Bliz Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 The new DNA evidence is hard to argue against. Knox DNA on the handle, and Kercher's on the blade. I agree that the first trial was botched and not handled very well, but if Sollecito has to do his time, Knox should also. Problem seems to be vastly different characterizations of the same evidence. You say this DNA evidence puts her DNA on the knife handle. They say yes. True. On a knife that could not possibly be the murder weapon due to size/nature of the wounds and other forensic evidence, and evidence that was contaminated through sloppy (at best) police work. Anyway, I don't see how she won't be extradited to Italy. If you look at the treaty she must certainly will be. How can we, as a country, demand that Snowden be sent back from Russia, but we won't send a convicted murderer back to Italy. These two things just could not possibly be more different. An entirely useless analogy. Snowden hasn't been tried anywhere and is seeking asylum in a foreign land and there's no doubt he did it. What does one have to do with the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 It's the US legal system which will have the final say. Assuming the final appeal in Italy fails (and it might not) there is bound to be a series of appeals in the US as well. If that process is exhausted and Knox is found guilty in Italy and there is no legal reason found by a US court to deny an appeal against and extradition request she should be sent back to Italy. That's really all I'm saying. It's FAR from clear that there would be any protection under the extradition treaty - a decision to deny a request would likely be a political one. That's what concerns me, not Knox herself but the principle of respecting these requests from other legal jurisdictions if they fall under a mutual treaty. It's not political. It's our Govt responsibility to protect it's citizens. That includes an examination of the case presented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 It's not political. It's our Govt responsibility to protect it's citizens. That includes an examination of the case presented.If you really believe that I don't know what to tell you. I can tell you for fact that cases here in the UK responding to requests for extradition, from the US for example, once they have gone through all court appeals are finally decided by a politician and I understand the system is the same in the US. If you think that decision is taken on solely legal grounds (which is how it should be) you have more faith in our elected representatives than I do. Here is one example of an extradition request for a UK citizen to be sent to the US to face trail and that request was denied by a UK politician on 'human rights' grounds. I think that's wrong and I can see it happening in this Knox case as well (I'm not saying these two cases are similar beyond the involvement of a politician in the final decision). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19957138 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Right. England decided to protect its citizen against what they felt was an injustice. I expect the US to do the same here. Im still waiting to here from people about evidence, proof, theories etc that somehow connect Know to the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Im still waiting to here from people about evidence, proof, theories etc that somehow connect Know to the crime. There is none. Their "best" evidence was a paring knife found in the drawer of Amanda's boyfriends kitchen. Supposedly Amanda's DNA was on the handle of the knife and Kercher's DNA was supposedly on the blade but was later refuted. So that is the BIG evidence. A paring knife in the boyfriends house with questionable DNA testing and a knife that was said couldn't have created the injuries to Kercher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 There is none. Their "best" evidence was a paring knife found in the drawer of Amanda's boyfriends kitchen. Supposedly Amanda's DNA was on the handle of the knife and Kercher's DNA was supposedly on the blade but was later refuted. So that is the BIG evidence. A paring knife in the boyfriends house with questionable DNA testing and a knife that was said couldn't have created the injuries to Kercher. You forgot the prosecutor's sex crazed American whore theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Right. England decided to protect its citizen against what they felt was an injustice. I expect the US to do the same here. Im still waiting to here from people about evidence, proof, theories etc that somehow connect Know to the crime. But it was not the UK justice system that decided there was injustice it was a politician bending before the wind of public opinion and media coverage who made the decision to deny the US request for extradition. As someone who has very little regard for our current political leaders (either side of the Atlantic) I find that very dangerous. If we (the public) are picking and choosing who we support for extradition or not based on what we know from the media with scant real information about the facts of the case thats not good for real justice in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Actually, the majority of muderers have behaviors that lead up to committing murder. They usually have a history escalating violent or stalker-ish behavior. It's rare for someone to have no other criminal history and then suddenly commit a pre-mediated murder. I don't know if thast is true. There are lots of first time murders in the klink and they aren't teanagers. Besides who is to say it's pre-mcdeditated. It could have been a crime of passion, or coersion, or just drug induced. All would still make her guilty of murder... To my mind their just isn't any evidence against Amanda once you drop