No way Obama is going to hand over the this All American Girl to that country's kangaroo court.

Their courts didnt magically get bad. They have always been this way.

Last edited Wed Mar 25, 2015, 08:50 AM - Edit history (1)

What should have been a simple option for something similar to a no-contest plea has turned into something much worse, because of the way the law has been applied to a murder case involving multiple defendants in separate trials.

This is what happened. A third, unrelated defendant, a known burglar in Perugia named Rudy Guede, agreed to accept a fast-track conviction in exchange for a significant reduction in his sentence. As part of this fast-track trial, Guede and the prosecutor agreed to a set of stipulations that put Guede at the murder scene but said Amanda and Raffaele carried out the murder. Amanda and Raffaele weren't allowed to have an attorney at Guede's trial or to enter evidence to dispute those stipulations. When Guede's fast-track trial was confirmed by the high court, all those stipulations became a matter of settled Judicial Truth.

Meanwhile Amanda and Raffaele had a separate trial, during which the prosecutor read into the record a statement Guede supposedly wrote about the murder. (Guede was there but had trouble reading his own handwritten statement.) The defendants' lawyers were not allowed to question Guede about his testimony. At the end of this first trial the defendants were found guilty. A couple years later, their guilty verdict was overturned, with the appeals court ruling that there was no reliable evidence against them. The high court then overturned the appeals court. The high court said the appeals court made a mistake when it didn't use the "Judicial truths" established in Guede's separate trial against Amanda and Raffaele.

So the courts didn't magically get bad. Non-magical human beings had everything to do with this mess. The fast-track trial option meant that Guede's "judicial truths" could be established before Amanda and Guede were done with their trials; and that those "truths" could be used against them -- without giving them any chance to dispute the stipulations either during Guede's trial or their own.

When the US signed the extradition treaty they couldn't have anticipated these new fast-track trials or how they would be put into practice in Amanda Knox's case.

If Italy confirms Amanda's guilty verdict, she will appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, where Italy already has a terrible record in civil rights violations. By the time the ECHR gets through with this case, it is highly unlikely the US will have to worry about the extradition treaty.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/when-will-they-stop-hounding-amanda-knox/16808#.VRJ2ElyJndm

nt

thanks for educating me. I can now say I've learned my "new thing" for the day!

Interesting.

allowed to bribe witnesses with lower sentences. We don't allow defense attorneys to pay witnesses to say what they want, but somehow it's OK for prosecutors to do so. I don't understand how people view that as justice.

Of course, it sounds like the structure of the legal system in Italy makes this situation even worse (based on your post).

take that testimony and enter it as establish fact -- unchallenged by the other side's attorneys.

where he can be cross-examined. And the defense attorney can bring up the bribe, and any evidence that indicates the bribe recipient is lying.

Instead, by trying the bribe recipient first, they can declare everything he said to be true.

convicted under it to decline to testify ever again. So Guede could decline to testify in Amanda and Raffaele's trial, and have the full force of the law backing him up. But his one-sided statement and his stipulations -- unchallenged by defense attorneys -- could be entered into the "facts" against the other two.

Of this case. Thanks so much!

Long enough for me to become well-aquainted with the case.

This isn't something that just happened suddenly.

at least as it has been applied in this case.

But you are right that Italy has always led most of Europe in the number of human rights violations.

I learned a lot. Thanks, for the time, and effort, you put into it. I appreciate it.

It seems important for people to understand how far beyond-the-pale Italy's actions have been -- especially if Italy ends up calling for the woman's extradition.

She is going to need informed citizens everywhere to speak out on her behalf.

Constitution, and that alone should prevent us from honoring the extradition treaty

another country which does not honor our constitutional rights, extradition treaty or not

She will NOT be given up for something she has already been tried for

"The long answer is that even if the Fifth Amendment did apply, under US law, an appeal that overturns a lower court conviction is not an acquittal for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. That is basically what happened here. Knox was convicted, then her conviction was overturned on appeal, and then the appellate court judgment was reversed, and a new trial ordered (albeit at the appellate level). This is not double jeopardy, either under Italian law or US law."

