Amanda Knox found guilty.

[Borishack]

The discussion here from those saying "she's not guilty because" is with all due respect becoming....increasingly irrelevant.

That's because Knox presently stands as a convicted murderer.

And unless that gets reversed in her last chance at appeal (which knowledgeable observers increasingly say is unlikely), she will within six months or less become a permanently convicted murderer.

And at that time it's almost certain she will move from convicted murderer to fugitive from justice. No, "Foxy" isn't going sit around waiting for the extradition hearings to begin. In fact, I suspect detailed contingency plans to facilitate her quickly disappearing in that "worst case scenario" are already in place.

So it's not just that this story isn't over....it's that we haven't even seen the wildest parts yet. (Safe houses, elaborate false identities, crossing borders in the dead of night..... )

Poor Harper Collins. They cut that book deal with her way too early.

 

[bcla]

The US system does allow appellate court rulings to be appealed to a higher court... just like in this case.



In the US if a jury acquits you you can not be retried.

If a verdict is overturned by an appellate court in most cases you can be retried.... just like in this case.



Knox was not found innocent in a jury trail. The verdict was overturned. She can be retried in that case which she was... just like in the US.

Doesn't have to be a jury trial. Double jeopardy would apply in the case of a bench trial acquittal, unless the judge has been bribed.

However, the first appeal was a jury trial. It was literally a retrial and not an argument of a technical nature as an appeal would be in the US. It was also categorically described as an acquittal and not simply overturning the original verdict and sending it back for a retrial. This second appeal was also a jury trial.

I know it sounds odd, but apparently appeals in Italy are essentially retrials where the prosecution is allowed to argue its case differently, and where there's a combination jury made up of Italian citizens and judges.

 

[bcla]

And here are some true words spoken by Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz:

"As popular as she is here and as pretty as she is here -- because that's what this is all about, if she was not an attractive woman we wouldn't have the group love-in -- she will be extradited if it's upheld."

And yet more true words spoken by Professor Dershowitz:

Amanda Knox—Tabloid Sensation, Global Legal Bellwether
Transnational law and the convicted, acquitted, now un-acquitted defendant.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324789504578384871256488436

That is when the real legal complexities would kick in, because Italian and American law are quite different and both will be applicable in this transnational case involving a citizen of one country charged with killing a citizen of another country in yet a third country.

America's extradition treaty with Italy prohibits the U.S. from extraditing someone who has been "acquitted," which under American law generally means acquitted by a jury at trial. But Ms. Knox was acquitted by an appeals court after having been found guilty at trial. So would her circumstance constitute double jeopardy under American law?

That is uncertain because appellate courts in the U.S. don't retry cases and render acquittals (they judge whether lower courts made mistakes of law, not fact). Ms. Knox's own Italian lawyer has acknowledged that her appellate "acquittal" wouldn't constitute double jeopardy under Italian law since it wasn't a final judgment—it was subject to further appeal, which has now resulted in a reversal of the acquittal. This argument will probably carry considerable weight with U.S. authorities, likely yielding the conclusion that her extradition wouldn't violate the treaty. Still, a sympathetic U.S. State Department or judge might find that her appellate acquittal was final enough to preclude extradition on double-jeopardy grounds.

 

[Borishack]

And yet more true words spoken by Professor Dershowitz:

Thanks and note his use of the term "likely" for extradition vs. the much more qualified term "might" for extradition being barred. He articulates why he said "might," i.e., that scenario can only happen if a "sympathetic" (read: biased) State Dept. or hearing Judge comes up with a concocted, incorrect interpretation of Italian law.

To sum it up, he is stating why he is placing his bet on extradition.

And his track record with predictions overall is very good.

 

[bcla]

Thanks and note his use of the term "likely" for extradition vs. the much more qualified term "might" for extradition being barred. He articulates why he said "might," i.e., that scenario can only happen if a "sympathetic" (read: biased) State Dept. or hearing Judge comes up with a concocted, incorrect interpretation of Italian law.

To sum it up, he is stating why he is placing his bet on extradition.

And his track record with predictions overall is very good.

But from any rational standard, Pietro Venezia should have been extradited to the US instead of tried for the case in Italy (where as you would point out the victim was not Italian and the crime didn't take place in Italy). They had assurances that the prosecution would not seek the death penalty but that the US had the death penalty offended their sensibilities. Essentially they just made it up because they had no technical grounds under the US-Italy extradition treaty to deny his extradition. It was a political determination, and one that I could easily see the US making if it ever got down to it.

 

[AndyLL]

Doesn't have to be a jury trial. Double jeopardy would apply in the case of a bench trial acquittal, unless the judge has been bribed.

Those are rare.

