An Italian court has reversed the ruling of an earlier appellate court that found Amanda Knox not guilty in the murder of her roommate Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy. The latest court actually handed down a longer sentence against Knox who has remained in Seattle, Washington with her family. The case has drawn attention to a number of flaws in the Italian legal system and I have serious reservations over this ruling. I believe that there is evidence that Knox committed the crime but the evidence is highly circumstantial and much of the crime scene was contaminated by poor police work.
This is the fourth verdict in the sensational murder case. The earlier appeals jury overturned the convictions of Knox and Sollecito four years before that ruling. While it has shocked many, it was a victory for the rule of law given the lack of evidence and serious mistakes of police in the course of the investigation. We have previously discussed the problems in the physical evidence and false statements made in the case against the couple. We also discussed the ludicrous slander charges made against the parents.
The defamation claim stems from her accusing her former boss in a bar where she worked, Patrick Lumumba, in testimony. Later she said that the police pressured her into accusing Lumumba. The use of defamation to charge people for such testimony (considered privileged in the U.S.) is a terrible practice.
What is clear after this case is that the police investigators are virtually “libel proof” in light of their numerous and mind boggling mistakes. I fear great sympathy for the parents of Kircher. There was a foundation to suspect both Knox and Sollecito, whose testimony changed in fundamental ways and retained serious gaps. However, the police so bungled this case, the threads of evidence left ample doubt. The prosecutors relied on open speculation based on highly questionable forensic evidence such as Sollecito’s DNA on the bra strap. The evidence against Knox was even weaker. None of this dispels suspicions of the couple or their contemptful conduct before and after the murder. The earlier jury proved itself dispassionate and disciplined is separating speculation from fact in overturning the convictions.
The decision this week pushed aside those problems over the 2007 murder. It seemed to punish Knox for not appearing in Italy (which is her right) and gave her 28 years and six months in prison. Her former Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito and co-defendant was sentenced to 25 years. She was previously given 26 years.
Her lawyer Knox’s attorney, Carlo Dalla Vedova qouted Dante in response noting that Dante reserved the lower circle of hell for those who betrayed trust in reference to the police. It was a curious choice since many people in Italy view that particular circle as made for Knox.
Knox issued a statement that she was “frightened and saddened by this unjust verdict” and “expected better from the Italian justice system.” Her counsel will now appeal but her domestic counsel will not to be prepared for an extradition demand. However, while Presiding Judge Alessando Nencini ordered the 29-year-old Sollecito’s passport revoked, he made no requests for Knox’s movements to be limited, saying she was “justifiably abroad.”
As I discussed on ABC News, extradition may be hard to fight even though this could still take years before she is faced by re-incarceration. It must first go to the Italian Supreme Court, then to the Foreign Ministry for an extradition request, then to the State Department, and potentially to a court to review the basis for extradition. However, that review is limited. While this case looks like double jeopardy with four verdicts, the Italians are likely to argue that the system is simply different and that no final stage was reached in the process until it was heard by the Italian Supreme Court. The Italian system has multiple fact-based proceedings of this kind. It is a system that has been heavily criticized for its inefficiency and inconsistency. However, a court could easily conclude that this is not multiple convictions for the same offense. In the end, this will become a diplomatic issue and the U.S. (particularly when it is demanding the extradition of Edward Snowden) is unlikely to refuse a close ally. We demand more extraditions from other countries than we sent to other countries. The issue is not likely to be a close one for the Obama Administration in ordering the U.S. Attorney in Seattle to carry out an extradition demand from Italy. However, that could be years away since the Italian system moves at a glacial pace.
Two Italian judges and six jurors reached the decision after about six hours of deliberation.
In the bizarre world of American celebrity crimes, the store of the conviction ran with the apparently equally important story that Knox has been dropped from the CBS reality show “Big Brother.” Knox had hope to win the $500,000 grand prize by being the last person evicted on “Big Brother.” Somehow a conviction for murdering your last roommate is viewed as a bar on participation with the roommates on the reality show. A bit too real.
Darren,
I agree with you on most of what you’ve said…. But double jeopardy does not apply to two distinct government units such as a state trying a losing and then the Feds trying and getting a conviction ……
“There was no double jeopardy – there isn’t double jeopardy in the US on an appeal, a retrial in US law is not double jeopardy, a de novo appeal is a standard of review – the argument is utter bullshit”
Well, there you go again. You might not be aware of this but there IS a double jeopardy issue when the defendant is convicted, the government appeals and then subsequently re-tries her again. Even the tabloids know this here in the US. Again, I said that the US constitution prohibits trial after conviction. She was convicted and incarcerated. So tell me otherwise this is not the case. That is what a significant issue is likely to be decided if the extradition hearing is held.