What he has just written does not describe what happened in Amanda's trials. In the US, it is only trial courts that try facts, and then appeals courts review how the law was applied. It is possible, as he said, for an appeals court to overturn a conviction and then for a higher appeals court to overturn that result -- but only for technical reasons related to the application of the law. It is also possible for an appeals court to overturn a guilty verdict and to order the facts of the case retried in a new trial court. But a higher level appeals court in the US never orders a new trial of the facts after a not-guilty verdict. That would constitute double-jeopardy.

This is what happened to Amanda. In Italy, the first level trial is more like a Grand Jury than it is like one of our trials -- more than half of defendants who are convicted at this level end up getting their verdict overturned or their sentenced reduced. It sweeps a lot of innocent people in.

The first appeals trial, unlike an appeals trial in the US, doesn't limit itself to evaluating how the law was applied; in Amanda's case, it reconsidered all the items of evidence and even called for new evidence to be put into the record. Based on old and new evidence, including a new analysis of DNA results by Court-appointed independent experts, the first "appeals" trial, which is really comparable to one of our trial courts, found there was no reliable evidence against the two students.

Then that "innocent" verdict went to the high court, which ruled that the judges in that appeals trial erred. They called for a second appeals trial, saying that the mistake had been in not taking the stipulations made by Rudy Guede in his separate fast-track trial -- which were established as Judicial Truth as soon as his conviction was confirmed -- and using them against Amanda and Raffaele in their trial. In other words, they directed the second appeals court to, in effect, remove the presumption of innocence for Amanda and Raffaele and substitute a presumption of guilt -- because their guilt had been stipulated to, by Rudy Guede and his prosecutors, in Guede's separate trial.

Then the second appeals court once again considered all the evidence plus some new facts. (And even a new motive -- a messy bathroom!) And even though the new DNA testing that court called for yielded results that only strengthened the students' case, the second appeals court dutifully found them guilty -- because Rudy Guede had fingered them in exchange for a reduced sentence after his conviction. And all his "stipulations" now carried the force of established and unimpeachable Judicial Truth.

Again, in the US when a court has considered all the facts and found a defendant not guilty, the prosecutor has to accept that verdict. To retry such a defendant would constitute double jeopardy. But Italy doesn't have the same view of double-jeopardy or of justice, for that matter. Their first appeals court and even their second appeals court retried the facts, which doesn't happen in the U.S. Nothing that has happened in Amanda's legal ordeal is comparable to what would have happened in the US system.

But in the end, any legal expert's opinion on the meaning of the extradition treaty won't really matter. The decision always comes back to the State Department. But that will probably only happen after this case is appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, where Italy already has a dismal record. Hopefully this will be one more conviction they recommend be overturned, and then John Kerry will have the full support of the ECHR in ignoring any extradition request.

double jeopardy thing outta the water.

Google Nicolo Pollari. You'll have a pretty good idea of how justice in Italy comes slow, but then comes like a hurricane.

after a full trial that considered the facts of the case. And then retried two years later in a subsequent trial after an appeal by the prosecution -- hence the double jeopardy.

Going before the Court of Cassation now to see if that verdict will be confirmed changes nothing.

Kind of blows your whole point out of the water.

By the way, even the State Department viewed the case as closed after the 2011 verdict that found for innocence. Any new trials after that point would constitute double jeopardy in the US system. That it isn't in Italian law is just a matter of labels, not reality.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/amanda-knox-ruling-could-prompt-new-extradition-battle-1.2148547

Amanda Knox was en route to Seattle from Rome - a free woman whose conviction for murder had just been overturned - when David Thorne, the US ambassador to Italy, sent a cable to the State Department declaring that the case was officially over.

