Armanda Knox guilty---- again

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

OK, I will sit back and listen. Tell me how perfect you are. Bet not 100 %. I was addressing double jeopardy. In this case multi jeopardy.

This is not double jeopardy any more than when a person is convicted in the USA and appeals the verdict to an appeals court which overturns the conviction on certain grounds and that ruling is then appealed by the state to the next round of appeals court and has the lower court's ruling overturned, and so on until some cases even reach the state or federal Supreme Court. What happened in this case happens all the time in this country, as well, through a rather similar process.

Whether the evidence supported a conviction, whether it supported the overturning of the conviction and whether it then supported the reinstatement of that conviction can be debated, but courts everywhere are made up of imperfect humans who make mistakes and those mistakes I dare say happen just as regularly in the USA as they do in Italy. But that has nothing to do with whether double jeopardy occurred in this case, and in this case it appears that it did not.

 

[manning]

Then we ought to go to the Italian system.

 

[declansdad]

Here is Alan Dershowitz's take on it.


He does say she was acquitted.

 

[rigs32]

The difference is that in the US, once someone is found not guilty, that's it, end game. It doesn't matter if the judge overseeing the case made a legal error and precluded evidence that should have come in and might have led to a conviction. The prosecution has NO legal recourse; only the defense can file an appeal.

My understanding is that in Italy, BOTH sides can appeal legal decisions made during the trial. In the US, if a trial is in front of a judge with an ax to grind, crime victims and their families can be left with no legal recourse for those improper legal decisions. And, yes, it happens all the time. Perhaps a difference ruling would not have changed the outcome, but it really really sucks to have to tell a victim that the judge won't allow you to use evidence that corroborates other testimony for reasons that don't make any sense.

 

[bcla]

If the U.S. Justice Department refuses to honor a legitimate and legal request for extradition to a nation with which we have an active extradition treaty in place that covers the crimes for which she has been convicted and for which her extradition is sought, are we as a nation prepared to forfeit any current and future moral outrage when another country refuses a legitimate extradition request by the United States?

If anything is likely, there may be negotiations to forestall the extradition request, but if one if made, I do not see how we refuse to honor it and not undermine every extradition treaty we have with every other nation with which we have one in place.

Italy has refused legitimate extraditions requests from the United States - namely Pietro Venezia, who fled the US, and where the Dade County DA's office filed an extradition request. The rationale given was that the US court system was unfair because it included the possibility of the death penalty, even though the prosecutor (in line with the extradition treaty) certified that the death penalty was not an option.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/28/w...radition-citing-death-penalty-in-florida.html

 

[declansdad]

Italy has refused legitimate extraditions requests from the United States - namely Pietro Venezia, who fled the US, and where the Dade County DA's office filed an extradition request. The rationale given was that the US court system was unfair because it included the possibility of the death penalty, even though the prosecutor (in line with the extradition treaty) certified that the death penalty was not an option.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/28/w...radition-citing-death-penalty-in-florida.html

I believe the US and many other countries have also refused extraditions requests in the past as well, regardless of a treaty.

 

[cabanafrau]

I find it disturbing that most forensic evidence has been deemed unreliable, yet was used to obtain a conviction in the original case. It's more disturbing that the original conviction was based on a theory of the case that it was a sexual encounter gone wrong and now the state has received a conviction based on a theory of an argument over $$.

It's hard to accept they are asking to take someone's liberty based on a situation that looks like they don't know what happened to take that poor girl's life, particularly being so used to our system where reasonable doubt, a fair, honest doubt growing out of the evidence or lack of evidence is the basis upon which a conviction cannot be the result.

I really hate most of all that this has to be so much more torment for the poor family who has lost their daughter and deserves answers.

 

[DWGal210]

Here is an interesting article from NPR re extradition and the Amanda Knox case.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/...-case-could-put-u-s-in-an-extradition-quandry

A few parts in particular that I found interesting:

"...but if Italy's highest court decides to convict her, Italy would have to ask the U.S. to extradite her. That process, and whether or not the U.S. really would extradite her, turns out to be less about law, and more about politics and foreign policy."

"It certainly has happened where the secretary of state has decided not to extradite, even though there was no legal hurdle," says Mark Ellis, executive director of the International Bar Association. In making that decision, the secretary of state doesn't even have to give any reason for doing it," he says. "Under U.S. law, he or she can just make the decision."

"A country can also dodge the extradition request through bureaucratic means. That's what happened when NSA leaker Edward Snowden first fled from the U.S. to Hong Kong. Washington has an extradition treaty with Hong Kong, and hoped the Chinese territory would comply. That, of course, didn't happen.

"The Hong Kong government basically relied on a series of procedural flaws in the U.S. application to decline to comply with the request," Vladeck says.

Very interesting.