“Refute mine first – the facts – you just quote tabloids”
You were the one making the initial statement of guilt so how about you do the same. I don’t know who your comment about the tabloids was directed to but you haven’t other than making generalities about reading translated Italian documents which you have not listed or provided a link to.
Further, you imply “maybe I’m a lawyer.” Well, are you a lawyer? And is using the word bullshit and insulting the opposition part of a litigation procedure before a judge or in a hearing?
As for me I know a bad and slanted investigation when I see one. Why? Because I was in Law Enforcement for 15 years and I have much experience and training. The process used in the Amanda Knox case was severaly lacking and the jurisprudence in the case resulting is also.
Amanda Knox and the Wages of American Imperialism
By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News
31 January 14
manda Knox and the international circus that surrounds her actually matter. It’s really about something bigger.
If it looks as though the case against Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is superficial at best, there’s a reason for that – it is. To say that because a speck of Knox’s DNA may have been present – on a knife, or a bra clasp, in the apartment in which she resided – is absurd on its face and constitutes no evidence of anything. In addition, neither prosecutor got anywhere near presenting a viable connection between the man convicted of murdering Meredith Kercher, Rudy Guede, and Knox or Sollecito. The purported collaboration was the stuff of a poorly written work of fiction. In fact there was no evidence of collaboration between Guede and Knox or Sollecito presented to the court at all.
There was no double jeopardy – there isn’t double jeopardy in the US on an appeal, a retrial in US law is not double jeopardy, a de novo appeal is a standard of review – the argument is utter bullshit
I don’t judge peoples innocents and guilt by their looks, NOT to mention I have no idea what she even looks like.
The only videos I watched were not of her, but were interviews of this
former FBI Agent. and the articles I read, most contained no photos of her.
You seem to fancy yourself some deep thinking expert, yet, assume others are only judging her innocence on her looks.
You have shared nothing as far as any real evidence that would point to her being guilty other than a bunch of assumptions as to how her roommate felt about her sexual exploits, and some BS about a window.
You seem to be the only one who has mentioned her looks, and you seem rather stuck on this.
Perhaps it is you who is judging her by this superficial criteria, and this is why you are accusing everybody who disagrees with you of this.
And so you can stop with the BS talk of my Seattle moniker, for your information, I don’t even live in the USA,
I live in Scandinavia, you know that area in Europe comprised of 3 countries, though, sometimes 4 countries depending on whom you ask.
Zipster
You are not convincing in your argument because you are lowering your credibility in the issue with resorting to generalizations in countering those who disargree with your position with insults and that we don’t know what we are talking about. I asked you what your sources of the translated documents, and you did not answer. Now you are characterizing JustAGirlfromseattle as being biased due to the association with the word Seattle in her username. So how can we establish your answers as based upon fact and without sensation when you are using the same tactic to make your point? All about tabloids? Well where is your supporting, credible source.
You claim the double jeopardy thing as being “bullshit” Well it might not be applicable in Italy but it is in the United States and I had made the statement as to that because there could be a possibility the US courts if presented with an extradition appeal by Amanda that she could use this as a defense because extradition is based upon a treaty between the United States and Italy and Reid v. Covert the Constitution pre-empts any treaty so that would be something to consider by the court.
Then you continue with “Obviously I’m the biased person here – I mean the dimple, the middle class whiteness, the nasty Italians – the tabloid journalists. The paid Knox flacks – how can I ignore them – they prove she was innocent – innocent – I tell you, too nice, couldn’t be guilty, my gut says so…..” You assume beause the Knox family had paid a PR firm, the fact that “tabloid” newspapers (who are among many publications and just because they print it doesn’t automatically prove everything they publish is wrong) And finally you conclude with “my gut tells me so” Surely a gut feeling is not the standard of proof in a homicide trial.
You further claim that since others use “tabloids” then their facts are incorrect. Yet, though you have proffered information on the Italian criminal justice system and a few facts that you proffer, you haven’t asserted a convincing argument as to her guilt, just that it is in your gut. Throwing expertise in the process does not establish the totality of the facts in the case. Justagirl and Mespo bring up the FBI agent. I have seen the interview with this agent and it is convincing that serious procedural errors and outright suppressing and hyping of evidence had occurred. The confession strategy that was used in the interrogation of Amanda would almost likely been suppressed by a trail court in the US (and most definately on appeal) due to the length and coercive techiniques used by the police. These errors in the prosecution are likely to be factored into an extradition hearing, should it come to that. If the case in the foreign court is discovered to be inherently lacking or motivated by politics, which has been suggested, it is less likely the judge will grant extradition.
Refute mine first – the facts – you just quote tabloids
Instead of trying to come up with NOT so clever insults, why don’t you refute the points I have made?