However, the first appeal was a jury trial. It was literally a retrial and not an argument of a technical nature as an appeal would be in the US. It was also categorically described as an acquittal and not simply overturning the original verdict and sending it back for a retrial. This second appeal was also a jury trial.

In criminal courts there is no 'sending it back for retrail'

In the US an overturned verdict may be, in many cases, retried.

In Italy the supreme court makes the decision.

In the US legal system acquittal has a very specific legal definition which ends the case.

The term does not mean the same thing in Italy.

I know it sounds odd, but apparently appeals in Italy are essentially retrials where the prosecution is allowed to argue its case differently, and where there's a combination jury made up of Italian citizens and judges.

It was an appellate court. In the US appellate courts are only judge/judges. In Italy they include judges/citizens.

It has a jury panel but is not the same as jury trial.

 

[Lolsmum]

But from any rational standard, Pietro Venezia should have been extradited to the US instead of tried for the case in Italy (where as you would point out the victim was not Italian and the crime didn't take place in Italy). They had assurances that the prosecution would not seek the death penalty but that the US had the death penalty offended their sensibilities. Essentially they just made it up because they had no technical grounds under the US-Italy extradition treaty to deny his extradition. It was a political determination, and one that I could easily see the US making if it ever got down to it.

I don't see it as an attempt to grasp at any straw to deny his extradition so much as an actual problem most of Europe has with the death penalty itself. It was a way to reject the death penalty more than a way to deny extradition of this particular person.

 

[bcla]

Those [bench trials] are rare.

I was under the impression that the bench trials are pretty common - in fact more common than jury trials. However, I'm thinking in the case of an extradition request would likely be for a case serious enough that someone would be requesting a jury trial. I thought most people contesting citations don't bother because the cost of the defense will outweigh the cost of the citation. Here's a piece from a former criminal defense attorney in Chicago:

http://schantz-law.blogspot.com/2009/12/bench-trials-why.html

Misdemeanor trials are rare. Misdemeanor jury trials are even rarer. Most misdemeanor trials are bench trials. And oddly enough, most felony trials are bench trials too. I don't have numbers, but from my observations here in Cook County, I see many, many more cases being set for bench trial than jury trial. And I can't figure out why.

Felony trials are scattered. Felony jury trials are widely scattered. Most assistant state's attorneys, in my opinion, do not like jury trials. Whenever I start talking about a jury trial I get a variety of looks and none of them are pleasant.

People that are overworked typically don't want more work piled on them. And that's just what a jury trial is. It's more work. The assistant state's attorneys have to actually prepare for it. Not that they don't prepare for a bench trial, but a jury trial is without a doubt more work. A jury trial also moves them out of their comfort zone. They are in the same courtroom everyday. They know the judge. The judge knows the prosecutors. There are boundaries and understandings that I will never know.

I am not implying the State has home court advantage in a bench trial. The judge should apply the law equally across the board. And I think they probably do. But at the very least the prosecutors are comfortable. I am an outsider and to me it's just another courtroom. To the prosecutor, it's their office. Hmmm.

But pick 12 people and put them in the jury box. The calculus has now changed dramatically. The State now has to prove its case to 12 strangers as opposed to a judge they work in front of every day. 12 people that won't be as familiar with criminal evidence as a judge, thus raising the difficulty level.

 

[Borishack]

. It was a political determination, and one that I could easily see the US making if it ever got down to it.

Point taken, but one has to make an analogy about the cultural/social dynamic of Pietro Venezia in Italy vs. Knox in the U.S. I suspect the cause celebre around Venezia was lot hotter than Knox and the political fallout if he had been extradited much higher.

Stated differently, look at Knox extradition from the level of the State Department. Ergo, Knox conviction is upheld and extradition request comes in:

A. Allow extradition:

Downsides: temporary noise from Knox supporters

Upsides: maintains goodwill with Italy, sends message to every other country we have a treaty with that we are not motivated by fickle public opinion, no political fallout (no one is going to get voted out of office if Knox is extradited) John Kerry is about as much of a target as there possibly could be, but too bad he's a protected appointee

B. Refuse extradition:

Downsides: infuriates Italy and Italians, basically torpedoes any hope of future extraditions we want from them, sends bad message to every other country we have a treaty with.

Upsides: makes Knox and her supporters happy

Anyone who thinks the State Department is going to "easily" decide to sacrifice a huge amount of our diplomatic capital just to make Foxy happy is....

....crazy.

 

[JanaDee]

Point taken, but one has to make an analogy about the cultural/social dynamic of Pietro Venezia in Italy vs. Knox in the U.S. I suspect the cause celebre around Venezia was lot hotter than Knox and the political fallout if he had been extradited much higher.

