Armanda Knox guilty---- again

[nugov2]

From the Judge's report

They should have taken more than 3 additional samples. The Judge doesn't state they took any samples that don't show her DNA, just that there is a lack of it. The only thing I can find is that they only took 3 additional samples and that those did show her DNA. Again, you cannot find what you aren't testing for and they should have been testing for it. Can you find somewhere that shows they took more samples(not from Meredith's room). Did they have samples that show her other roommates as a baseline? It should state somewhere either that nobody else's DNA is found(showing proof of a clean up) or that there is DNA that is foreign(from friends coming over) and DNA from Meredith, Filomena etc. That would show evidence of a clean up or no clean up. I cannot find that either. I just think that if what I am finding is accurate and that is all they tested for, that is another huge error the investigators made.

 

[sunshinehighway]

They should have taken more than 3 additional samples. The Judge doesn't state they took any samples that don't show her DNA, just that there is a lack of it. The only thing I can find is that they only took 3 additional samples and that those did show her DNA. Again, you cannot find what you aren't testing for and they should have been testing for it. Can you find somewhere that shows they took more samples(not from Meredith's room). Did they have samples that show her other roommates as a baseline? It should state somewhere either that nobody else's DNA is found(showing proof of a clean up) or that there is DNA that is foreign(from friends coming over) and DNA from Meredith, Filomena etc. That would show evidence of a clean up or no clean up. I cannot find that either. I just think that if what I am finding is accurate and that is all they tested for, that is another huge error the investigators made.

Injusticeinperugia again?

You cannot take anything you find on any of those type of sites (both pro and anti Knox)/ as true. It's all twisted to make their arguments.
The court found her lack of DNA in the cottage an issue. That's it. They heard from both sides and made their conclusions about what it meant. Isn't that what they are supposed to do?

 

[PaulaSB12]

They didn't find any bloody clothing or anything like that.
It's hard to explain their findings in a post because I don't want to make it super long.

There is Amanda's DNA and Meredith's blood in a few spots (bathroom and room where break in occurred).
There was little other DNA of Amanda found in the apartment at all.
There are female shoeprints matching Amanda's size in Meredith's room on a pillow under the body.
The court address the idea of selective cleanup and basically they say there was a clean up because you can't have Meredith's blood in the bathroom and Filomena's room but no evidence of it getting there.
Rudy's footprints lead straight out the front door from Meredith's room.
There's also a bloody partial footprint on the bathmat which doesn't match Rudy but could match Raffaele (he's not ruled out as a match).
The court saw that as further evidence of a clean up because there should be other prints. It's not like he could just appear in the bathroom and leave one print.

As far as I can tell, the only one with any type of injuries is Meredith, so I don't think Rudy had anything either.
Meredith didn't have the type of defensive wounds expected in such an attack which is one reason it is believe there were multiple attackers. They think she was held down so she couldn't fight back.

When they swabbed the blood not only didnt they change gloves they swabbed more than one piece of blood with the same swab so any blood was mixed which would mean their DNS was mixed.

 

[nugov2]

Injusticeinperugia again?

You cannot take anything you find on any of those type of sites (both pro and anti Knox)/ as true. It's all twisted to make their arguments.
The court found her lack of DNA in the cottage an issue. That's it. They heard from both sides and made their conclusions about what it meant. Isn't that what they are supposed to do?

No, not there. Look through the official documents, do you see any record they did more than that? I am really asking. I can't find anything. They need to prove she cleaned up the scene and that would be proof. If they can't find anyone's DNA anywhere. I cannot find anything official that shows they did any more than that other than in the room. You cannot say you can't find evidence of her DNA unless you did thorough testing. You cannot convict someone using that as one of the reasons if the testing wasn't done right. I cannot support our government sending her to Italy to serve time when those are the type of bold statements they are making off of improper testing. I would feel much differently if they had solid proof by having many samples and swabs from other people who were in the house.