Thorne’s relief seemed palpable. Knox’s arrest, trial and imprisonment for the brutal slaying of her British housemate, Meredith Kercher, had dominated headlines all over the world, and was closely followed by American officials in Rome, diplomatic cables would later reveal. “Post considers this case closed,” he wrote in October 2011.

It turned out to be premature, but the depth of the ambassador’s miscalculation will only fully be known next week, when a highly-anticipated ruling in the ongoing case by Italy’s highest court could open the door to a whole new legal battle over Knox’s potential extradition from the US, a decision that would have significant diplomatic and political consequences from Rome to Washington DC.

have commenced from there.

Hellman Court, which included a full trial on the facts, chose the stronger term -- innocent -- to apply to her. They also said that the "crime" of the "staging" never occurred.

the case was closed because a full trial on the facts had freed her. In the US, such a verdict cannot be annulled.

And I was also right that this whole farce should have ended when the Hellman trial correctly found the students not guilty.

I'm not going to feel grateful to the Italian justice system for dragging Amanda and Raffaele through this ordeal for more than seven years.Or for Raffaele spending four years in prison (six months in solitary) because he wouldn't lie and say that Amanda had been the murderer. This whole thing has been a travesty.

extremely well through all the pressure of the last eight years.

There's nothing to smear them with anymore. The Court of Cassation had a choice of not-guilty verdicts and chose the categorical one. Instead of just saying there wasn't enough evidence to prove guilt, they said that the students did not commit the crime.

She did it. And, eventually, in the fullness of time, her character will out.


You and I will just have to disagree on this one.

Amanda and Raffaele.

Unlike Amanda, he had a motive -- the same rage that he'd previously acted out. His wife was so fearful that she would be killed by him that she kept the photos of her beatings at his hands in a safety deposit box. And he showed his awareness of his guilt from the very beginning, by engaging the police in a high-speed chase as he sped to the border. And there was no evidence of anyone except for OJ at the scene. No mystery murderer.

In the Kercher case, there wasn't a bit of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele that held up to scrutiny. Nothing placed Amanda at the scene of the crime, but Rudy Guede, a previously arrested burglar, left his DNA inside and on her body, and his handprint and shoe print near it.

There was another proven murderer in the Kercher case, the person, Rudy Guede, who stipulated to his guilt in her death. No one else was ever shown to be involved in the death of OJ's wife. The two cases couldn't be more different.

won't disappoint. She has a taste for the limelight now.

make agreements with other countries that abrogate our citizens' constitutional rights, even while they're living in foreign countries. (Reid vs. Covert.) The context of the case was different (involving military dependents) but many think the same principle should apply here.

We shouldn't be signing extradition treaties with countries that deny basic civil rights; and if they change their legal system after we sign such a treaty, with effects that violate our constitutionally protected human rights (such as the right to an attorney, the right to confront an accuser, and the right to a presumption of innocence), we should consider it null and void.

who are wanted for real crimes, why would we turn over an innocent woman to a kangaroo court.

I know the answer to that, but just asking.

then let's not hear anyone complain when we want Julian Assange eg, and one of our allies refusing to extradite him.

Who cares anyhow, all these International Agreements and Laws were made to be broken.

I wonder if was a Hispanic Student in Italy, or an AA from a poor area in Chicago eg, would the reaction to this case have been the same?

I have no idea if she is guilty or not. Only she knows at this point.

But to make it because 'she is an All American Girl' and to attack the judicial system of another allied nation which, btw is ever bit as good as ours, and in a whole lot of cases, better, sure explains why we are viewed around the world the way we are.

We don't extradite people to face double jeopardy. And that's what Italy is doing here. She had her day in court and she won. She is back home now. That's the end of it.

Compared to other western European countries, they are near the bottom in the protection of human rights -- as seen in their record with the European Court of Human Rights (an appeals court that Amanda and Raffaele will be able to apply to.)

And this case is a good example.

