Alan said what you said? Could you link me to that? In case you forgot, you said:
OJ trial was the correct verdict. it was actually his son that killed the 2.
Scroll up. I bolded where Alan explains why double jeopardy doesn't apply in this case. If you're too lazy for that, the reason he stated was her verdict was by a jury over facts. The acquittal was by a judge for procedural reasons.
He also says that she subjected herself to italian law by residing in italy.
I think you're totally wrong here, her sexuality saved her ass. If she wasn't hot nobody would give a shit if she hanged. I would say it's actually the opposite, it's unfair she is treated as well as she is just because of her appearance. If an average or worse, ugly girl was accused of this crime she'd probably be in prison and that would be that.
Since you are unable to navigate this forum, I will quote myself and link you to the article.I replied to only one of your posts not all of them. Now please link to where Alan said what you said in the post of yours that I replied to.
In case you forgot:
Double Jeopardy can only be used as an ARGUMENT to not extradite her. It is a US law that applies on US soil, she was not on US soil when she allegedly committed the crime, was charged, convicted, acquitted and convicted again so there is a very good argument that she should be extradited.
Add that to the fact that we want Snowden, and it will look ridiculous for us to complain about Russia not extraditing him when we won't extradite a girl who has already been convicted of murder TWICE, and you get a very high likelihood of extradition.
Read this:
"By ALAN DERSHOWITZ
March 27, 2013 8:19 p.m. ET
Italy's highest court may have begun a diplomatic and legal tug of war with the United States on Tuesday when it reversed the 2011 acquittal of Amanda Knox. Ms. Knox, you will recall, is the American former exchange student convicted by an Italian trial court in 2009 of murdering her British roommate, Meredith Kercher—but that conviction was overturned on appeal two years ago, and Ms. Knox returned from an Italian prison to the U.S.
The factors behind the initial conviction included an admission by Ms. Knox that she was at the crime scene in the northern Italian town of Perugia, plus her false accusation that a bartender had slit Kercher's throat. The case against her also included a questionable alibi and evidence of her DNA on the alleged murder weapon. In a bizarre ruling, the trial court held that Ms. Knox's admission could not be used against her, but that her false accusation could form the basis of a separate crime that the Italians call "calumny." The appeals court then threw out the DNA evidence (for technical forensic reasons) and acquitted Ms. Knox of the murder charges.
Now Italy's highest court has 90 days to explain its decision to reverse that acquittal. Whatever its reasoning, Italian law calls for the case to be reheard by a new appeals court, which can either affirm the conviction or order an acquittal. If the conviction is ultimately affirmed, the Italian government can petition the U.S. to extradite Ms. Knox to Italy to complete serving the 26-year prison term to which she was sentenced in 2009.
Ms. Knox would likely challenge any extradition request on the ground that she was already acquitted by the lower appellate court, so any subsequent conviction would constitute double jeopardy.
That is when the real legal complexities would kick in, because Italian and American law are quite different and both will be applicable in this transnational case involving a citizen of one country charged with killing a citizen of another country in yet a third country.
America's extradition treaty with Italy prohibits the U.S. from extraditing someone who has been "acquitted," which under American law generally means acquitted by a jury at trial. But Ms. Knox was acquitted by an appeals court after having been found guilty at trial. So would her circumstance constitute double jeopardy under American law?
That is uncertain because appellate courts in the U.S. don't retry cases and render acquittals (they judge whether lower courts made mistakes of law, not fact). Ms. Knox's own Italian lawyer has acknowledged that her appellate "acquittal" wouldn't constitute double jeopardy under Italian law since it wasn't a final judgment—it was subject to further appeal, which has now resulted in a reversal of the acquittal. This argument will probably carry considerable weight with U.S. authorities, likely yielding the conclusion that her extradition wouldn't violate the treaty. Still, a sympathetic U.S. State Department or judge might find that her appellate acquittal was final enough to preclude extradition on double-jeopardy grounds.
Italian courts could probably have avoided this complexity by requiring Ms. Knox to remain in Italy, perhaps subject to house arrest, until the completion of the appeals process. Instead, Italian authorities allowed her to return to the U.S.
It is now unlikely, according to her Italian lawyer, that she will return to Italy while legal proceedings play out over several years in appellate courts where her presence isn't required. Meanwhile, she will be selling a memoir in the U.S., where she is widely regarded as a wrongfully convicted victim of an unjust Italian legal system. In Italy and England, she is seen by many as a guilty and manipulative American.
The family of the victim may file suit against Ms. Knox, especially in light of the large advance she reportedly received for her book. There is no double-jeopardy bar to such a civil suit, which could be brought in the U.S. (where the money is), in Italy (where the crime was committed) or in England (where the victim's family lives and where the book will also be sold). All that is required for a civil suit to succeed is proof by a preponderance of the evidence, and American or British courts may well admit evidence in a civil case that the Italian courts excluded in the criminal one.
Over the next several years, then, we will likely see a major demonstration of transnational law—that is, law applied by the domestic legal system of one nation against citizens of other nations. Each of the three countries involved in this case will seek to do justice by applying its own distinct rules to litigants and victims from different countries.