So far all you have done is mock my name, accuse me of watching CSI and reading tabloids.
Just a girl – yes I THINK she is guilty – not certain – it is what I think. You, by virtue of her chin dimple – are CERTAIN she is innocent.
Obviously I’m the biased person here – I mean the dimple, the middle class whiteness, the nasty Italians – the tabloid journalists. The paid Knox flacks – how can I ignore them – they prove she was innocent – innocent – I tell you, too nice, couldn’t be guilty, my gut says so…..
Th
I’ve seen a stabbing crime scene and the blood does go everywhere as the FBI SA says. I have no doubt that the perp would be covered in blood if an artery was cut and some residue would be present if it was only a deep puncture wound. There is no motive. Knox is hardly a femme fatale up for an orgy and the fabricated crime scene allegation seems without basis. The DNA linking Knox to the scene is less than convincing.
Ties do go to the runner but Knox beat the throw by three steps here.
There was a case against the West Memphis 3 as well….
Though, it was outlandish and insane…. YET, 3 innocent boys
were convicted of that crime.
Just a girl in Seattle – try not to be just a girl from Seattle …
Yet, for ALL the mistakes and uncertainty, you sure want to believe she is guilty.
and when there are that many mistakes and yet, in a HORRIFICALLY BLOODY crime scene, they do find DNA, fingerprint and footprints of ONE person, then LOGIC tells me that it was ONE person.
There does NOT need to be some ODD strange story of a multiple partner sex game gone wrong.
Darren, look with a fair mind.
I am not saying it is, to me, certain that Knox is guilty, but that there is evidence against her and Sollecito. To deny the evidence is to be willful obtuse, to argue that it is insufficient and sometimes flawed is sensible.
Now based on what I have read I think she probably was involved – am I certain – no. But there is a case against her and nothing that exonerates her. The US arguments that she must be innocent have been short on facts and frankly loaded with utter bullshit – like the double jeopardy argument – which is unadulterated horseshit – along with the argument that Italy has no double jeopardy law – hell I cited the relevant law.
The moment you hear the double jeopardy argument – treat that as a test – anyone who makes it does not know what they are talking about. Anyone who makes it is bullshitting or quoting the Knox PR team
Mespo,
YOU hit the nail on the head.
It seems logic has flown out the window on this case.
It is looking a lot like the West Memphis 3, where they just make up some WILD story and try to make the evidence fit their insane theory.
There is just NO LOGIC to it.
How about a former FBI agent???
Would his opinion be good enough????
He seems to say the same thing I brought up, when you accused me of watching too much CSI, and that is, a stabbing has a LOT of blood, there is NO WAY to be present at a stabbing of this nature, and walk out without leaving a footprint or fingerprint.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/the-former-fbi-agent-with-a-theory-he-thinks-could-free-amanda-knox-6524549.html
So says Steve Moore, a retired FBI agent with 25 years’ experience who has investigated more gruesome murders than he’d care to remember. “Blood initially erupts from a throat wound,” he explains. “The killer cannot escape it, and then you cannot clean it off you. When the killer changes his clothes, as we saw in the OJ Simpson case, he gets blood over the room he changes in. There are blood trails. You cannot just scrub it off you, your clothes, or your shoes. Blood is God’s way of identifying the man with the knife.”
Looking back at the conviction last December of Amanda Knox, from Seattle, and her new Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito for the frenzied group murder of Meredith, there were obvious and startling holes in the prosecution case.
——————————————-
The problem Mespo is how much was the investigation compromised? To many mistakes and there can be no certainty
Zipster:
Well, the more I read the less convinced I am about her guilt. Perugia is full of country bumpkins and it appears that fact compromised the investigation. Postal police don’t do it for me and finding evidence 46 days after the initial crime scene investigation is more than a little suspect. I think it was highly publicized crime meets inept investigators meets kooky prosecutor meets incredibly naive middle-class American girl. There’s no evidence to suspect this girl of anything except her own words and frankly that reads so incongruous as to be a child-like reaction to stress.
I want a mulligan.
Zipster:
Maybe you are a lawyer I do not know. Where can we find these translated raw materials from the case? You say that you have the answers on this case and not to let sensation or generalizations come into making an informed decision here. But then you make similar types of claim in denouncing people who disagree with the court’s findings: e.g.
“Seattleites and most Americans made up their minds early, and tend to “neener-neener” with fingers in ears when they hear anything that points to guilt on Konx’s part – based on the theory that a good looking middle class white American girl couldn’t be guilty”
So how is the boldfaced statement is proffered by yourself? That is, that Amanda’s appearance is driving Seattle and American’s opinon that she couldn’t be guilty?