Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#14

[sherlockh]

I know that. They will look at it from the U.S. law basis. I think Alan Dershowitz has opined on this as well.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/amanda-knox-trial-nears-verdict-article-1.1596322

Dershowitz believes double jeopardy would not be an issue because Knox's acquittal was not a final judgment. He also doubts that the United States would want to set a precedent by refusing to extradite her if she is convicted, given that the United States makes frequent extradition requests for defendants sought by U.S. courts.

 

[Linda7NJ]

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=22295682

My favorite from the above link

"reliance on unreliable testimony"

That's rich!

From the woman incapable of telling the same story two times in a row....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Karmady]

It's not Double Jeopardy according to Italian Law.

It's US law that will determine whether it's double jeopardy, not Italian law. Similar to the death penalty provisions where it doesn't matter what foreign law would require. The treaty is entered based on what the parties are willing to agree to. The US has not agreed to "double jeopardy" and they can define that by US standards. The US didn't have to enter into a treaty at all. jmo

 

[Linda7NJ]

I'm looking for comment from Wendy Murphy...

Anyone read or see her reaction to the verdict?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[aa9511]

I know that. They will look at it from the U.S. law basis. I think Alan Dershowitz has opined on this as well.

But they have already signed an extradition treaty with Italy. Not everything revolves around Amanda. There was a treaty with Italy, which they signed before Amanda.

 

[aa9511]

It's US law that will determine whether it's double jeopardy, not Italian law. Similar to the death penalty provisions where it doesn't matter what foreign law would require. The treaty is entered based on what the parties are willing to agree to. The US has not agreed to "double jeopardy" and they can define that by US standards. The US didn't have to enter into a treaty at all. jmo

Just thinking of it in a common-sense kind of way - how can this be? By signing something, you are saying you have read what it entails, and you are agreeing to it. The US or another country cannot sign something, and then say, oh never mind. I guess technically they could, but not without repercussions - meaning what is the point of signing things if it doesn't mean you are going to honor it?

Also, I know Amanda Knox or some person Italian or foreigner who has murdered someone in the United States is no big deal to some people, but it is not just about Amanda. This is not only about Amanda. If the US backs out of its extradition treaty, or in other words, breaks it, just because of Amanda, it will be putting the whole of US at risk. Meaning, what if some terrorists come, Italian citizens, and commit terrorism on US soil? And then go back to Italy. They are convicted, but Italy chooses not to extradite them to the US. How would we feel then? They would be free to plot more attacks. Then it would no longer be "no big deal." It would be a huge deal.

I honestly can't understand why some can take this matter so lightly, such as US breaking a treaty they have signed with another country. It is not only about Amanda. There are other things to consider, with more important consequences to the US and its citizens.

 

[lisasalinger]

I assure you my opinion has zero to do with politics.
My opinion
Is based on the totality of the evidence and there is a mountain of it, logic and common sense. they both are guilty way beyond a reasonable doubt IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi Linda7NJ :seeya:

I haven't been on Websleuths in months, just trying to get caught up.

What is the best resource that you would recommend to review all of the evidence presented at trial (preferably translated)? I could comb thru all of these threads, but figured I'd throw the question out there in the event you can point me in a specific direction. Thanks!

I'm withholding my opinions until I take a closer look at everything.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Hi Linda7NJ :seeya:



I haven't been on Websleuths in months, just trying to get caught up.



What is the best resource that you would recommend to review all of the evidence presented at trial (preferably translated)? I could comb thru all of these threads, but figured I'd throw the question out there in the event you can point me in a specific direction. Thanks!



I'm withholding my opinions until I take a closer look at everything.

I highly recommend www.themurderofmeredithkercher.com

 

[Karmady]

Just thinking of it in a common-sense kind of way - how can this be? By signing something, you are saying you have read what it entails, and you are agreeing to it. The US or another country cannot sign something, and then say, oh never mind. I guess technically they could, but not without repercussions - meaning what is the point of signing things if it doesn't mean you are going to honor it?

Also, I know Amanda Knox or some person Italian or foreigner who has murdered someone in the United States is no big deal to some people, but it is not just about Amanda. This is not only about Amanda. If the US backs out of its extradition treaty, or in other words, breaks it, just because of Amanda, it will be putting the whole of US at risk. Meaning, what if some terrorists come, Italian citizens, and commit terrorism on US soil? And then go back to Italy. They are convicted, but Italy chooses not to extradite them to the US. How would we feel then? They would be free to plot more attacks. Then it would no longer be "no big deal." It would be a huge deal.

I honestly can't understand why some can take this matter so lightly, such as US breaking a treaty they have signed with another country. It is not only about Amanda. There are other things to consider, with more important consequences to the US and its citizens.

Yes. The US agreed to the treaty. But, tThe treaty specifically says it won't allow double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is a US concept. The treaty is intended to allow extradiction in situations that would be allowable under US law, as well. In this case, US law would, arguably, not allow another trial after the reversal by the Italian appellate court. Therefore the double jeopardy provision of the treaty could arguably apply to preclude extradition. jmo

jmo

 

[Linda7NJ]

Yes. The US agreed to the treaty. But, tThe treaty specifically says it won't allow double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is a US concept. The treaty is intended to allow extradiction in situations that would be allowable under US law, as well. In this case, US law would, arguably, not allow another trial after the reversal by the Italian appellate court. Therefore the double jeopardy provision of the treaty could arguably apply to preclude extradition. jmo



jmo

Do you gave a link to the treaty?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Do you gave a link to the treaty?

Never mind....from the above link I just put up


Double Jeopardy
There has been discussion that the Double Jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment would prevent the United States for extraditing Amanda Knox but that is incorrect. Double jeopardy is not a consideration in extradition. Neither the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment nor the speedy trial clause of the Sixth Amendment apply to extradition cases.[13] In Bloomfield v. Gengler this is made explicitly clear when the court found that even though the proceedings that resulted in the conviction would have been barred in the United States because of double jeopardy, this was irrelevant to the certification of the extradition request. These procedural rights only apply to criminal prosecutions and extradition is not considered a criminal prosecution.[14]
Article VI
Article VI of the U.S. Italy Extradition Treaty reads:
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.
This has led to confusion by people commenting on the possibility of extradition. The Requested Party in this case would be the United States. This is not applicable to Amanda Knox, as she has never been charged with the murder of Meredith Kercher by the U.S. Article VI addresses the dual sovereignty doctrine and applies only to scenarios where the fugitive is charged both by the United States and by Italy for the same act.

Link to entire treaty
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Italy_International_Extradition_Treaty_with_the_United_States

 

[Irish_Eyes]

Rudy's footprints prove he never turned to face the door to lock it.
How could he have locked it with his feet placement where they were? He couldn't.

Who had a motive to stage...only one person on the planet. Amanda Knox.

Those other prints belonged to AMANDA. Her footprints face the locked door.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rudy's footprints were bloody because with the amount of blood on the floor from 46 stab wounds it was almost unavoidable. Why no bloody footprints from Amanda or Raffaelle? Why was there no transfer of Kercher's blood anywhere on their persons? Why did they not have the expected bruises and cuts and scratches inflicted by someone attempting to fend off 46 stab wounds? Guede did. Why did they have no blood on their clothes? Yes, it's possible they could have changed their clothes but they would have either had to

a) change out of those clothes in the apartment (and Amanda probably would have had to go into her room to get clothes to change INTO) and somehow with blood on their clothes and persons not get any blood splatter from their clothes into Amanda's room, OR

b) go to Raffaelle's in bloody clothes, and magically not leave any miniscule blood splatter in Raffaelle's apartment either. Perhaps they managed to do one or the other and dispose of their bloody clothes. Who disposes of bloody clothes and not the knife as well? Why then keep the knife and put it back in your kitchen drawer?

The profile of who commits this type of crime (burglary/rape/murder) is in NO way consistent with Knox and Sollecito. It's much more consistent with Guede who is a) male and b) had been previously burglary. The EVIDENCE is entirely consistent with Guede and not at all with Knox and Sollecito.