Transnational law is distinct from international law, which is uniform and often applied by international bodies, such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. International law isn't generally applicable to domestic crimes committed by individual citizens of one nation against those of another.
As national borders become more porous, citizens more mobile, businesses more multinational and international courts more politicized, the trend toward the transnational application of laws will become more pronounced. This will increasingly expose U.S. citizens and businesses to the vagaries of foreign laws and procedures with which they may not be familiar, but that is a price to pay for the benefits of a shrinking world.
By becoming an exchange student in Italy, Ms. Knox subjected herself to Italian law. By coming back to America, she received the protection of the American extradition process. As for how all this will turn out, she is in uncharted territory.
Mr. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard. His latest book is "Trials of Zion" (Grand Central Publishing, 2010)."
Well that and her obvious innocence.
Personally I think we should tell Italy to fuck off and send us Sollecito or we Drone the Pope.
Since you are unable to navigate this forum, I will quote myself and link you to the article.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324789504578384871256488436
I'm not sure why you keep quoting what I said about knox' sexuality. My views are shared by anybody with a pair of eyes and common sense.
Seems like her sexuality has worked against her in Europe, where the tabloids call her Foxy Knoxy and compare her to Il Mostro. When I disagreed with you on this earlier, you retorted that Alan Dershowitz shared your opinion in that regard. So quit dodging and please link to where he said that it's her sexuality that's keeping her out of prison.
Scroll up. I bolded where Alan explains why double jeopardy doesn't apply in this case. If you're too lazy for that, the reason he stated was her verdict was by a jury over facts. The acquittal was by a judge for procedural reasons.
He also says that she subjected herself to italian law by residing in italy.
America's extradition treaty with Italy prohibits the U.S. from extraditing someone who has been "acquitted," which under American law generally means acquitted by a jury at trial. But Ms. Knox was acquitted by an appeals court after having been found guilty at trial. So would her circumstance constitute double jeopardy under American law?
That is uncertain because appellate courts in the U.S. don't retry cases and render acquittals (they judge whether lower courts made mistakes of law, not fact).
By becoming an exchange student in Italy, Ms. Knox subjected herself to Italian law. By coming back to America, she received the protection of the American extradition process. As for how all this will turn out, she is in uncharted territory.
That's why it would be healthier to stop focusing on her and consider Sollecito instead. He is neither an attractive woman nor a foreigner, and his 4 different versions of where he/they were that night contradict themselves multiple times as well as Knox's own multiple versions.Could you provide all the "Evidence" that being called "Foxy Knoxy" made her convicted? I'm waiting.
What makes you (and thousands others) a qualified expert on the Italian justice system? Can you present where the investigators made errors...based on facts....rather than echoing a rather general opinion "that the Italian justice system is flawed/antiquated" etc..it's just getting old...
And by the way...the American is better? Jodi Arias? OJ? Etc...etc..pretty much any trial I follow there seems to me like a farce also...
Although no country has a pure accusatorial or a pure inquisitorial system, common law countries use procedures inspired by the accusatorial tradition and civil law countries have a structure tending toward the inquisitorial tradition. In general, the accusatorial system seems to be more sensitive to the liberty of the citizen, while the inquisitorial system places more emphasis on ensuring the punishment of a guilty party. Italy is a typical civil law country and has a criminal process which is divided into three phases: the pre-instruction phase, the instruction phase comprising the investigation and collection of all the evidence, and the trial phase. This system concentrates the judicial and prosecutorial functions in the judge. In addition, the judge initiates the investigation and collects all the evidence. Moreover, the judge has complete control over the admissibility and evaluation of the evidence. No exclusionary rules such as the hearsay rule exist. Judges use their prudent judgment in deciding on the weight to be attributed to evidence which might otherwise be inadmissible. However, no more apparent injustice seems to be produced by the inquisitorial system than by the accusatorial system. Such elements as judicial initiative in calling witnesses could basily be accommodated within the existing accusatorial framework. However, major reforms such as abolition of the hearsay rule would necessitate a reevaluation of criminal procedure. The feasibility of such reforms in systems, which, unlike Italy, are basically jury systems, also needs to be considered. All reforms should be considered in the broad context of the purposes of the law of evidence.
If you had read what I had posted you'd know I never said she would definitely be extradited, I said I thought she would be. Dershowitz said the same thing, he's not sure but he thinks she will be.Re: Your bolded assertion above.
This is what Alan D said:
You're completely misrepresenting his remarks. He doesn't say extradition doesn't apply. He said it's "uncertain" if it does. Two grossly different things.
Edit: Not to put too fine a point it he also said this:
I.e. Dershowitz has in no way whatsoever made such an absolute statement as you claim. I.e., "It's not clear if extradition applies" =/= "I'm sure extradition doesn't apply".
Fern
That's why it would be healthier to stop focusing on her and consider Sollecito instead. He is neither an attractive woman nor a foreigner, and his 4 different versions of where he/they were that night contradict themselves multiple times as well as Knox's own multiple versions.
