Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL* #2

[A.D.A McCoy]

Much is made of he "strange" behavior of AK and RS on the morning of Nov. 2nd leading right up to the event after the arrival of the Communications Police and finding MK's body. If there is anything that really seems "off the charts" unaccountable to me, it is the fact that AK finds a turd in the toilet in the second bathroom and is outraged and repulsed by it and mentions it to Filomina when she calls and to the Communication police when they are there but fails to do what would be the obvious: she doesn't FLUSH THE TOILET. The only reason I can see for this is that she is essentially PRESERVING EVIDENCE. I can see no other explaination.

<modsnip> Excellent point, kemo. That's some fine sleuthing, imo.

 

[2door73chevy]

Just a heads up to you all that are interested:

On ID they are replaying "20/20 on ID" Amanda Knox 2013 interview...It's on now and @ 11pm here in SC.

 

[A.D.A McCoy]

Juan would love it! Young, smug, morally bankrupt, cold murderer would shake like a Chihuahua if she were up against the great Juan!

I can picture JM saying 'Of course it's not her fault that she falsely accused Mr. Lumumba. It's not her fault, dontcha know? And it's not her fault that she couldn't keep her stories straight....':floorlaugh:

I don't know if <modsnip> Amanda is a murderer, but yeah, Juan would destroy her, imo.

 

[Nova]

There was no "gut instinct" at the time that this happened. Knox and Sollecito were not arrested and no one had any way of knowing that they were lying to police about their activities on the night of the murder. All the witness of this bizarre behavior knew was that the room mate of the murdered student was acting up in the lingerie department a couple of days after "her friend" was found murdered with 43 injuries.

Of course there was. Perugia LE have talked about how they knew "with one look" that the break-in was staged and that Amanda moved her hips and did other things in an overly sexual manner.

This entire fiasco is about LE making snap judgments based on "gut instinct" and then coercing testimony to support those instincts where none existed.

 

[Nova]

yesss.....and I have heard so many replays of Amanda's sister saying yes, she's "quirky" but she is not a murderer. Quirky is their explanation for it. Don't they know that most murderers are "quirky"?? All of the murderers in the cases I've followed have some quirk or two or three.

"All German shepherds are dogs" doesn't prove that "all dogs are German shepherds".

Likewise, "all murderers are quirky" (which I don't know to be true) doesn't prove that "all quirky people are murderers".

***

I'm not blaming this on you, aa9511, but at this point this thread is so full of logical and factual errors, it's impossible to discuss it productively.

 

[aa9511]

Of course there was. Perugia LE have talked about how they knew "with one look" that the break-in was staged and that Amanda moved her hips and did other things in an overly sexual manner.

This entire fiasco is about LE making snap judgments based on "gut instinct" and then coercing testimony to support those instincts where none existed.

bbm

If it was just "gut instinct," then why is there evidence upon evidence which supports their "instinct," besides her "coerced testimony?" What about the cell phone and laptop records? If they were really at RS house like they claimed - and that would not be coerced testimony since that actually takes them away from being suspects - then why does it show the laptop wasn't used after 8:30-ish? RS said he was using the computer "all night." That too would not be coerced testimony, why would it be coerced if again, it gives him an alibi against committing the murder or being at the murder scene? What about them saying they were asleep until 10 am, however laptop records show otherwise? What about the phone call to Mom? What about the cell phone records which state the order and times of their calls, calls of whose timing is very suspect? None of that evidence has anything to do with Amanda's "coerced confession."
And that doesn't even go into the forensic evidence found at the crime scene, etc..

 

[aa9511]

"All German shepherds are dogs" doesn't prove that "all dogs are German shepherds".

Likewise, "all murderers are quirky" (which I don't know to be true) doesn't prove that "all quirky people are murderers".

***

I'm not blaming this on you, aa9511, but at this point this thread is so full of logical and factual errors, it's impossible to discuss it productively.

bbm

Nova, I don't think it really matters what logical or factual things people say, honestly, in regards to this case. One example I will give is that any evidence, whether circumstantial or forensic, which supports the believe that they are guilty, that evidence is essentially wiped away by those who support the belief in their innocence. All the DNA evidence -- those were obtained by questionable methods, so bleeep - erase all of that. Amanda and Raffaelo's words -- that was obtained b/c of questionable interrogation methods and pressure so bleeeeep - erase all of that. Circumstantial evidence like laptop, cell phone, etc. -- there is no direct proof linking this evidence to the murder, so bleeeeep - erase all of that. So you get my point? So how can we discuss any facts in the case if they are all wiped away?