 

[nugov2]

Guess we will find out tomorrow. It will be interesting to see how it plays out either way. Will they finally let it go if she is once again acquitted of the crime or will the US allow her to be sent back to Italy if she is found guilty. I may be booking the first flight to Brazil I could get on today(I'm pretty sure they do not have a treaty with Italy) just to be safe b/c there is no way I would allow myself back to Italy if I were her.

http://news.yahoo.com/amanda-knox-faces-extradition-battle-italy-upholds-murder-130144667.html

 

[Mizzoufan]

I don't think the US would send her back if she foung gulity.

 

[ols386]

I can't imagine the US would send her back either.

 

[teller80]

See, I can't imagine the US not sending her back. What a horrible precedent that would be. What if the person who killed your daughter was convicted in the US, fled to Italy and then Italy says "we don't think you had a fair trial so we're not sending that person back". You have to look at it from both sides. And this is what an extradition treat is all about, you can't flee to another country to escape justice.

 

[dinolounger]

I don't think the US would send her back if she foung gulity.

And I feel exactly the opposite, having read the 1983 U.S./Italy extradtion treaty. For reference, it can be found at the below:

https://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/italy.pdf

To summarize the elements in the treaty as well as the process it mandates that would lead to the U.S. to extradite Knox if that request is made by Italy:

• Contrary to what some here appear to think, extradition is not based on the country receiving the request (which in this would be the U.S) assessing whether the conviction made by the requesting country (in this case Italy) is legitimate and/or complies with the laws of the requested country. This is the fatal flaw in the "double jeopardy" argument made by many Knox supporters. When an extradition request is made, that does not result in a new trial occurring in the requested country under its laws nor said country refusing extradition because its laws are different than those the requesting country.

• All the treaty requires is that the person whom the requested country is being asked to extradite was convicted under the laws of the requesting country. The only exception that would block extradition is if the person has also been tried for the same crime in the requested country (ergo, in the case of Knox she could not be extradited if she had also been tried for the Kercher murder in the U.S.) And for those of you suddenly thinking that is a sneaky backdoor route for her to get a "get out of jail free" card, no, there is no legal way to run her through some sort of quick kangaroo court exercise of a trial and acquittal here to give her that out. Why? Kercher wasn't a U.S. citizen and didn't die here, so there's no way for any U.S. juridiction to indict Knox for her murder. Lastly, there is actually precedent for the U.S. extraditing people who were first aquitted but then subsequently convicted in foreign courts.

• Also contrary to what many here appear to think , there isn't a lot of leeway for political entities here to block extradition. When it is requested, a process automatically starts: the State Department receives and would review the request, only to assess whether it conforms with the terms of the treaty, which if Knox remains convicted it would. The request would then by handed over to the Justice Department, which would foward it to the United States Attorney's Office for the judicial district in which the fugitive is located. The U.S. Attorney's office would then obtain a warrant, and the fugitive (Knox) would be arrested and brought before the magistrate judge or the US district judge. Note the Justice department automatically opposes bond in all international extradition cases. Unless the fugitive (Knox) waives their right to a hearing, the court will hold a hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3184 to determine whether the fugitive is extraditable. This would be the only opportunity for Knox legal counsel to make an argument to block her extradition, and per my first bullet above that can't be an attempt to re-argue her case/conviction or argue she wasn't convicted under the terms of U.S. law. So the court in this case would find the fugitive (Knox) to be extraditable, and would enter an order of extraditability and certify the record to the Secretary of State, who decides whether to surrender the fugitive to the requesting government.

And therein lies the only hope the fugitive (Knox) would have to escape extradition, e.g. John Kerry saying "no."