Among other things, they flagrantly denied the two students the right to the presumption of innocence. The Court of Cassation ordered the second appeals court to use the "Judicial truths" that the burglar, Rudy Guede, stipulated to in his own "fast track" trial -- which was like a no-contest plea in the US. Amanda and Raffaele couldn't participate in that trial, and their attorneys weren't allowed to question Guede in their own trial -- but his statement (a handwritten statement that he proved unable to read -- so the prosecutor did it for him) was entered into evidence at their trial and the Judges there were ordered to use it against the students.

Would you care more about Amanda Knox if she were a hispanic student or an AA student from Chicago? Apparently you would.

With regard to our extradition agreement, I think it should be null and void. The legislation approving Guede's fast-track trial, and the decisions as to how its "stipulations" could be used against other defendants in separate trials, substantially changed Italy's justice system in a way that the US couldn't have anticipated.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jan/27/european-court-human-rights-judgments

Of Western European nations, Greece and Italy had the largest number of adverse rulings, at 69 and 32 respectively

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CP_Italy_ENG.pdf

Italy seems to have a somewhat troublesome legal system.

that.

She'd be a prisoner of America, unable to travel, though, if the courts don't reverse that idiotic decision.

I don't think she's a fair-haired girl but I don't believe she murdered anyone. But that's just my opinion. I think Berlusconi wanted and needed a Big, Salacious Distraction, and he got one...and then, when the tide started to turn against HIM in a big way, he, through his minions, pointed to Amanda Knox and cried "See? See how screwed up the Italian judicial system is? SEE?"

He's an opportunist of the first order!

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2011/1005/Berlusconi-allies-use-Amanda-Knox-case-to-lambast-Italy-s-judicial-system

Knox and her boyfriend (on their first date, no less) returned to her apartment to discover an unknown (to them) assailant raping her roommate. They decide to join in and the rape became a bloody torture fest, resulting in the death of the roommate. The assailant has been arrested and convicted, but the prosecutor still wants Knox, despite her being found not guilty in a freakish court proceeding.

Please read Douglas Preston's book "The Monster of Florence" in which this same prosecutor charged various persons of serial murder based solely on the visions of a psychic. It reveals the prosecutor's methods of "investigation" and the nightmarish workings of Italy's justice system. (He consulted the same psychic in the Knox case)

of the Italian judiciary.

I'll never believe she did it and I think the Italian forensic people were enormously inventive!

that, combined with her book, convinced me.

I used to live in Italy; knew many carabinieri and other officials well. They're ... flexible in some regards. It's the nature of the culture.

Same place as the ridiculous Italian judiciary - straight out of thin air.

I didn't read her book, just the report and also came away convinced she's innocent.

I feel badly for Sollecito. He's definitely caught in the wrong place for justice and I fear is going to pay big time.

Both of them can still appeal a conviction to the European Court of Human Rights, but he would be doing that from a prison cell. And he's in this position because for 7 years he's refused to lie about Amanda. He's a real hero in my book, with tremendous strength of character.

evidence that Massei didn't allow in his trial -- then you have a very lopsided view of the case.

Judge Hellman appointed independent forensics experts, both faculty at the University of Rome, who said there was no reliable DNA evidence connecting either student to the murder. (And it had already been determined that neither of them left any handprints, shoe prints, or any other physical evidence at the scene.)

And then during the second appeal, Judge Nencini ordered additional testing of Raffaele's kitchen knife, which proved that a previously untested speck of DNA belonged to Amanda, not Meredith. So that additional testing also supported the students' innocence.

The reason the Nencini court found the students' guilty was because the high court basically ordered them to. In his own separate fast-track trial, Guede had agreed to a set of stipulations to get his reduced sentence. Those stipulations stated that he was only present at the murder but others did the deed. And he named Amanda and Raffaele. The high court ordered those unchallenged but now certified "Judicial Truths" to be used in the case against the two students.