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

Italy has refused legitimate extraditions requests from the United States - namely Pietro Venezia, who fled the US, and where the Dade County DA's office filed an extradition request. The rationale given was that the US court system was unfair because it included the possibility of the death penalty, even though the prosecutor (in line with the extradition treaty) certified that the death penalty was not an option.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/28/w...radition-citing-death-penalty-in-florida.html

Yes, and look at the outrage and claims of undermining "a historic process" that were made by the U.S. DOJ at the time.

So the US government can be hypocritical, it can honor the treaty to show our respect for the treat and set a good example, it can trade Amanda Knox for Pietro Venezia in a diplomatic move to give both countries something they want, it can effectively trade both wherein each nation keeps its own citizen and mutually drop their extradition requests, it can work the diplomatic channels to pressure the Italian government to not press for her extradition, it can make a grand case of how "this case is different than the Pietro Venezia case because X, Y & Z" (similar to the hypocrisy option but acknowledging it head on), and I'm sure there are other strategies the government can utilize, as well.

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

I think what the other poster and I was saying is in our system once the not guilty verdict or overturning of the conviction it is done. The government can't come back at you. It appears in the Italian system this could go on forever.

Looks like our forefathers realized this and took steps to prevent this from happening. As one of my nephews would say "they were smart dudes"

But that is not completely accurate. A conviction that is overturned on appeal in this country can, in certain cases, be remanded to a lower court to be retried, and a conviction that is overturned on appeal can be appealed to a higher court by the prosecution. Not in all cases, as convictions overturned for insufficient evidence will have jeopardy attached, but convictions overturned on procedural grounds may be retried as the the defendant's countervailing interests can be deemed to be subordinated when a verdict is overturned for reasons other than guilt or innocence. Honestly I don't know the details on why her conviction was overturned, and it may have been for reasons that would have attached jeopardy in the USA, but I also know that comparing justice systems on technicalities is extraordinarily difficult and that is the State Department and Department of Justice will manage this, if it comes to that, and not us lay people...

It's also important to note that her conviction may not have been overturned in this country, as the grounds for appeal differ in the United States and generally don't permit the defendant to retry their case (as it seems she was able to do in Italy) but rather places a burden on the defendant at that point to prove that a procedural error led to their conviction. The appeals process to do so is extraordinarily complicated, which is one reason why so many innocent people are convicted and remain in jail. There have been many appeals court rulings that make the point that the appellant's guilt or innocence is not what the court is considering but rather the merits of a procedural point. In other words, if a person is railroaded in this country, they may well rot in jail because apparently unlike in Italy their ability to retry the merits of their case is not nearly as automatic.

I love this country's justice system. I think it's fantastic. But no system run by human beings will ever be perfect; just ask all those cleared by the Innocence Project in this country.

 

[bcla]

The main disconnect here was that they freed her and told her she was free to go and even leave the country. Even in appellate cases in the US that are remanded back to lower courts for retrial, that doesn't happen. Usually they're still sent back to prison facing retrial, or often granted bail with limitations on their travel. The word that was commonly used with regards to the outcome of that appeal was ACQUITTAL. That's what they called it.

I also don't for one instant believe that an extradition request is purely procedural. There's always the possibility of popular opinion or prejudice of the requesting nation becoming a factor. That was certainly the case with Pietro Venezia.

 

[manning]

The way I understand it here:

You are found NOT guilty. It ends, the government can't apeal

You are found guilty. You,the defendant, can appeal and one of three things happens:

1. The guilty verdict is upheld by the highest court that has jurisdiction.

2. The guilty verdict is overturned. It ends, the government can't appeal.

3. The higher court vacates the conviction/sentence due to improper procedures but does not issue a not guilty verdict. Instead it is sent back to the lower court for retrial or resentencing.

The only other way I know of someone being subject to another trial is if the jury can't decide a verdict. This would be a hung jury.

What amuses me here are those who say she is guilty. The problem with that is that they have not heard both sides of the case. Even knowing both sides is not easy. I know, I was on a rape jury and we were hung. The prosecution could not convince beyond a reasonable doubt. The jaw dropper was when all of us with along with the prosecutor and defense attorney were riding in the elevator. They both admitted he was guilty. The prosecutor said don't worry we are trying him on eleven more rapes.

 

[manning]

The main disconnect here was that they freed her and told her she was free to go and even leave the country. Even in appellate cases in the US that are remanded back to lower courts for retrial, that doesn't happen. Usually they're still sent back to prison facing retrial, or often granted bail with limitations on their travel. The word that was commonly used with regards to the outcome of that appeal was ACQUITTAL. That's what they called it.

I also don't for one instant believe that an extradition request is purely procedural. There's always the possibility of popular opinion or prejudice of the requesting nation becoming a factor. That was certainly the case with Pietro Venezia.

The only way I can see that this never happens is an amendment to the constitution that says:

Anyone found not guilty by a foreign court or a guilty verdict is overturned by a foreign court shall not be subject to extradition.

If the defendant is foolish enough to leave U.S. jurisdiction is on his/her own.

 

[sunshinehighway]

The way I understand it here:

You are found NOT guilty. It ends, the government can't apeal

You are found guilty. You,the defendant, can appeal and one of three things happens:

1. The guilty verdict is upheld by the highest court that has jurisdiction.

2. The guilty verdict is overturned. It ends, the government can't appeal.

3. The higher court vacates the conviction/sentence due to improper procedures but does not issue a not guilty verdict. Instead it is sent back to the lower court for retrial or resentencing.

The only other way I know of someone being subject to another trial is if the jury can't decide a verdict. This would be a hung jury.

What amuses me here are those who say she is guilty. The problem with that is that they have not heard both sides of the case. Even knowing both sides is not easy. I know, I was on a rape jury and we were hung. The prosecution could not convince beyond a reasonable doubt. The jaw dropper was when all of us with along with the prosecutor and defense attorney were riding in the elevator. They both admitted he was guilty. The prosecutor said don't worry we are trying him on eleven more rapes.

The bolded is true here in the States under certain circumstances, not always.

Why assume people who think she's guilty don't know the other side? She has a pretty good pr team that has put out her side to the US media. All we get here is her side.

Personally I think she was involved. I've heard her side. I've also heard the other side. I've read the court rulings which explained their decisions.

People here seem to have this notion that she is just this little innocent girl and the big mean Italians have just made up this whole case against her. That not true. People in America have been found guilty on less than they have on Knox.

 

[rigs32]

I take my job as a prosecutor very seriously. I seek justice, not convictions. While the Innocence Project has done a lot of good, I've also seen first hand that they can take their advocacy too far.

To say so many innocents rot in jail and defendants get railroaded gives us an unfairly bad rep.

 

[PaulaSB12]

There is news that says that the macine used to test the bra hook that is the only evidence against Amanda's boyfriend was malfunctioning at the time of othe test but this was with held

