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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
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

Frankly, the US gov't is going to do whatever it wants to do here. I think it's unlikely that Amanda's attorneys will go the double jeopardy route quite honestly because there was a case from Mexico in 2010 where a guy was acquitted and later convicted that the SCOTUS ruled did not mean double jeopardy had attached. Not sure the cases and circumstances are competely equivalent, but there certainly seems room for argument either way.

Where I think Knox will prevail is that the Italians, in seeking extradition must present a case including the "reasonable belief" that Knox is guilty of the crime, which Knox and her attorneys are free to rebut. That, to me, seems to be the key here. There is quite a bit to rebut the reasonable belief, and nothing actually for it that will pass muster by US standards.

Of course there are always the political and diplomatic concerns too, especially in a high profile case like this one, so you never know but I just can't imagine they would actually extradite her given the circumstances.
 
I have heard one international law professor state it would be her BEST bet to attempt to argue. He didn't seem very optimistic.

i posted that interview. he did not "not seem optimistic". and he is far more experienced than a law professor, as i stated.
 
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 we have a link for the treaty? Was it linked pages back? If so, about how many? Any idea?

Thanks,

Salem
 
I can because I followed her case from the beginning.

I too followed her case from Day 1 and we are at totally opposite ends of this, so I don't think that fact alone can be said to mean much. MOO.
 
:drumroll::drumroll:

Here's a link from Reuter's today referencing the "PR machine" :


Initially portrayed as a sex-obsessed party girl, Knox has seen a steady transformation of her image, helped by a sophisticated publicity machine that has portrayed her as a victim of a faulty justice system.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/30/us-knox-verdict-guilty-idUSBREA0T1U520140130


:drumroll::drumroll:

Just trying to catch up here, but even sex-obsessed party girls can be victims of a faulty justice system.

ETA: Not directed at the poster, just at the original sentence.
 
Frankly, the US gov't is going to do whatever it wants to do here. I think it's unlikely that Amanda's attorneys will go the double jeopardy route quite honestly because there was a case from Mexico in 2010 where a guy was acquitted and later convicted that the SCOTUS ruled did not mean double jeopardy had attached. Not sure the cases and circumstances are competely equivalent, but there certainly seems room for argument either way.

Where I think Knox will prevail is that the Italians, in seeking extradition must present a case including the "reasonable belief" that Knox is guilty of the crime, which Knox and her attorneys are free to rebut. That, to me, seems to be the key here. There is quite a bit to rebut the reasonable belief, and nothing actually for it that will pass muster by US standards.

Of course there are always the political and diplomatic concerns too, especially in a high profile case like this one, so you never know but I just can't imagine they would actually extradite her given the circumstances.

I think that so long as the US can make a colorable argument that the treaty precludes extradition, for the reason you cite or double jeopardy, there will be no extradition absent a political decision to the contrary. Personally, if I were her, I wouldn't take the chance. But I think that there won't be an extradition. We don't lurve the Italians that much. The English factor is what I'd be concerned about. jmo
 
Frankly, the US gov't is going to do whatever it wants to do here. I think it's unlikely that Amanda's attorneys will go the double jeopardy route quite honestly because there was a case from Mexico in 2010 where a guy was acquitted and later convicted that the SCOTUS ruled did not mean double jeopardy had attached. Not sure the cases and circumstances are competely equivalent, but there certainly seems room for argument either way.

Where I think Knox will prevail is that the Italians, in seeking extradition must present a case including the "reasonable belief" that Knox is guilty of the crime, which Knox and her attorneys are free to rebut. That, to me, seems to be the key here. There is quite a bit to rebut the reasonable belief, and nothing actually for it that will pass muster by US standards.

Of course there are always the political and diplomatic concerns too, especially in a high profile case like this one, so you never know but I just can't imagine they would actually extradite her given the circumstances.


Probable cause is a very low burden to meet. The Italians have more than met probable cause. IMO
 
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


Treaty^
 
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?

I'm quite sure I could.

That was not the purpose or foundation of my opinion. That's the beauty of an opinion.;)
 
The following is only one small reason I think the possibility of Knox having anything at all to do with the crime is ludicrous:
Crime author Doug Preston admits that at first, he thought Amanda Knox was guilty of murdering her British roommate in what Italian prosecutors said was a sexual misadventure gone awry.