In other words, from the outset, they were allowed no presumption of innocence.

glossing over, is that while certain pieces of forensic evidence are equivocal, other direct and circumstantial evidence is not.

As I indicated previously on the thread the most instructive document in this entire case is the report of the first jury.

that jury did not convict amanda knox on the forensics. they convicted her on the other direct and circumstantial evidence that pointed to her involvement in the murder and the subsequent cover up.

and that's why someone like Alan Dershowitz indicated that there was more than enough evidence to convict her.

here's an exercise for you......throw out all the contested forensic evidence. throw it out entirely. is there still enough evidence to convict Amanda Knox of murder?

Yes......and that's why her PR firm clung so desperately to the OJ defense when it comes to the forensic evidence.

If you have only read the Massei verdict, then you have no basis for saying it is "the most instructive document in this entire case." The Hellman verdict explains how the Massei court got it wrong.

What evidence other than the forensic evidence are you saying should convict her?

There is no evidence that places her at the scene other than the testimony of the heroin addict who said he watched her OUTSIDE the building for several hours. And got his days mixed up.

There was no murder confession -- but both of her middle of the night statements were ruled inadmissible.

And there was no evidence that Amanda had any bad feeling toward Meredith, or knew Guede other than as a passing acquaintance at a party. (Meredith knew Guede however -- he was a pal of Meredith's boyfriend.)

So what are you referring to?

Please don't tell me that you think Amanda shouldn't have been caught kissing Raffaele or buying underwear after the murder.

Last edited Fri Mar 27, 2015, 09:08 AM - Edit history (1)

in this case.

Let me know when you've read it.

And yes---I've already read Hellman, and the annulment of Hellman.

And I ended up in the same place you did.

However, I can't help but feel this is just another distraction by the Italian government to direct people's attention away from the very real issues that have arisen from the imperialist austerity of the EU. Unfortunately - she's easy pickings.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Takes peoples' eyes off of their hospitals closing and the garbage piling up in the street.

trust one scintilla of any physical evidence that would support a conviction. And what physical evidence is there? Her DNA mixed with Meredith's blood? Shouldn't Amanda's DNA be all over the apartment? And it was. But her DNA wasn't found in Meredith's room. Shouldn't it have been? Or did that make believe cleanup with the mop and bleach erase her DNA?

Amanda was strange, scared and in a foreign country knowing that she had been smoking pot that night. Right-wingers would call her a slut. That doesn't make her a murderer.

The so-called physical evidence would be thrown out in any court in the U.S. due to contamination. Again, have you watched that video?

I posted it on another thread that I started.

This video is only 4 minutes and careful viewing will tell you all that you need to know about "the evidence."

Beeb3 has a more dispassionate look---

And there is longer video unedited somewhere on the web which I have also seen.

That evidence collection was a joke and you know it. That evidence would be thrown out in virtually any trial in the U.S. due to contamination.

Amanda was convicted because she was a sexually free young woman...and rather strange, at that. She was turned into an evil, promiscuous girl while the young woman who was murdered was also sexually active...in fact, sexually active with the guy growing weed downstairs. Both normal young women enjoying their lives.

One young woman murdered by Rudy Guede.

And one young woman's life destroyed by Italian "justice."

BBC documentary.

And having read the Massei report--in Italian and English, mind you, I think on a retrial she will be convicted on the cell phone evidence.

that proved that one could - indeed - climb into Ms. Kercher's room, while the prosecution was claiming it was impossible.

I'm sure the thief and murderer Rudy Guede had a bit of practice in that regard.

It's the cellphone evidence, though, that will reconvict if it goes back to the courts.

Haven't seen that.

They detail the cellphone activity of Amanda, Rafael, and Meredith, and how the cellphone evidence was part of the coverup. I would go to the oldest, and start from there.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C344/

43 wounds to Meredith Kercher. Those didn't happen from one person, and the forensic evidence from that crime wasn't cleaned up by one person.