http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/...d-revealed-in-amanda-knox-case/article/386758
New information in the Meredith Kercher Murder case has now emerged alleging that Patrizia Stefanoni, the lab technician responsible for DNA testing on behalf of the prosecution, committed scientific misconduct by suppressing data from faulty equipment and falsifying evidence in order to support the prosecution’s case.
Meredith Kercher was murdered in 2007, in Perugia, Italy. Three people were charged with the crime, Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and Rudy Guede. Guede’s conviction was finalized and he is currently serving a 16-year sentence. Knox and Sollecito have been locked in a legal battle that continues to this day. Both were convicted in 2009, and then were declared innocent on appeal and released in 2011. The two were then convicted once again in 2014, and have yet another appeal upcoming most likely in the fall of this year.
New evidence has now surfaced suggesting that scientific misconduct may have contributed to the wrongful convictions of Knox and Sollecito. The alleged misconduct concerns a sample from the tiny metal hook of Meredith Kercher’s bra clasp, which is the sole piece of DNA evidence that the prosecution claims can be attributed to Raffaele Sollecito. No other evidence of any kind was ever found in the room where the murder occurred that implicates Knox or Sollecito.
Careful analysis of the Italian Scientific Police's Lab Data reveals there was contamination in the machine when the famous bra clasp trace was being tested and the laboratory equipment was malfunctioning during that testing. However, complete records of the equipment failure have been suppressed from the data that was released by the prosecution in July of 2009. This data was also denied to the court appointed independent experts, Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti, of the University of Rome — La Sapienza, during the first appeal trial.
This apparent perversion of the course of justice was discovered by Dr. Tom Zupancic, Chief Scientific Officer of Applied Biomolecular Technologies and Chris Halkides, Professor of Biochemistry at UNC Wilmington. Both scientists are members of the Injustice Anywhere advisory board, an organization that I co-founded. Injustice Anywhere currently advocates for eight cases, including Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, through our organization Injustice in Perugia (IIP) — an international organization made up of lawyers, criminal investigators and advocates who are volunteering to assist Knox and Sollecito in their fight for justice.
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito
wrongfulconvictionnews.com
The validity of the bra clasp evidence has been heavily scrutinized long before this new information came to light. Investigators were left to scramble early on in the investigation when it was revealed that a bloody shoe print originally attributed to Sollecito did not match his shoe tread. The print was actually a match for Rudy Guede. This left the authorities with nothing to hold Sollecito in custody for the crime.
With the renewed challenge to implicate Sollecito, Investigators headed back to the cottage and miraculously found exactly what they needed, collecting the bra clasp off the floor in Kercher’s room, 46 days after her murder, from an unsecured and contaminated crime scene. In an odd spectacle, police video footage reveals investigators gathering around this single piece of evidence as if they already knew they had what they needed. During their celebration, the clasp was dropped on the floor, stepped on, picked back up, and then passed between several investigators wearing visibly dirty gloves as if it was a prized possession. Video footage also shows these same investigators handling multiple pieces of evidence on the floor wearing the same gloves.
Stefanoni’s findings detailed a minuscule sample from the clasp showed a DNA profile that was a partial match for Sollecito as well as DNA from several other males, which strongly suggests contamination. Sollecito was at the apartment on several occasions so finding his DNA would be no surprise. Sollecito also attempted to break down Kercher's door the morning the body was discovered. Two of his finger prints were found on the outside of the door from that event. Investigators very likely made contact with that door with the same gloves used to handle the clasp.
The new information not only reveals that there were severe problems with the DNA data, it also suggests that Stefanoni committed perjury. When asked specific questions at trial about contamination in her lab, Stefanoni told the court that no contamination has ever occurred in her lab.
On May 23, 2009, Stefanoni testified as follows:
PM Mignini: Listen, how many years have you been doing this work?
Stefanoni: Nearly 7 years.
PM Mignini: Approximately 7 years. Have you worked on cases similar to this?
Stefanoni: Yes. Yes, yes.
PM Mignini: Many similar cases?
Stefanoni: Yes, various cases of similar complexity, basically, yes.
PM Mignini: Do you remember if you’ve always followed the same method?
Stefanoni: Yes.
PM Mignini: In the way you basically collected the samples and then in the analysis?
Stefanoni: Yes.
PM Mignini: Right, do you remember any confirmed contamination of samples?
Stefanoni: No, such a problem has never been highlighted to me.
PM Mignini: So you have absolutely no recollection [of such a thing]… and you have always followed this same method that you have described to us today?
Stefanoni: Yes.
Stefanoni’s testimony led Judge Giancarlo Massei to conclude that there was no laboratory contamination, as noted in his motivation document explaining his ruling to convict Knox and Sollecito in 2009:
“In response to a specific question on this point, Dr. Stefanoni declared that she had been working as a biologist for seven years, had always used the same methodology, and had never heard that any problem of contamination of exhibits had occurred.”
The new-found data appears to show that Stefanoni knowingly lied in court, leading Judge Massei to be negatively influenced by the erroneous information.
Data continues to be suppressed to this day
The recent analysis by Zupancic and Halkides further highlights the suppression of information by the prosecution in this case. The data indicates that there was contamination in the machine when the bra clasp was analyzed, meaning that many other samples could have been contaminated during that time. Zupancic and Halkides also uncovered the fact that the prosecution concealed data for the alleged murder weapon as well. Their analysis shows that Raffaele’s kitchen knife profile was generated within a set of tests for which 90% of the results have been suppressed, which according to Zupancic and Halkides, strongly suggests the occurrence of a severe contamination event that the prosecution has never explained. Unfortunately, no electropherograms have ever been presented by the prosecution. The issues with Stefanoni's work can only be clarified through the full disclosure of the EDF files, if they still exist. Until there is full disclosure, many questions will remain.
Zupancic recently gave a presentation at a forensic DNA conference hosted by The John Marshall Law School in Chicago, highlighting his findings. Zupancic spoke with Komo News about the event.
"American attorneys ... were stunned to hear how the Italian forensic analysts and prosecutors connected to the Knox-Sollecito case manipulated and withheld evidence in this case," he said. "Such behavior would never have been tolerated in the American system. It shows an inherent contempt for fairness, the concept of justice and is a serious breach of acceptable judicial practices.”
Zupancic went on to tell Komo News that such irregularities can also happen in the United States when strict adherence to proper collection procedures is ignored or violated.
Knox and Sollecito have recently filed their appeals to the Italian Supreme Court (ISC). Their latest conviction of 28 and 25 years imprisonment respectively came as a shock to many, given the obvious lack of motive and forensic evidence. If the validity of DNA evidence used to convict is fully disproved, questions arise if the ISC will be able to stand by the current verdict, or if they will finally admit their mistake.
The complete detailed analysis of the DNA processing records can be reviewed here.

 

[minnie56]

Oh no not again! I am from the UK. I was wondering why the US authorities don't just step in now and tell Italy to take a hike and leave the girl alone? Enough is enough?

Um yes, that would go over big!!

 

[minnie56]

I believe she is guilty, but had the right people intervene for her there.

Agreed.

 

[LoveMMC]

I am sure she is innocent. Poor girl has been put through hell.
Meredith's death was a terrible tragedy. They caught the man who killed her. Why destroy an innocent girl?? They have the killer.

 

[minnie56]

I am sure she is innocent. Poor girl has been put through hell.

Poor girl..
Think of the parents of Meredith Kercher
That's hell.