I understand the Italian justice system and the US justice system are different in many ways. How would this case have played out in the US?

Consider that the above major points don't include the bad interrogation for 43 hours in a foreign language with no access to an attorney. In the US, on that grounds ALONE we would say her rights were so violated the case would have to be thrown out.

This isn't including the record of this prosecutor and his behavior in this and other cases. In the US, conduct like his would have gotten him disbarred and he'd never have been in charge of this case in the first place. (See: Mike Nifong.)

In the US, the case would never have been tried in Perugia given the intense pretrial publicity.

These practices are more acceptable under Italian law. Whether or not they are more or less conducive to a fair trial I think is a fair question.

The fact that Amanda was a wealthy, pretty, white, American is enough for some to WANT her to be guilty, but the evidence just isn't there, and there should be serious concerns for any fair-minded person about the way this trial played out.

How desperate are the Italians to save face here? Despite Guede's original claims that Knox and Sollecito were NOT there, once Guede changed his story to say Knox was there, his sentence was cut in half to 16 years. But much like in the US, 16 years doesn't have to mean 16 years in Italy.

The undisputed killer from the evidence, Rudy Guede will be eligible for parole in 2014.

Apparently, they'd rather make a deal with Guede that will have him possibly free to once again roam their streets this year, but they are furiously trying to lock up Knox who is half a world away. Stay safe, Perugia!

 

[Karmady]

Do you gave a link to the treaty?

I posted it a while ago. Maybe search my posts in this thread or google. IIrc, it was pretty easy to find.

 

[redheadedgal]

No we surely are not, still waiting to hear how the clasp became contaminated though. Also there are plenty of experts that believe that it isn't contaminated, this case more than most others is which side you want to believe I guess.

can you give us the names of say 5 independent experts, and show us their reasoning, who make this claim? tia.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Rudy's footprints were bloody because with the amount of blood on the floor from 46 stab wounds it was almost unavoidable. Why no bloody footprints from Amanda or Raffaelle? Why was there no transfer of Kercher's blood anywhere on their persons? Why did they not have the expected bruises and cuts and scratches inflicted by someone attempting to fend off 46 stab wounds? Guede did. Why did they have no blood on their clothes? Yes, it's possible they could have changed their clothes but they would have either had to



a) change out of those clothes in the apartment (and Amanda probably would have had to go into her room to get clothes to change INTO) and somehow with blood on their clothes and persons not get any blood splatter from their clothes into Amanda's room, OR



b) go to Raffaelle's in bloody clothes, and magically not leave any miniscule blood splatter in Raffaelle's apartment either. Perhaps they managed to do one or the other and dispose of their bloody clothes. Who disposes of bloody clothes and not the knife as well? Why then keep the knife and put it back in your kitchen drawer?



The profile of who commits this type of crime (burglary/rape/murder) is in NO way consistent with Knox and Sollecito. It's much more consistent with Guede who is a) male and b) had been previously burglary. The EVIDENCE is entirely consistent with Guede and not at all with Knox and Sollecito.



I understand the Italian justice system and the US justice system are different in many ways. How would this case have played out in the US?



Consider that the above major points don't include the bad interrogation for 43 hours in a foreign language with no access to an attorney. In the US, on that grounds ALONE we would say her rights were so violated the case would have to be thrown out.



This isn't including the record of this prosecutor and his behavior in this and other cases. In the US, conduct like his would have gotten him disbarred and he'd never have been in charge of this case in the first place. (See: Mike Nifong.)



In the US, the case would never have been tried in Perugia given the intense pretrial publicity.



These practices are more acceptable under Italian law. Whether or not they are more or less conducive to a fair trial I think is a fair question.



The fact that Amanda was a wealthy, pretty, white, American is enough for some to WANT her to be guilty, but the evidence just isn't there, and there should be serious concerns for any fair-minded person about the way this trial played out.



How desperate are the Italians to save face here? Despite Guede's original claims that Knox and Sollecito were NOT there, once Guede changed his story to say Knox was there, his sentence was cut in half to 16 years. But much like in the US, 16 years doesn't have to mean 16 years in Italy.