Pretty thin imo. Rudy did it imo.

is that it is produced by people advocating for Amanda Knox.

The internet seems divided up between people who are 100% sure that she did it and people who are 100% sure that she didn't. I've seen a few things from either side, and I'm leaning towards "guilty", but I don't think anyone is ever going to know for sure.

With no voice overs. It was even more damning, if possible.

Let's just put it this way: the crime scene investigators used their shoe covers as if they were primarily for protection of their shoes, instead of the crime scene. The whole collection of evidence was a farce.

is whether they followed the case in the US media or in the international media. The former are all sure that she's innocent and that the case is a farce, the latter are all sure that she's guilty and the only reason there's any controversy is because she is young, attractive, and relatively privileged.

I don't know all the details of the case. From what I've seen, reading from "both sides", I'm leaning towards guilty. I don't think anyone will ever know for sure. But to say there is "no evidence" just isn't accurate.

And I certainly don't believe videos put out by the Knox PR people. I don't blame her family for doing it, I would probably do the same thing. But it's obviously not credible or impartial.

Did you know that everything that the real murderer (Rude Guede) stipulated to in order to get a fast track trial and reduced sentence is then considered FACT in the Knox and Sollecito trial?

Once the high court approved of the plea bargain, all "facts" leading to his sentencing are regarded as fact in any future trials...including trials of other individuals who had no legal representation and no ability to challenge these so-called facts in Ruede's trial.

Furthermore, Ruede would never have to testify again.

This goes against the basic right of any individual to face and challenge one's accuser.

IF for no other reason, this will be why the European Court of Appeals will overturn this decision. Basically, Knox and Sollecito went into court facing this: It has already been proven that Rude Guede was at the crime scene. He says you committed the murder. Now, it is a fact that there were three people at the crime scene, and he says you killed Meredith. Your job is to prove it wasn't you."

Again, the ONLY physical evidence against Sollecito was on a bra clasp that was kicked around a bedroom for weeks in an unsecured crime scene. DNA of SEVERAL other men was also found on the bra clasp. Either Meredith was even more promiscuous that Knox, or the bra clasp suffered serious contamination on the scene, the police station or the lab. That information did not come out at trial, because the expert witness testifying to the fact of Sollecito's DNA did not also tell the court that the DNA of several other men were also on the bra clasp. Wouldn't you agree that that would be relevant and possibly exculpatory evidence to Sollecito? And the defense was unable to test the bra clasp, or they would have brought forth this evidence in trial.

There was absolutely no damning DNA evidence against Knox. None. You will read of her DNA mixed with Meredith's (true) and you might read of her blood mixed with Meredith, but that is not true. People seem to confuse DNA and blood, which as you probably know, are not the same thing. It would be quite strange if Knox's DNA was not all over the house and mixed with Meredith's DNA and the other young women's DNA.

I didn't follow this case for the first couple of years; I assumed "foxy knoxy" must have done it, since she was scene with a mop and bleach, etc, etc. None of that made it into the trial record, because it's not true.

Mostly, I started following the case because I became fascinated with the fact that a modern day country could have such a medieval court system.

But, then, again, we are pretty medieval, too. We still have the death penalty.

Not a lot of fun. And based on my experiences, when I first heard about this case, I was fully prepared to believe that this was just an Italian legal farce.

But the more I read about it, the less I believed that.

I'm not informed enough to debate the details of the DNA evidence. I don't know about DNA contamination, I have to trust experts on that, and suffice it to say that there are experts saying different things. It's not a simple case. It's a complicated one, made more complicated by the fact that the police messed some things up.

We do know that Amanda and her boyfriend changed their stories numerous times, including implicating a totally innocent man. To this day they don't have a credible alibi, and I personally don't believe anything they say. That doesn't mean they killed anyone, but it means that they're not telling the whole truth.