If you had read what I had posted you'd know I never said she would definitely be extradited,
-snip-
This just goes to show you how far being an attractive white woman will get you. I don't know if she's guilty, but it's very possible she is and it's been the case in the past that the american public holds the belief that attractive white women do not murder people. Fat, ugly, and minority women murder people.
Sollecito is marginalized, ignored, and sometimes even blamed for this whole case when if anybody is likely to be innocent, it's him. He's not white, he's a guy, and he's italian. Three strikes.
That said, he's an idiot for staying in italy.
This just goes to show you how far being an attractive white woman will get you. I don't know if she's guilty, but it's very possible she is and it's been the case in the past that the american public holds the belief that attractive white women do not murder people. Fat, ugly, and minority women murder people.
Sollecito is marginalized, ignored, and sometimes even blamed for this whole case when if anybody is likely to be innocent, it's him. He's not white, he's a guy, and he's italian. Three strikes.
That said, he's an idiot for staying in italy.
Since you lost your last argument, you switch to another. Too bad that one sucks also.
http://news.yahoo.com/us-likely-extradite-knox-italy-asks-000547631.html
""As popular as she is here and as pretty as she is here -- because that's what this is all about, if she was not an attractive woman we wouldn't have the group love-in -- she will be extradited if it's upheld," said Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz."
Could you provide all the "Evidence" that being called "Foxy Knoxy" made her convicted? I'm waiting.
You are really harping on the conflicting stories they have presented as evidence of guilt when there's plenty of circumstances that have been demonstrated to indicate that witness testimony is some of the most unreliable evidence possible and not a good basis for the determination of guilt.It goes very far only because that is how the American media in general framed the event. They personalized the trial from her point of view, very much focusing on her experience after she was put on trial. That way, people in the public started imagining themselves put on trial in a foreign land, etc. In this, her defense team did a really good job.
Sollecito is just as likely to be guilty as Knox. Their versions are equally contradictory, with the exception of her trying to frame an innocent man (who is one of the the forgotten victims of the trial).
P.s. It's very possible his defense told him failing to return would have aggravated his position. She went back home. He would have just been fleeing.
You are really harping on the conflicting stories they have presented as evidence of guilt when there's plenty of circumstances that have been demonstrated to indicate that witness testimony is some of the most unreliable evidence possible and not a good basis for the determination of guilt.
What you should really be focusing on is the actual physical evidence, or lack thereof. In fact, it really is the only thing that should even be looked at. As demonstrated by the "injustice in perugia" blog, there isn't a shred of credible evidence that puts either Knox Or Sollecito at the crime scene, while there is a plethora that indicates Guede did it, and did it alone. That's why this case is a joke: the prosecution (and anyone proclaiming their guilt) is focusing on ridiculous and unproven theories backed up by unreliable evidence, while ignoring much more reliable evidence because it doesn't fit their narrative.
Thoses kind of issues dont interest me generaly but in this case
she s likely guilty , it s just that the italian justice is inefficient
or who knows, corrupted.
The night her friend was stabbed 47 times she said that
she was at her boy friend basement, wich is quite possible
but it just happen that the knife that was used to kill the
young women was found exactly inside this same basement.
In the US she would likely have been convicted and jailed
for even more than 26 years.
The night her friend was stabbed 47 times she said that she was at her boy friend basement, wich is quite possible but it just happen that the knife that was used to kill the young women was found exactly inside this same basement.
SourceItalian forensic police expert Patrizia Stefanoni performed the DNA testing on the knife. When the knife was tested, Amanda's DNA was found on the handle. This was expected because Amanda often prepared meals at Raffaele's apartment. She used the knife for cooking.
A sample was taken from the knife blade and was tested for blood. The result was negative. There was no blood on the knife. This needs to be repeated,
THERE WAS NO BLOOD ON THE KNIFE.
What was left of the sample from the blade was tested for DNA.. The results were negative.There was no DNA on the blade. This is when all guidelines for testing DNA were thrown out the window. Stefanoni used a very new, unproven technique called low copy number DNA profiling.
Patrizia Stefanoni had neither the proper equipment nor the proper laboratory to perform low copy number DNA profiling, but she did it anyway. There are only a few such laboratories in the world. Her own lab was not even certified to perform ordinary DNA profiling at the time these tests were performed. Stefanoni performed tests that do not conform to any standard, anywhere.
Even with the low copy number method, Stefanoni was still not getting the desired result. The tests kept coming back "too low." She took even more drastic measures. The machine parameters were over-ridden. The machine parameters were pushed far past the level of reliability finally producing the result she needed. Keep in mind, the test was done in a lab using large amounts of Meredith's DNA. No negative controls were used. The alleged match to Merediths DNA is completely unreliable because the result was so infinitesimally small (less than 100 picograms, with a picogram being a trillionth of a gram, or 0.000000000001 gram). The procedures used to get the result Stefanoni needed were deeply flawed. The DNA found on the knife came from the lab. The knife had no DNA from Meredith Kercher on the blade when it arrived for testing. The DNA sample was so small that only one test could be performed. No additional testing will ever be available.
Keep in mind,
No blood was on the blade.
The knife doesn't match the wounds on Meredith.
The knife doesn't match the bloody imprint left on the bed.