Stated differently, look at Knox extradition from the level of the State Department. Ergo, Knox conviction is upheld and extradition request comes in:

A. Allow extradition:

Downsides: temporary noise from Knox supporters

Upsides: maintains goodwill with Italy, sends message to every other country we have a treaty with that we are not motivated by fickle public opinion, no political fallout (no one is going to get voted out of office if Knox is extradited) John Kerry is about as much of a target as there possibly could be, but too bad he's a protected appointee

B. Refuse extradition:

Downsides: infuriates Italy and Italians, basically torpedoes any hope of future extraditions we want from them, sends bad message to every other country we have a treaty with.

Upsides: makes Knox and her supporters happy

Anyone who thinks the State Department is going to "easily" decide to sacrifice a huge amount of our diplomatic capital just to make Foxy happy is....

....crazy.

You've lost all credibility to me by calling her sexist names.

 

[luvmy3jewels]

But there was overwhelming evidence of Guede's DNA at the crime scene. Without being too graphic…his DNA was mixed with hers. His bloody handprint was found on her pillow. It's pretty clear he was guilty.

I haven't been following this case as closely as other people, but what I don't understand is how Guede, who was clearly guilty and left DNA all over the crime scene, was only sentenced to 16 years. But then they sentenced Knox and Raffaele to almost double that amount when there is far less evidence of their guilt.

BTW, I have a very difficult time believing they were involved due to the lack of DNA evidence.

 

[EMom]

I haven't been following this case as closely as other people, but what I don't understand is how Guede, who was clearly guilty and left DNA all over the crime scene, was only sentenced to 16 years. But then they sentenced Knox and Raffaele to almost double that amount when there is far less evidence of their guilt.

BTW, I have a very difficult time believing they were involved due to the lack of DNA evidence.

IIRC, Guede was originally given a longer sentence, but once he agreed to testify against Knox and Sollecito his sentence was reduced down to 16 years. As I said, the prosecutor wanted Knox and Sollecito AT ANY COSTS. The prosecutor is stranger than Knox any way you look at it. He loves publicity, but cannot withstand scrutiny.

 

[Lolsmum]

You've lost all credibility to me by calling her sexist names.

Is "Foxy" what you are referring to? I'm have no idea about US coverage, but here in the UK there was a lot of coverage referring to her as Foxy Knox(y). I wouldn't say it's not a sexist name, but it's also not new to this poster by any means and was in common usage. Its use does not seem to undermine the actual argument put forth.

 

[JanaDee]

Is "Foxy" what you are referring to? I'm have no idea about US coverage, but here in the UK there was a lot of coverage referring to her as Foxy Knox(y). I wouldn't say it's not a sexist name, but it's also not new to this poster by any means and was in common usage. Its use does not seem to undermine the actual argument put forth.

Yes, I know the media has taken to calling her Foxy Knoxy.

Her name is Amanda Knox. Any other name undermines credibility, as far as I am concerned.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Is "Foxy" what you are referring to? I'm have no idea about US coverage, but here in the UK there was a lot of coverage referring to her as Foxy Knox(y). I wouldn't say it's not a sexist name, but it's also not new to this poster by any means and was in common usage. Its use does not seem to undermine the actual argument put forth.

I read the UK papers got the nickname from Amanda's MySpace. I don't really think it's sexist considering she used it herself .

 

[Lolsmum]

I read the UK papers got the nickname from Amanda's MySpace. I don't really think it's sexist considering she used it herself .

In that case it is pretty much the same as referring to me by my user name here, or anyone else. If she chose to use it in the public sphere, it hardly seems that it undermines anyone's credibility to use it.

I'd also argue that even if it did undermine credibility, it does not undermine a logical argument using facts that can be verified elsewhere. Claiming it does is a logical fallacy.

 

[anniemae]

I am confused about a couple of things. First, why was she allowed to leave Italy? I assume it was okay since she was able to do it. If so, why did her boyfriend not leave? I keep reading that he should have left, and why didn't he leave etc. What happened with him?

 

[TLSnell1981]

I am confused about a couple of things. First, why was she allowed to leave Italy? I assume it was okay since she was able to do it. If so, why did her boyfriend not leave? I keep reading that he should have left, and why didn't he leave etc. What happened with him?

Knox's conviction was overturned on appeal. She was released from prison and allowed to leave the country. The boyfriend is an Italian citizen.

 

[bcla]

Knox's conviction was overturned on appeal. She was released from prison and allowed to leave the country. The boyfriend is an Italian citizen.

The reporting is that the first appeal was considered an acquittal that overturned the previous conviction. Then their Supreme Court overturned the acquittal.

However, both she and the former BF were allowed to leave the country. I heard he was actually on vacation in the Dominican Republic during the second appeal. He apparently returned to Italy in time for the verdict. After the verdict, he was forced to turn in his passport.

 

[disney1990]

An article from U.S. News:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...a-knox-back-to-italy-if-she-loses-appeal?lite