 

[sherlockh]

I really wish there were harsher penalties for those who falsely accuse innocent people of crimes. A year in prison is so not enough. Maybe then people like Casey, Jodi, Knox etc. will think twice before doing so.

It is possible that Knox will get a harsher sentence with the return of Patrick Lumumba in the trial. Also, the prosecution is appealing the first verdict and this court could reevaluate the first courts reasoning for mitigation (for example, bringing the knife for self protection was a very weak excuse IMO). I don't expect much difference, but it wouldn't surprise me either.

 

[Mollyandme]

is the general consensus on here that if found guilty again, amanda will not be extradited?

 

[SMK]

is the general consensus on here that if found guilty again, amanda will not be extradited?

Probably Italy would ask for her extradition, but whether US officials would comply is another matter. (They really ought to, if they have a treaty with Italy - I say this even though I do not believe fully that Knox is guilty.) Of course there would be a huge campaign and uproar and media blitz here; we know that already...

 

[whoanellie]

I really wish there were harsher penalties for those who falsely accuse innocent people of crimes. A year in prison is so not enough. Maybe then people like Casey, Jodi, Knox etc. will think twice before doing so.

There is a lot of that going around here.

 

[Mollyandme]

Probably Italy would ask for her extradition, but whether US officials would comply is another matter. (They really ought to, if they have a treaty with Italy - I say this even though I do not believe fully that Knox is guilty.) Of course there would be a huge campaign and uproar and media blitz here; we know that already...

i agree. i dont fully believe she's guilty either but if we expect other countries we have treaties with to honor our request for extraditions i would think the US should reciprocate but yes, the uproar from the media would be out of control.

 

[otto]

Is there any history of the US violating an international treaty on behalf of a woman convicted of murder in a foreign country?

 

[SMK]

Is there any history of the US violating an international treaty on behalf of a woman convicted of murder in a foreign country?

That's a good question: I'm going to try and research it. It is considered very bad form to violate a treaty:

After all, if we hold an extradition treaty with Italy, it means we respect their criminal justice system and protocol, and believe it can be trusted. I believe this is why Hilary Clinton would not involve herself (pre-Hellmann) when she was Secretary of State.

Let me go see what I can find....Her being female ought not make a difference, either, really. I don't believe she's guilty, but if the Italian courts find her so, then extradition should be honored.

 

[Mollyandme]

Is there any history of the US violating an international treaty on behalf of a woman convicted of murder in a foreign country?

i would hope not but im not the best researcher. i would think they would extradite her also because the victim was a british citizen and we have a great relationship with them. as a previous poster stated, it doesn't really matter where the victim was from, we all bleed the same blood. it would be a huge slap in the face to the Kercher family if the US didn't extradite imo. I can only speak for myself but I would be very upset if she is found guilty again and the US does nothing.

 

[SMK]

@ Otto:

Too much for me to read right now---and this is only half the article:

:banghead:

A Primer on US Extradition Law

Introduction

Legally speaking, extradition is defined as &#8220;the official surrender of an alleged criminal by one state or nation to another having jurisdiction over the crime charged; the return of a fugitive from justice, regardless of consent, by the authorities where the fugitive is found.&#8221; International extradition is generally &#8220;in response to a demand made by the executive of one nation on the executive of another nation. This procedure is generally regulated by treaties.&#8221; Black's Law Dictionary 623 (8th ed. 2004).

Ideally, extradition reflects a fundamental agreement between civilized states that sufficiently serious crimes must not go unpunished. However, even the earliest extradition treaties often involved other motives (e.g., in 1280 BC, the peace treaty between the Egyptian and Hittite empires allowed for forced repatriation of refugees), and in modern terms extradition procedures can result not only from heinous crimes, but a variety of other situations wherein a government wants to stage a display of its power (the &#8220;long arm&#8221; of its law) in prosecuting a political crime.<modsnip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Einhorn
http://www.freeexistence.org/us_extradition.html

 

[SMK]

@ OTTO
And then there is this from Reuters in March 2013:

NEW YORK, March 26 (Reuters) - The possibility that American Amanda Knox could be convicted of murder and extradited to Italy for punishment could force U.S. courts to enter legal territory that is largely uncharted, legal experts said.

Italy's top court on Tuesday ordered the retrial of Knox, 25, for the 2007 murder of British student Meredith Kercher.

The move potentially pits a U.S. constitutional ban on double jeopardy, or being tried twice for the same offense after an acquittal, against international extradition agreements, experts said.

The issue hinges on whether a lower court decision overturning her conviction amounted to an acquittal, they said.

If Knox is retried after she was acquitted, that would violate her constitutional rights, said Christopher Blakesley, a law professor at the University of Nevada Las Vegas who specializes in international criminal law. On the other hand, the United States entered into an extradition treaty and, in doing so, accepted Italy's criminal justice system, he added.

"If Knox is found guilty, there's still a whole lot of room for battle before she would ever be extradited," Blakesley said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...radition-italy-us-constitution_n_2959522.html

 

[otto]

@ OTTO
And then there is this from Reuters in March 2013:

"NEW YORK, March 26 (Reuters) - The possibility that American Amanda Knox could be convicted of murder and extradited to Italy for punishment could force U.S. courts to enter legal territory that is largely uncharted, legal experts said.

Italy's top court on Tuesday ordered the retrial of Knox, 25, for the 2007 murder of British student Meredith Kercher.

The move potentially pits a U.S. constitutional ban on double jeopardy, or being tried twice for the same offense after an acquittal, against international extradition agreements, experts said.

The issue hinges on whether a lower court decision overturning her conviction amounted to an acquittal, they said.

If Knox is retried after she was acquitted, that would violate her constitutional rights, said Christopher Blakesley, a law professor at the University of Nevada Las Vegas who specializes in international criminal law. On the other hand, the United States entered into an extradition treaty and, in doing so, accepted Italy's criminal justice system, he added.

"If Knox is found guilty, there's still a whole lot of room for battle before she would ever be extradited," Blakesley said."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...radition-italy-us-constitution_n_2959522.html

I think that there is an error in the premise that: annulling the appeal and re-hearing the appeal constitutes double jeopardy. I think this premise is based on the incorrect belief that the annulment of the appeal meant an entirely new trial, and that isn't the case. Still, it's not surprising that this mistake has been made since Knox's PR team wants the public to believe that Knox was acquitted of the murder and now she is being retried. We know that's not what happened.

Knox was convicted of the murder, she appealed that decision, there was an appeal and that has been annulled, so the appeal is being heard again. In any case, there are many countries where the prosecution is permitted to appeal a not guilty verdict. Knox grew up in Seattle, a mere 100 miles from the Canadian border, where prosecutors can appeal any verdict. Knox and her PR team shouldn't act like it is a completely strange concept. Would the US refuse to extradite a murderer to Canada on the basis of the fact that the justice system permits the prosecutor to appeal a not guilty verdict? I think not.

 

[otto]

"While in a foreign country, a U.S. citizen is subject to that country's laws and regulations which sometimes differ significantly from those in the United States and may not afford the protections available to the individual under U.S. law. As our Country Specific Information for each country explains, penalties for breaking the law can be more severe than in the United States for similar offenses. Persons violating the law, even unknowingly, may be expelled, fined, arrested, or imprisoned."

http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/arrest/arrest_6120.html

 

[SMK]

I think that there is an error in the premise that: annulling the appeal and re-hearing the appeal constitutes double jeopardy. I think this premise is based on the incorrect belief that the annulment of the appeal meant an entirely new trial, and that isn't the case. Still, it's not surprising that this mistake has been made since Knox's PR team wants the public to believe that Knox was acquitted of the murder and now she is being retried. We know that's not what happened.

Knox was convicted of the murder, she appealed that decision, there was an appeal and that has been annulled, so the appeal is being heard again. In any case, there are many countries where the prosecution is permitted to appeal a not guilty verdict. Knox grew up in Seattle, a mere 100 miles from the Canadian border, where prosecutors can appeal any verdict. Knox and her PR team shouldn't act like it is a completely strange concept. Would the US refuse to extradite a murderer to Canada on the basis of the fact that the justice system permits the prosecutor to appeal a not guilty verdict? I think not.

Yes: As per the extradition article: A judicial officer would find that "double jeopardy" is not applicable to the Hellman appeal being overturned, and the Florence hearing now ongoing. *Recall that this judicial officer would not be likely to be swayed by media or PR.*

The article also says there need be no standard met that she "would have been found guilty in the US of the same crime based on the same evidence": An extradition treaty is about respect of the other state's courts of law and promises to extradite for serious crimes (murder being quite serious).

Again, its not that I believe she is guilty: It's just that if the Italian courts find her so, then it must be honored per the treaty (we would expect the same from Italy, were the shoe on the other foot).