• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part Seven: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

Status
Not open for further replies.
crescent said:
She is protected by the U.S. Constitution. Under double jeopardy, she could not have been tried the third time here. She still has that right, the failure of a foreign government to recognize that right will probably be enough to prevent extradition.
Click to expand...

I agree. And, this may be sufficient grounds to deny extradition by her rights as an American citizen under the "double jeopardy" clause. And, Italy will just have to eat it.

~Dr. Imago
 
My sister who is a lawyer and consequently uninterested in this case ("criminal law is dismal"), has said to me that there is judicial truth and external reality. The court case is it's own little universe and the only facts are those presented to and accepted by the court. One of the problems here is that essentially unless the argument was presented in the first court it is difficult to present new evidence subsequently. The ISC was restrictive in allowing arguments. In common law jurisdictions the fact that the prosecution expert failed to follow protocol would have been interpreted in the defendants favour. Here good faith is assumed so the defence had to prove contamination etc. I don't think I am doing her explanation justice. Essentially unless you get it right at the beginning you are always disadvantaged.

Anyway, really can not think this is anything other than a scandalous miscarriage of justice. The saddest thing is that the structural faults that allowed this to occur will go unaddressed.

As said above it will be interesting to see what sort of convoluted logic is needed to justify the decision given the lack of evidence.

I think this makes it more likely the ECHR case will proceed.
 
lionking said:
She wasn't tried a third time, it was the third stage of the process. Double jeopardy doesn't apply.
Click to expand...

She was set free by the Italian government. This was a separate re-trial. Double jeopardy applies here. FWIW, IANAL.

~Dr. Imagp
 
GreyFox said:
I'm sure the city of Seatle will just hand her over without a fight...Not.

This is what just might get Americans to wake up and pay attention to what this third world country is up to.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm sure the City of Seattle will suspend all other activities to fight this. :rolleyes:
 
js202 said:
Of course, this sentence will most certainly be upheld by the ISC. Not sure of the future of appeals in Italy. Not sure an Italian would really know.

I stand by my opinion - this case represents special circumstances. Easily as special as those that led the US Government to allow the Marine Corps to try the American pilot from the Cavelese incident at home, rather than sending him to Italy.
Click to expand...

Really kind of stupid for the Italians to turn this into a potential international incident. The case is hardly worth the trouble.

Looking back, the ISC easily could have ended the thing and isolated the issue to Perugia. No one would have cared in the long run.

But now we've got this weird situation where the Italian government is aggressively going after an innocent US citizen (and one of its own) . . . for what reason? Diplomatically, this is a very odd situation. They have to realize that the process is now going to be looked at by people outside of Italy, and the process isn't pretty. I guess we get to see where it goes now.
 
anglolawyer said:
Even I am off the fence on this one. They have no chance in the ISC but will have to appeal there before going to the ECHR, Raffaele, at least, being incarcerated meanwhile most probably.

The defence teams should have been changed after they lost in Cassazione and MUST be changed now. The case is not about politesse but sordid corruption. The strategy of non-confrontation has failed and it is time to call liars liars.
Click to expand...

I agree. In hindsight, one would prefer that the term Kafka-esque be reserved for matters where it is truly apt, and this is such a matter. In Sollecito, it is clear the Italians will cheerfully sacrifice one of their own in order to be "right".

No doubt Knox's attorneys did her a disservice this time by having respected a thing which deserved no respect, but I thought Bongiorno was appropriately confrontational, didn't you?
 
Mary_H said:
If they can present a case for putting her into custody.
Click to expand...

They don't have to. The court in Italy has already done that. Twice.

Do you think that when someone in the US is found guilty and sentenced to prison, there's a separate trial to determine whether the state has the right to put them in prison? Seriously?

Mary_H said:
To do that, they will have to clearly describe what they think her role in the crime was, and show the evidence they have to support their claim.
Click to expand...

They can just point to the trial transcripts. You know, the ones used to find her guilty.
 
crescent said:
She is protected by the U.S. Constitution. Under double jeopardy, she could not have been tried the third time here. She still has that right, the failure of a foreign government to recognize that right will probably be enough to prevent extradition.
Click to expand...

