This is wrong. Amanda will certainly be extradited to Italy.
But first Italy will have to come here to present a convincing case in front of an American judge who will be hearing something probably called "the Amanda Knox appeal against extradition to Italy hearing". Then she will finally get to have this case heard in front of a real court that follows laws and not feelings. That requires facts and proof and not wild illogical speculation.
It will be interesting as to how long it will take for this judge to toss the Italian contingent out on its ear? (I guess one day) I wonder if he will laugh or if he will toss the Italians in the slammer in contempt for bringing such complete nonsense into a real court of law. I have no doubt that the judge will then deny the Italians their ridiculous request for extradition. Not because of double jeopardy but because they bring a case which never should have made it past a honest preliminary hearing.
I want to comment on Yummi/Mac points about Hellmann. Yes, he did say that the prosecutor and police did nothing wrong. That is what makes him a lying incompetent corrupt player as well. He tried his best to save some Italian face and money...even though he understood quite well that he was acting as a foolish liar. Are there any honest Italians? Where are they? Where are the protests against the ISC for sending back to trial a 60 year old pedophile? Zanetti was the only correct one...all we know is that MK is dead. Why would that be a illegal statement in Italy Yummi? Is it against the law to tell the truth in Italy? Oh...never mind....dumb question.
This is not actually true. The standard for extradition is quite low. If there's an extradition treaty, the court will simply look at whether the convicted person is extraditable. If they make that finding, it's up to the Secretary of State to decide to extradite the person. Of course, Italy first has to request the extradition, and it's not a guarantee that they will. I can think of several reasons not do so.
The standard for extradition is pretty low:
"These requirements are whether a valid treaty exists, whether the crime is one covered by the treaty, whether there is reason to believe that the accused is the person sought, and there is probable cause to believe the accused committed the crime. See 18 U.S.C. § 3184 (1994)."
The only issue would be the element of probable cause, which again is a pretty low standard as well.
Also:
Efforts to accommodate a treaty partner requesting extradition, and to do so in an expeditious fashion, can lead to conflicts between the requested state's extradition procedures and its general criminal laws and constitutional provisions, which may require higher levels of proof or greater attention to individual rights than are conducive to rapid extradition processes. In the United States well-developed criminal jurisprudence59 requires that an individual normally be accorded such minimal procedures as a demonstration of probable cause before incarceration, the opportunity for bail during the pendency of the proceedings, and a speedy judicial resolution of the charges. These requirements may complicate the extradition process, but foreign policy considerations make expedition and simplicity important.
Unfortunately, it may be the individual's rights that are sacrificed to political expediency.
JUSTICE DENIED? THE ADJUDICATION OF EXTRADITION APPLICATIONS
Ann Powers Texas International Law Journal, 37 Tex. Int'l L.J. 277