What I find most interesting is the parallel press narratives. In Italy and the UK, this is all about Amanda the evil seductress. In the US, it's all about the evil rogue prosecutor and the backwards Italian justice system. And on both sides of the pond, the public is so utterly convinced of the version they've been told.

Anyway, if she is found guilty, and Italy presses for extradition, the US will be in a tough spot. There's really no grounds for denying extradition -- "we don't like your legal system" is not an excuse for violating treaty obligations. On the other hand, it's gonna be really unpopular if they do extradite her. Adding to the complications is the fact that the victim's family is going to be pushing for extradition, so the UK government might get involved. So that's gonna be a mess.

Like the defendant not being able to face the accused in an unrelated trial that ends up leading to your conviction. "Judicial truths." Scary.

Furthermore, Italy has the worst track record in the whole of the European Union for cases being overturned in the European Supreme Court. I do think that their reputation is going to come into play, as well, if an extradition request goes to our state department. I'm quite confident that there will be no extradition until after the European Court hears the case. Perhaps you share my opinion about that?

I also believe that Amanda lied, but not because she killed anyone. She was young and very naive having arrived in a strange country just a few weeks prior. I have lived in another country, and I try to imagine what it would be like to find myself caught up in a murder case. You don't know anyone who can help you. You're scared. I also think she was smoking pot and scared she was going to be caught and sent back to the U.S. Cannibis has been "decriminalized in Italy, but it's still not legal. Whatever that means....

And I would imagine that you do know "how" and "why" Amanda implicated the bar owner, Patrick Lumbada? (sp?) She was not the one who brought up his name. "See you later" on her cell phone became "So, you were going to meet with him later that evening? Why? Did he kill Meredith?" And so on.

Besides, there is no logical reason why she wouldn't have implicated Rudy Guede as the lone killer if she knew he was there.

This is definitely one of the most unusual cases I've ever followed. No taped interviews with Amanda although they were supposed to be taped. The cops accidentally fried Sollecito's computer. The inept evidence collectors. You have to admit that as fiction, it would seem far fetched. LOL

Nice talking to you. I appreciate civility.

Some final thoughts.

First, I don't have any certainty at all that she's guilty, just my relatively uninformed opinion. I could very easily be totally wrong. However, as I posted upthread, I've read accounts of the case by informed and impartial observers, and the closest I could find to a consensus is that the case is pretty strong. For example, Alan Dershowitz (who I don't like, but he sure knows his criminal law) has stated that with the same evidence, in the US she would almost certainly have been found guilty. Some American journalists posted in Italy have made similar statements. These are the closest I could find to some middle ground between the mainstream US press, and the mainstream UK/Italy press.

As far as the court case and extradition. First, if the case is as weak as you are saying, I think there's a good chance that the Italian Supreme Court will find her innocent. That will avoid all this.

But if not, the only prediction I would make is that any extradition or non-extradition will not be based on justice, but on politics. I don't believe that there are any grounds to deny extradition based on the judicial proceedings. If this weren't a high-profile case, there would be no question about extradition. If Italy doesn't ask for extradition, it will be because they don't want to have an international incident. If they do and the US denies it, it will be for political reasons. Either way, it will be a PR victory, not a legal one.


One last thing. What this case reminds of, more than anything else, is (oddly) the Lance Armstrong case. There again, the entire US media and public were sure that he was being unfairly attacked, that it was a rogue prosecutor, that the system was a kangaroo court, that it was anti-Americanism and jealousy from Europeans, that there was "no evidence", etc. I remember this because I tried to discuss this, both on and off DU, before the latest report came out.

On the other hand, within the cycling community, it is not an exaggeration to say that 95% of what came out of the USADA report had been common knowledge for many years. I'm not even "in the community", and even I knew about it. Nothing in the report surprised me, I could almost have written it. I remember telling people, well before the report, not only is Armstrong a doper, he is a leader of it, he forced other people to dope or leave the team, he had the best doping doctor on contract, and his whole success is due to having the best organized doping program.