And that is where I strongly disagree with anyone who thinks he would, for these reasons:

• The U.S. is among the countries making the largest number of extradition requests of other countries.
• That is important, because it allows us to track down and bring to justice a lot of nasty fugitives.
• We are able to make these extradition requests because we are known to reciprocate. Ergo, help us and we'll help you.
• And this is why we have a large number of active extradition treaties in place. Countries trust us to play fairly.
• The Secretary of State does not want to jeopardize our robust ability to request extradition, which they immediately would if they started to arbitraily refuse requests to hand over fugitives.
• They therefore would have to have very, very good reasons to say "no" when a country that has a treaty with us asks for the U.S to extradite a convicted murderer.
• There really aren't any good reasons for the present Secretary of State to say "no" in the case of Knox. He isn't running for office, nor is his boss, nor is the requested fugitive some sort of critical national security asset. Or to put it more bluntly. saying "yes, hand her over to the Carabinieri" isn't going to have any major political impact. It won't cause riots, famine, pestilence or lead pretty much anyone to change their political orientation (a die hard blue state person is going to vote red in 2016 just because of Amanda Knox? Yeah, right...... ) But it will have the huge benefit of maintaining our "AAA" rating as a country that honors it's treaty commitments.

 

[Mizzoufan]

And I feel exactly the opposite, having read the 1983 U.S./Italy extradtion treaty. For reference, it can be found at the below:

[GALLERY=]http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...gainst-amanda-knox-theres-plenty-9099649.html[/GALLERY]

To summarize the elements in the treaty as well as the process it mandates that would lead to the U.S. to extradite Knox if that request is made by Italy:

• Contrary to what some here appear to think, extradition is not based on the country receiving the request (which in this would be the U.S) assessing whether the conviction made in the requesting country (in this case Italy) is legitimate and/or complies with the laws of the requested country. This is the fatal flaw in the "double jeopardy "argument" made by many Knox supporters. When an extradition request is made, that does not result in a new trial occurring in the requested country under its laws nor said country refusing extradition because its laws are different than those the requesting country.

• All the treaty requires is that the person whom the requested country is being asked to extradite was convicted under the laws of the requesting country. The only exception that would block extradition is if the person has also been tried for the same crime in the requested country (ergo, in the case of Knox she could not be extradited if she had also been tried for the Kercher murder in the U.S.) And for those of you suddenly thinking that is a sneaky backdoor route for her to get a "get out of jail free" card, no, there is no legal way to run her through some sort of quick kangaroo court exercise of a trial and acquittal here to give her that out. Why? Kercher wasn't a U.S. citizen and didn't die here, so there's no way for any U.S. juridiction to indict Knox for her murder. Lastly, there is actually precedent for the U.S. extraditing people who were first aquitted but then subsequently convicted in foreign courts.

• Also contrary to what many here appear to think , there isn't a lot of leeway for political entities here to block extradition. When it is requested, a process automatically starts: the State Department receives and would review the request, only to assess whether it conforms with the terms of the treaty, which if Knox remains convicted it would. The request would then by handed over to the Justice Department, which would foward it to the United States Attorney's Office for the judicial district in which the fugitive is located. The U.S. Attorney's office would then obtain a warrant, and the fugitive (Knox) would be arrested and brought before the magistrate judge or the US district judge. Note the Justice department automatically opposes bond in all international extradition cases. Unless the fugitive (Knox) waives their right to a hearing, the court will hold a hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3184 to determine whether the fugitive is extraditable. This would be the only opportunity for Knox legal council to make an argument, and per the prior bullet it can't be an attempt to re-argue her conviction or argue she wasn't convicted under the terms of U.S. law. So the court in this case would almost certainly find the fugitive (Knox) to be extraditable, and would enter an order of extraditability and certify the record to the Secretary of State, who decides whether to surrender the fugitive to the requesting government.

And therein lies the only hope the fugitive (Knox) would have to escape extradition, e.g. John Kerry saying "no."

