the US aren't worth the paper they are written on, totally one way. So if she is guilty, she will never get punished.
sparkeh Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Yes, I think it is, as the USA has Double Jeopardy law over there and extraditing someone for a second trial would breach that. From what I have read, legal experts are saying that doesn't matter. Extraditions requests are based on the requesting nations laws, US laws would have no relevance.
localzuk Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 From what I have read, legal experts are saying that doesn't matter. Extraditions requests are based on the requesting nations laws, US laws would have no relevance. The request may be made, but the US is entirely restricted by its own laws and the extradition treaty signed when deciding on the response to that request. So, US law would be entirely relevant. Just like with the UK - if someone lodges a request for extradition of someone from the UK for a crime that isn't a crime over here, the request would be denied, as it wouldn't be within UK law. I suspect Italy may not even try, as this judge hasn't made any indication of a desire to get her back and lock her up, instead going entirely the opposite way and saying she's "justifiably abroad".
sparkeh Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 The request may be made, but the US is entirely restricted by its own laws and the extradition treaty signed when deciding on the response to that request. So, US law would be entirely relevant. Just like with the UK - if someone lodges a request for extradition of someone from the UK for a crime that isn't a crime over here, the request would be denied, as it wouldn't be within UK law. Well your view is contrary to people with extensive legal training. Quote from Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at American University in Washington DC But Mr Vladeck thinks the US protection against being tried twice for the same crime - known as double jeopardy - doesn't apply in this case. "There's nothing in the treaty that requires Italy to uphold the US legal system." from BBC News - Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito guilty of Kercher Italy murder Some lawyers and supporters of Ms Knox have argued that having been acquitted in 2011, she would be protected under the US Constitution from “double jeopardy” – being tried twice for the same charge. Yet the US-Italy extradition treaty only protects Americans from extradition to face prosecution again in Italy for an offence that has already been dealt with by the US legal system. “This is not applicable in this situation,” said Professor Julian Ku, who teaches transnational law at Hofstra University. For extradition candidates like Ms Knox who have already been convicted, the treaty states that Italy must merely produce “a brief statement of the facts of the case,” as well as the text of the laws governing the crime committed, the punishment it would receive, and its statute of limitations. Her conviction would “easily satisfy the conditions of the treaty,” said Prof Ku. “So it would be hard for the US to explain why she should not be handed over”. from What next for Amanda Knox? - Telegraph
featured_spectre Posted January 31, 2014 Author Posted January 31, 2014 Thing is, the UK who are the US closest ally, struggle to get people extradited despite overwhelming evidence.
localzuk Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Huh? The US government have to implement their own laws when it comes to their own citizens, treaties or extraditions or not! So, US law always applies to people in the USA. If an extradition, regardless of any treaty signed, would be counter to US law (and ultimately the constitution) then it cannot be implemented. I'm really not sure how that professor came to that conclusion, as 'double jeopardy' law is part of the constitution, which cannot be overridden by any treaties signed. The 5th amendment of the constitution does not mention "the US legal system", it is as simple as: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Which isn't restricted to US legal systems or foreign legal systems. The case here has a person being found guilty, acquitted, and then retried for the same crime and found guilty again! We're all just speculating though, so only time will tell what will happen. I just don't think the USA will agree to extradite her - it'd be a publicity nightmare for the president that allowed it, as she is very heavily supported by the American public.
sparkeh Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 I guess they came to those conclusion after years of studying international law and being experts in their field. But yes we are speculating and I agree that if it came to it they wouldn't send her. The US is very good at creative interpretation when it comes to extradition treaties
localzuk Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 One of the things to remember with the legal system is that academic study of law ends up being very different to implementation by lawyers - as lawyers are very good at, as you say 'creative interpretation'. I spent 2 years studying public order law, but when a friend of mine was pulled up in court for a public order offence? It was useless knowledge, as the police lied about him and the prosecution fudged things. The actual law was basically ignored by the court in favour of what was basically a lie.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now