And then, when it came out, there was this spectacle of the whole media acting shocked, even though if even one American journalist had had the guts to go against the mainstream (and expose him/herself to the wrath of the Armstrong PR/legal machine) and do a little digging, they would have known all this.

With the Knox case, again, there are all the same charges, the same discrepancy between US and foreign media, the same eerie certainty in the US this is all about nothing, the same PR offensive, when certain credible voices like Dershowitz and others tell a very different story. It rings a bell for me.

Journalists in the U.K. and Italy have also veered toward Knox's and Solecitto's side.

Abroad and at home.

The police constantly made this big deal in the trials that she seemed "cold" when discussing the murder of her friend. And the tabloids also focused in on her more reserved demeanor. One British paper referred to her as "an ice maiden."

They couldn't understand why she wasnt more hysterical and emotional that her friend was just slaughtered.

But we see this in the US too. We watch high profile cases and we seem to question if a defendant didn't cry enough or question their courtroom demeanor. It's a bad way to base guilt and innocence. But we all do it anyway.

For example, Michael Dunn, the "loud rap music self-defense" guy, after he got done shooting, went back to a hotel room and ordered pizza and didn't even call the police. That's a little odd.

On the evening of 5 November, Knox went to the police station with Sollecito. She later acknowledged doing stretches including a split while in a waiting room, but directly contradicted an accusation that she had done cartwheels, as Napoleoni told the trial.[87][91][92][93] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher

Other bizarre behavior occurred in those days, too, and not the type of behavior you'd expect from someone whose friend was just murdered.

but, yeah, that would seem bizarre to some folks.

Although, I'm not so sure that behavior would be considered bizarre here, since our culture appears to expect very little from teens and young adults, these days.

Ffs too much tv sleuthy stuff for me going on here.

I think I remember Alan Dershowitz saying that in the US, based on the evidence, she would have been found guilty and already be serving a life sentence.

enough evidence to convict.

I've actually had some dealings with Italian bureaucracy, and based on them I was very prepared to believe that this was all about a backwards legal system and crazy prosecutor and bloodthirsty press. Then I read a little more about it, and even though there might be something to that, there's also a huge amount of bias in the US press reporting on the case.

I haven't read enough to be sure of anything or even have a strongly held opinion, but like I said, I'm leaning guilty, and it's definitely not the "railroading based on zero evidence" story that the Knox PR people are selling.

If anything, any inefficiency/incompetence of the police and judicial system worked in her favor, not against her.

wer e 26 separate splashes and spots of blood within and without the Bronco? The defense was smart enough to hire Henry Lee who focused on two equivocal spots......thus the jury simply forgot about the 24 other samples and specimens. The defense team also used this to get the jury to dismiss the blood evidence on the leaves the gloves the sock and within the house.

by focusing on a couple of equivocal pieces of forensic evidence the defense team also got the jury to completely not consider the circumstantial evidence which undoubtedly tied OJ to the crime.

you have the same strategy here only here it's being played out in public opinion by a PR firm. but if you read the report of the first jury.......you'll note that Knox was convicted primarily not on forensic evidence, because the jury was smart enough to realize that with the vast amount of forensic cover up that Knox and Sollecito performed lots of evidence would be equivocal. The jury believed her guilty because of the web of direct and circumstantial evidence that happened after the murder tied her to the crime......her movements her conflicting alibis the emails to cell phone calls.....

if you really want to know why she got convicted read the report of the first jury.......Knox did an extremely effective job of covering up the forensic evidence that tied her directly to the crime.....and her defense including primarily the PR firmmade hay with the equivocal pieces that she left. but what the vast majority of Knox supporters haven't been able to address is the report of that first jury that relies not on the equivocal forensic evidence but on the web of deceit and lies and circumstance that is completely inexplicable afterwards. it is the evidence of the cover up thatpoints back to the crime and that's why if she stands trial again she's going to be convicted again.