And that is where I strongly disagree with anyone who thinks he would, for these reasons:

• The U.S. is among the countries making the largest number of extradition requests of other countries.
• That is important, because it allows us to track down and bring to justice a lot of nasty fugitives.
• We are able to make these extradition requests because we are known to reciprocate. Ergo, help us and we'll help you.
• And this is why we have a large number of active extradition treaties in place. Countries trust us to play fairly.
• The Secretary of State does not want to jeopardize our robust ability to request extradition, which they immediately would if they started to arbitraily refuse requests to hand over fugitives.
• They therefore would have to have very, very good reasons to say "no" when a country that has a treaty with us asks for the U.S to extradite a convicted murderer.
• There really aren't any good reasons for the present Secretary of State to say "no" in the case of Knox. Yes, her PR machine would make a stink and there would be a brief period of the media obsessing over her fate. But you know what? The Secretary of State isn't running for office, nor is his boss, nor is the requested fugitive some sort of critical national security asset. Or put more bluntly. saying no isn't going to have any major political impact. It won't cause riots, famine, pestilence or lead pretty much anyone to change their political orientation (a die hard blue state person is going to vote red in 2016 just because of Amanda Knox? Yeah, right...... )

I still don't think they would send her there. Every legal person I have heard on TV said they seriously doubt they would send her bacl. Esp sicne she was found innocent already.

 

[TLSnell1981]

And while some legal experts contend Knox could very well be extradited, others say U.S. officials could refuse to hand over Knox by leaning on a double-jeopardy clause included in the extradition treaty between the two countries.

"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," the treaty states.

And Knox was, according to M. Cherif Bassiouni, a former U.N. lawyer and international extradition law expert.

American and Italian officials may interpret the treaty's double-jeopardy clause differently based on their own judicial systems, but Bassiouni said no interpretation would pass muster.

"Whatever the interpretation of article VI may be ... Amanda Knox would not be extraditable to Italy should Italy seek her extradition because she was retried for the same acts, the same facts, and the same conduct," Bassiouni wrote in an Oxford University Press blog post. "Her case was reviewed three times with different outcomes even though she was not actually tried three times."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/25/politics/amanda-knox-extradition/

 

[LBIJim]

If Italy wanted to try her again, they never should have let her leave after being acquitted the last time. Hell no, I wouldn't return voluntarily if I were her, and yep, I'd go to Brazil or somewhere if US authorities even hinted at sending me back to Italy.

 

[bcla]

You can look back maybe a few pages (or another thread), but didn't someone (maybe me) bring up that case in Florida where a fugitive in a murder case got back to Italy and Italy refused to honor an extradition request to bring him back to Dade County?

OK - it was Pietro Venezia, and I believe he was tried in Italy and convicted. However, the Italians refused to extradite him to the US based on the possibility of the death penalty being applied. The Dade County DA did give assurances that they would not seek the death penalty.

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

This is an Italian article. I ran it through Google Translate and it reads like he's finished his sentence after 15 years, with time reduced for good behavior.

http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/notizie/pena-morte-storia-pietro-140529-gSLAlVfQe

 

[dinolounger]

I still don't think they would send her there. Every legal person I have heard on TV said they seriously doubt they would send her bacl. Esp sicne she was found innocent already.

What legal people with what legal credentials? Based on what arguments? Why not name them and provide links? With all due respect, just generalizing about "legal people on TV" (who for all we know may yet more shills hired by Knox PR team) doesn't mean anything.

What does cut it are specifics, named legal sources from specific identified publications/broadcasts. Here are examples that competely disagree with your point:

http://www.businessinsider.com/amanda-knox-extradition-2014-1

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

http://www.breitbart.com/blog/2013/...a-knox-had-better-get-ready-to-be-extradited/

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116451/amanda-knox-extradition-should-be-granted

 

[Mizzoufan]

What legal people with what legal credentials? Based on what arguments? Why not name them and provide links? With all due respect, just generalizing about "legal people on TV" (who for all we know may yet more shills hired by Knox PR team) doesn't mean anything.

What does cut it are specifics, named legal sources from specific identified publications/broadcasts. Here are examples that competely disagree with your point:

http://www.businessinsider.com/amanda-knox-extradition-2014-1

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

http://www.breitbart.com/blog/2013/...a-knox-had-better-get-ready-to-be-extradited/

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116451/amanda-knox-extradition-should-be-granted

You aren't going to change my mind. I won't change yours so nothing else needs to be said.

 

[dinolounger]

If Italy wanted to try her again, they never should have let her leave after being acquitted the last time. Hell no, I wouldn't return voluntarily if I were her, and yep, I'd go to Brazil or somewhere if US authorities even hinted at sending me back to Italy.

Extradition is never voluntary; what you are suggesting is she should become a fugitive from justice. That will end up putting a bounty on her head. Great way to live......

 

[dinolounger]

You aren't going to change my mind. I won't change yours so nothing else needs to be said.

The point wasn't to change anyone's mind. It was to compare the substance of different viewpoints.

 

[LBIJim]

Extradition is never voluntary; what you are suggesting is she should become a fugitive from justice. That will end up putting a bounty on her head. Great way to live......

Yep, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. Roman Polanski has lived quite well for over 30 years as a fugitive from justice.

 

[dinolounger]

You can look back maybe a few pages (or another thread), but didn't someone (maybe me) bring up that case in Florida where a fugitive in a murder case got back to Italy and Italy refused to honor an extradition request to bring him back to Dade County?

OK - it was Pietro Venezia, and I believe he was tried in Italy and convicted. However, the Italians refused to extradite him to the US based on the possibility of the death penalty being applied. The Dade County DA did give assurances that they would not seek the death penalty.

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

This is an Italian article. I ran it through Google Translate and it reads like he's finished his sentence after 15 years, with time reduced for good behavior.

http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/notizie/pena-morte-storia-pietro-140529-gSLAlVfQe

Yes, our 1983 treaty with Italy contains an article that allows either country to specifically block extradition if the death penalty is an option. In the case of
Pietro Venezia, the italian Supreme Court actually went a step further and ruled Italy could not extradite to a legal domicle where the death penalty was on the books. Or put another way, verbal "assurances" from Dade county that it wouldn't be used weren't good enough for Italy. And their actions did conform with the Treaty.

The point you are making is that Italy found an "out" to extraditing someone. Yes, they did, but the circumstances were quite different than those facing Knox.

What no one (not just here but all over the blogosphere) appears to be able to articulate is the complelling argument the Secretary of State would make for not extraditing Knox. No, the "double jeopardy" thing is not an option, nor is trying to re-argue her conviction in Italy. I know many here don't want to hear that, but we are a nation of laws, not mob sentiment.

Frankly, what many seem to be falling back on is "well..uh..er...she's a victim and Italy is corrupt and evil." There are two problems with these.

First, both are emotional sentiments, not clauses identified in the treaty as valid reasons not to extradite.

Second, both of those sentiments are primarily a testament to the efforts of Gogerty Marriott -- a Seattle based PR firm retained by team Knox -- that relentlessly pushed those talking points with a slick campaign aimed at editors and producers in the mass media and by populating social media with related pro-Knox messaging. More on this -- some of which is very interesting -- in the links below.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/selene-nelson/amanda-knox-pr_b_5694432.html

http://www.christianpost.com/news/a...x-to-alter-public-sentiment-in-the-us-125439/

http://www.kpopstarz.com/articles/1...edith-kercher-roommate-pr-team-full-swing.htm

 

[Planogirl]

I can understand the argument that we should honor extradition requests however double jeopardy is not something that I agree with. There's a little too much of "let's keep on trying her until we get what we want" going on here. There are reasons that our justice system doesn't allow it and personally I agree with those reasons.

I hope that she is never forced to go back. I don't pretend to have an opinion about her innocence or guilt because I haven't read all of the evidence but I do believe in innocent until proven guilty.