Depends a bit on the political climate of the US at the time it comes up. A conservative administration would view Amanda as a spoiled liberal who committed murder and should be put to death. They will not even look at the scientific evidence and will dismiss out of hand allegations of police and prosecutorial misconduct. They might even make a show of it with a perp walk.
 
acbytesla said:
The Boston bomber is bigger news. NBC has the Knox story second in the upper right hand corner.
Click to expand...
Early days, we’ll just have to wait for the translation of the judge’s motivation report, so 90 + days. I guess crisis management will start cranking up in America winning hearts and minds; then of course there is Raffaele he’ll have until the Italian Supreme Court ratify or reject the verdict.

Raffaele and Amanda are in very different places figuratively and literally.

ETA:- Gosh, Amanda will be on BBC2 – Newsnight apparently.
 
Last edited:
CoulsdonUK said:
Early days, we’ll just have to wait for the translation of the judge’s motivation report, so 90 + days. I guess crisis management will start cranking up in America winning hearts and minds; then of course there is Raffaele he’ll have until the Italian Supreme Court ratify or reject the verdict.

Raffaele and Amanda are in very different places figuratively and literally.
Click to expand...

This is so true. I expect 48 Hours, Dateline and 60 Minutes will revisit this. My guess, is that their books will see their sales ramp up as well. Their publishers might be secretly happy.
 
Kestrel said:
Depends a bit on the political climate of the US at the time it comes up. A conservative administration would view Amanda as a spoiled liberal who committed murder and should be put to death. They will not even look at the scientific evidence and will dismiss out of hand allegations of police and prosecutorial misconduct. They might even make a show of it with a perp walk.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that.

I think there's going to be some serious concern about an extradition process/treaty being misused to persecute a US citizen, and about the extent to which the US by treaty can agree to arrest and deport a US citizen in derogation of minimum Constitutional requirements and in the presence of some fairly exceptional circumstances (human rights violations, double jeopardy, political prosecution, etc.)

Could be very interesting for us onlookers, but I'm afraid terrible for the defendants.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
A court of law twice says she did. Their opinion kind of takes precedence over yours. :)
Click to expand...

What's 'skeptical' about harping on about how many times a court of law has decided something? We here know the facts as well, if not better, than the courts in question and are of a different mind. Today's verdict makes no difference at all. Their opinion certainly takes precedence in the sense of having the force of law. We understand that trite point, thanks. The question is whether their opinion is correct. I don't see you trying to defend it by reference to the facts and suspect that you don't have sufficient knowledge of them to form your own opinion - which doesn't make you much of a skeptic in mine.
 
Meredith Kercher would be ashamed at what has been done in her name.

It's a shockingly awful result, but not really surprising - why bother having a trial? Even if you have the crazy belief that they are guilty, I don't understand how you can claim that there is not reasonable doubt.
 
Diocletus said:
This is a sub-group of injustice, it's an intentional injustice, aka, a railroad job. It's an intentional injustice motivated by ass-covering and anti-Americanism. It's really a kind of political crime against Knox and Sollecito.
Click to expand...

Mostly I agree with your comment.

But then I look at the Sara Scazzi murder case... and I don't know what to think. The scapegoat in that case isn't American, though I imagine that, as in the AK/RS case, the asses involved need covering.

The Scazzi scapegoat is just such a similar target. There just seems to be weirdness in the air of the Italian police/judicial system that translates to BLAME THE YOUNG WOMAN. And once that air is breathed, all manner of railroading is conducted.

And the Italian public goes along with it. Maybe they have doubts here and there, but there's a fundamental tolerance for believing crazy tales about young women and justifying the judicial/investigative abuses employed to railroad them.

I dunno. Maybe men get it too. (I am assuming Raff is mostly viewed as Amanda's puppet,) Maybe it's just an unbelievably harsh message of social conformity. "If we don't approve of the way you conduct yourself, you will pay. We will invent a story and find evidence to prove you're evil."

Women's behavior is judged more harshly than men's. It may be true Amanda is guilty because of a cartwheel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom