(American) Amanda Knox to face retrial (in Italy) for Meredith Kercher murder

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kaninchen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kaninchen

Guest
Here’s the Daily Telegraph on the subject.

I’m sure that I’m not the only Brit who watches the various European detective series on BBC4 and finds their judicial systems deeply mysterious but here’s a real life one - American, Amanda Knox, having been acquitted (on appeal) in Italy for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher, now finds herself in the situation where the Prosecution have appealed the appeal to the Italian Supreme Court and there’s to be a new trial.
 
I’ve been reading about the case with interest. Knox is an American citizen and is protected by double jeopardy laws, so it is unlikely that the US will comply with any requests to extradite her. I can’t imagine that she will return to Italy voluntarily.

If I were her I would avoid any international travel for a while.
 
KostyaJMJ said:
I’ve been reading about the case with interest. Knox is an American citizen and is protected by double jeopardy laws, so it is unlikely that the US will comply with any requests to extradite her. I can’t imagine that she will return to Italy voluntarily.

If I were her I would avoid any international travel for a while.
Click to expand...
She should also stop killing people. :rolleyes:
 
SamH said:
She should also stop killing people. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Well since she was aquitted in the appeals court, there were deep flaws found in the evidence presented by the prosecution, and she maintains her innocence, I think that it is unfair to state that she killed anyone. Whether she did or not may never truly be known and we should certainly not pretend to know or judge her for a crime she is yet to be convicted of.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
Well since she was aquitted in the appeals court, there were deep flaws found in the evidence presented by the prosecution, and she maintains her innocence, I think that it is unfair to state that she killed anyone. Whether she did or not may never truly be known and we should certainly not pretend to know or judge her for a crime she is yet to be convicted of.
Click to expand...
The lowe court said she was guilty, the appeals court has been found in error.
 
SamH said:
The lowe court said she was guilty, the appeals court has been found in error.
Click to expand...
Actually, no the appeals court was not found to be in error. The higher court simply said that a new trial was warranted. It did not say that the lower court was correct in the conviction.

She has not actually been convicted of a crime, and for the sake of charity, I am going to maintain that I believe her to be innocent until proven otherwise.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
Actually, no the appeals court was not found to be in error. The higher court simply said that a new trial was warranted. It did not say that the lower court was correct in the conviction…
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that and neither did the story. The higher court found the appeals court in error.
 
KostyaJMJ said:
I’ve been reading about the case with interest. Knox is an American citizen and is protected by double jeopardy laws, so it is unlikely that the US will comply with any requests to extradite her. I can’t imagine that she will return to Italy voluntarily.

If I were her I would avoid any international travel for a while.
Click to expand...
Double Jeopardy only protects American citizens while we’re on US soil. Doesn’t apply when we step foot in a foreign country.

I have read that she doesn’t plan to return for any trial but if she is found guilty, extradition would have to be arranged between Italy and the U.S.
 
SamH said:
I didn’t say that and neither did the story. The higher court found the appeals court in error.
Click to expand...
But if you read the whole article, the SC only makes decisions based on technical or procedural errors. They don’t look at evidence. So “overturning” the appeal does not mean that the appeals court was in error in its final decision, only that there was a technical error which opened the door for a retrial. They did not affirm the original guilty verdict, only allowed the whole thing to go back to the beginning and start over.
 
masondoggy said:
Double Jeopardy only protects American citizens while we’re on US soil. Doesn’t apply when we step foot in a foreign country.

I have read that she doesn’t plan to return for any trial but if she is found guilty, extradition would have to be arranged between Italy and the U.S.
Click to expand...
Extradition would be requested. The US does not have to grant the request. Undoubtedly her lawyers here would appeal any extradition request and it would end up in the hands of a US court.
 
masondoggy said:
Double Jeopardy only protects American citizens while we’re on US soil. Doesn’t apply when we step foot in a foreign country.

I have read that she doesn’t plan to return for any trial but if she is found guilty, extradition would have to be arranged between Italy and the U.S.
Click to expand...
Knox is back on US soil so it will be a US court that decides her fate.