The undisputed killer from the evidence, Rudy Guede will be eligible for parole in 2014.



Apparently, they'd rather make a deal with Guede that will have him possibly free to once again roam their streets this year, but they are furiously trying to lock up Knox who is half a world away. Stay safe, Perugia!

I'm not sure if you want me to respond to all of this or not.

There is soooooo much here that I've already commented on ad nauseam, I'd beg you to read my prior posts.

I'm just too tired.

 

[aa9511]

Yes. The US agreed to the treaty. But, tThe treaty specifically says it won't allow double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is a US concept. The treaty is intended to allow extradiction in situations that would be allowable under US law, as well. In this case, US law would, arguably, not allow another trial after the reversal by the Italian appellate court. Therefore the double jeopardy provision of the treaty could arguably apply to preclude extradition. jmo

jmo

Ok, I understand what you're saying. I don't think the US will view it that way, because it is the process in Italy. The entire process is not even finished...it is only finished after the Supreme Court signs off on it. So how can they say that it's Double Jeopardy? That would make sense if, after the Supreme Court had already signed off on it, meaning the process was finished, and then they decide to re-try them all over again. Starting the whole process from the beginning.

What is happening now, is still part of the process.

 

[Jessica2012]

Never mind....from the above link I just put up


Double Jeopardy
There has been discussion that the Double Jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment would prevent the United States for extraditing Amanda Knox but that is incorrect. Double jeopardy is not a consideration in extradition. Neither the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment nor the speedy trial clause of the Sixth Amendment apply to extradition cases.[13] In Bloomfield v. Gengler this is made explicitly clear when the court found that even though the proceedings that resulted in the conviction would have been barred in the United States because of double jeopardy, this was irrelevant to the certification of the extradition request. These procedural rights only apply to criminal prosecutions and extradition is not considered a criminal prosecution.[14]
Article VI
Article VI of the U.S. Italy Extradition Treaty reads:
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.
This has led to confusion by people commenting on the possibility of extradition. The Requested Party in this case would be the United States. This is not applicable to Amanda Knox, as she has never been charged with the murder of Meredith Kercher by the U.S. Article VI addresses the dual sovereignty doctrine and applies only to scenarios where the fugitive is charged both by the United States and by Italy for the same act.

Link to entire treaty
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Italy_International_Extradition_Treaty_with_the_United_States

Thank you for this It makes complete sense.

 

[Karmady]

Ok, I understand what you're saying. I don't think the US will view it that way, because it is the process in Italy. The entire process is not even finished...it is only finished after the Supreme Court signs off on it. So how can they say that it's Double Jeopardy? That would make sense if, after the Supreme Court had already signed off on it, meaning the process was finished, and then they decide to re-try them all over again. Starting the whole process from the beginning.

What is happening now, is still part of the process.

Because here, guilt is determined by a jury at the trial phase. If you're not guilty, you're not guilty forever and it's not appealable. If you're guilty, as here, it's appealable, but for the most part, you can only be found not guilty on appeal. You can't be re-tried if the appellate court overturns your conviction. So, in the US, the Italian procedure that allows a re-trial after a reversal of a conviction on appeal is the equivalent of US double jeopardy, arguably. Not sure how to explain it any better than that. But I'm very sure there's a legal basis to refuse extradition. jmo

 

[redheadedgal]

It's my opinion that anyone with rudimentary crime scene investigation knowledge, understands defense tactics and police procedures could and would reach a guilty verdict.

yet, at least two former FBI agents, who surely have above average competence in "rudimentary crime scene investigation knowledge, defense tactics and police procedures", say the opposite.

can you cite one who agrees with guilt?

 

[Irish_Eyes]

I'm not sure if you want me to respond to all of this or not.

There is soooooo much here that I've already commented on ad nauseam, I'd beg you to read my prior posts.

I'm just too tired.

You're welcome to respond, but I had no expectations either way. I was just using your post as a jumping off point for further discussion.

I'll go back and read your posts, but probably on the weekend as I'm tired too, lol. Still, we can debate until the sun comes up, but in the end the evidence is what it is - or isn't.