Then, he heard the name Giuliano Mignini, the assistant prosecutor leading the case against the University of Washington student studying abroad.


Preston met Mignini in 2004, when the prosecutor questioned him in connection with the "Monster of Florence," a case involving the gruesome murders of eight couples between 1968 and 1985. Preston said the encounter spooked him to the point that he decided to leave the country out of fear that he falsely might be implicated in the grisly murders.


The case also left its mark on Mignini, who was convicted and received a 16-month suspended sentence for abusing his office over law enforcement tactics - such as the wiretapping of offices -- in the "Monster of Florence" investigation.


Preston also thought the evidence against Knox and Sollecito seemed overwhelming. Then, he remembered his own encounter with Italian law enforcement.


He had once been interrogated as part of a murder investigation in Perugia, by none other than Mignini himself. The subject of the inquiry? The so-called "Monster of Florence," the topic Preston was investigating for his book.


"I felt like I had fallen into one of my own books. Now the funny thing is, I'd written many interrogations in my books -- you know, I write thrillers where people get interrogated -- I had never understood how brutal, psychologically brutal, an interrogation is. You feel absolutely helpless," he said.


Crime author turned subject of interrogation
To Preston, it sounds suspicious, and all too familiar.
He had moved to Italy in August 2000 in search of inspiration for the perfect thriller. Instead, he found a true crime story more outrageous than any work of fiction he could dream up.
"The Monster of Florence" turned out to be a damning assault on the investigation into the gruesome murders of eight couples in Tuscany between 1968 and 1985.


Over the years, police made seven arrests, according to Preston and other reports on the killings, only to learn that the killer was still out there.
When authorities were unable to find the lone killer whom crime scene analysts said was responsible for the killings, they came up with a theory involving a satanic cult.
After that didn't pan out, Preston says they set their sights on new targets: him and Spezi.


He said he was told he had a right to a lawyer but that because he was not a suspect he did not need one. When he showed up to Mignini's office, Preston said he asked for a translator but was told it would take hours, and proceeded without one.
He didn't expect to be there long, but he said he ended up staying for two hours.


"They'd read it back to me, 'Is this your answer?' And I'd say, 'No, that isn't quite what I said.' And then I'd have to rephrase it," he said. "And at a certain point I realized to my absolute horror that they were narrowing down on me as if I were a criminal and had committed a crime and that they were trying to trap me into confessing."


He asked Mignini if he was, in fact, a suspect to a crime.
"That's when Mignini said, 'Yes. We don't think it. We know it. We know you have committed a crime. We have the proof. And you are going to confess to it," Preston said.


"They have techniques that could get you to confess to murder. I am not kidding. One of the techniques that they used on me was to ask me to speculate. 'Oh, well, if Mario didn't commit the murder... why don't you tell us, if he had committed the murder -- let's just assume that he had -- can you speculate how he might have done it? Can you speculate this? Can you speculate that? Tell us what you think.' And they get you speculating."


Preston said he did not sign the statement in Italian that was written for him. Neither he nor Spezi were charged with a crime, but he still thought it best to leave the country in February 2006.

But Preston and Knox's supporters maintain that the theory of the crime was made to fit around Knox and Sollecito, based on thin forensic evidence, regardless of the fact they had Guede -- the person whose DNA was found inside Kercher's body.

"To save face... because they had made this public declaration of guilt of this American and her boyfriend, they had to retroactively link her and her boyfriend to this real killer and claim that all three did it," Preston said. http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/01/amanda.knox.author/

The rest of the super long article at link.
 
The following is only one small reason I think the possibility of Knox having anything at all to do with the crime is ludicrous:

The rest of the super long article at link.

Agree. Anyone who hasn't read that book or isn't familiar with the Monster of Florence case needs to read it and the related information about Magnini. jmo
 
It's not Double Jeopardy according to Italian Law.

"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."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...nears-verdict-article-1.1596322#ixzz2rwfntOek
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
63
Guests online
178
Total visitors
241

Forum statistics

Threads
609,582
Messages
18,255,825
Members
234,696
Latest member
Avangaleen414
Back
Top