It isn’t uncommon for Italy to refuse to extradite a citizen to the US if they may face the death penalty here. They are simply making sure that the rights of their citizens are not violated. The US court may do the same thing if they determine that Knox’s civil rights will be violated in Italy.
 
Corki said:
But if you read the whole article, the SC only makes decisions based on technical or procedural errors. They don’t look at evidence. So “overturning” the appeal does not mean that the appeals court was in error in its final decision, only that there was a technical error which opened the door for a retrial. They did not affirm the original guilty verdict, only allowed the whole thing to go back to the beginning and start over.
Click to expand...
Actually they reviewed the evidence that the appeals court allowed to be used in the appeal and said they errored. Specifically (technically?) the arguements over the DNA evidence shouldn’t have been allowed - the entire basis of Knox’s appeal.

Their errors had to be to the extreme given the fact that the high court very rarely overturns a not guilty verdict.

The attorney for her codefendent:
Sollecito’s attorney, Giulia Bongiorno acknowledged that perhaps the appeals court ruling had been “too generous” in ruling that the pair simply did not commit the crime, but was confident that Sollecito’s innocence would be affirmed.
Click to expand...
Read more: foxnews.com/world/2013/03/26/italy-highest-court-overturns-amanda-knox-acquittal-in-murder-case-orders-new/#ixzz2OfJVJjgi
Click to expand...
Even their own defense attorney knew it was a farce.
 
masondoggy said:
Double Jeopardy only protects American citizens while we’re on US soil. Doesn’t apply when we step foot in a foreign country.

I have read that she doesn’t plan to return for any trial but if she is found guilty, extradition would have to be arranged between Italy and the U.S.
Click to expand...
Most legal experts are saying that they believe that the US would refuse to extradite based on the American legal concept of double jeopardy.

This is not unprecedented in international law. Several countries that abolished the death penalty have refused to extradite criminals to the US because the people may face the death penalty in the US.
 
Corki said:
But if you read the whole article, the SC only makes decisions based on technical or procedural errors. They don’t look at evidence. So “overturning” the appeal does not mean that the appeals court was in error in its final decision, only that there was a technical error which opened the door for a retrial. They did not affirm the original guilty verdict, only allowed the whole thing to go back to the beginning and start over.
Click to expand...
Correct.
 
SamH said:
Actually they reviewed the evidence that the appeals court allowed to be used in the appeal and said they errored. Specifically (technically?) the arguements over the DNA evidence shouldn’t have been allowed - the entire basis of Knox’s appeal.

Their errors had to be to the extreme given the fact that the high court very rarely overturns a not guilty verdict.

The attorney for her codefendent:

Even their own defense attorney knew it was a farce.
Click to expand...
They did not review the evidence, they reviewed whether it should have been admitted or not and the judgement that admitted it. That does not mean that the evidence should not have been allowed or that it won’t be allowed in the new trial necessarily, it means that the reasoning for allowing it in the original appeal was incorrect and the trial needs to be redone. Basically, what the opinion appears to say and what I think the attorney was saying was that the appeals court should not have rendered a not guilty verdict, but should have overturned the conviction and ordered a new trial. This is no where near the same thing as the appeal being a farce or an affirmation of the original verdict.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
That does not mean that the evidence should not have been allowed or that it won’t be allowed in the new trial necessarily**, it means that the reasoning for allowing it in the original appeal was incorrect **and the trial needs to be redone.
Click to expand...
Source?
 
SamH said:
So you have no source?
Click to expand...
What is your source? We are reading the same news. The official written opinion has not been released yet and will not be for several weeks at least. However, if you understand the legal system, you can understand what happened.

I am just curious why some people are so quick to condemn this young woman as a murderer. Under our legal system you are innocent until proven guilty and she has not been. Furthermore, under our faith, only God knows someones heart. If she got away with/gets away with murder and does not repent, God will deal with her. I would rather err on the side of not condemning someone who has not been convicted of any crime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top