the confession. In our legal system the confession would certainly be dropped... Even in Italy dropped the confession... they just didn't keep it dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 If we (the public) are picking and choosing who we support for extradition or not based on what we know from the media with scant real information about the facts of the case thats not good for real justice in my opinion. That's an arguement for the public to be uninformed and the legal system to be unaccountable.. Bottom line is Amanda Knox was aquited.. and most contries don't allow for a second bite at the apple once you've been found guilty. Your point is the aquital was a farse.. If that's true that is an argument against the conviction too which came under the same legal system... Today, for me, it's really not about the evidence. The fact she was aquited to my mind proves beyond a shaddow of a doubto that the evidence they have can not be beyond question. If you don't have conclusive evidence she's guilty, she goes free.. she should go free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 That's an arguement for the public to be uninformed and the legal system to be unaccountable.. No it's not, it's an argument that public opinion is a terrible way to decide who is innocent or guilty. Bottom line is Amanda Knox was aquited.. and most contries don't allow for a second bite at the apple once you've been found guilty. And then the prosecution appealled the acquittal and she was found guilty. Which whatever your view of the evidence or case against her is where we stand now. Subject to further appeal. The fact she was aquited to my mind proves beyond a shaddow of a doubto that the evidence they have can not be beyond question. If you don't have conclusive evidence she's guilty, she goes free.. she should go free. If you operated on that basis there would be a LOT less people in the US prison system that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 If you operated on that basis there would be a LOT less people in the US prison system that's for sure. We do operate on that basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 So does anyone actually think she did it? Or are we all just stuck yammering on about whether or not she should and will be extradited? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 If the knife ain't right, You can't extridite. -- J. Cochran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 If the knife ain't right, You can't extridite. -- J. Cochran If her phone was shut off that night, you MUST extradite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 We do operate on that basis. You think? Your telling me there is no one currently in prison in the US (or UK for that matter) were the evidence that convicted them was not totally conclusive and beyond doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 If her phone was shut off that night, you MUST extradite. So she's convicted of murder because she turned her phone off? Better get the cuffs on me, I turned mine off last night. I may have murdered someone. And my little rhyme was in jest since so many have brought up OJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 You think? Your telling me there is no one currently in prison in the US (or UK for that matter) were the evidence that convicted them was totally conclusive and beyond doubt. There probably are, but there isn't anyone in the US that appealed a conviction, was found not guilty, then appeal the not guilty. And if you ask those imprisoned, the are all innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 If her phone was shut off that night, you MUST extradite. Serious question- what does a turned off cell phone mean? How is that relevant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 So she's convicted of murder because she turned her phone off? Better get the cuffs on me, I turned mine off last night. I may have murdered someone. And my little rhyme was in jest since so many have brought up OJ. Oh, so was mine. <checking for head that was bitten off> I was just trying to keep the rhymes going. I'm all about this "trial" being behind her and the poor girl being allowed to try to live something resembling a normal life. Check my earlier posts. Serious question- what does a turned off cell phone mean? How is that relevant? I don't think it's relevant at all. Just wanted to keep the OJ-themed rhymes going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Oh, so was mine. <checking for head that was bitten off> I was just trying to keep the rhymes going. I'm all about this "trial" being behind her and the poor girl being allowed to try to live something resembling a normal life. Check my earlier posts. I don't think it's relevant at all. Just wanted to keep the OJ-themed rhymes going. Ah. My humor button was turned off. My bad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I'm glad I posted that portion of the treaty. That was helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 There probably are, but there isn't anyone in the US that appealed a conviction, was found not guilty, then appeal the not guilty. And if you ask those imprisoned, the are all innocent. I don't think there is anyone anywhere in the world who was found not guilty and appealed THAT verdict ....... :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Whatever you may think of the verdict right now she has been convicted of murder by an Italian court. Countries refusing to extradite people to countries because they don't like the verdict is a very very slippery slope. If the conviction stand up on final appeal and Italy request extradition the US should comply. First, that's not how this works. They have to present the request to the State Department, if they decide to honor it, then it goes to a federal court, if the Federal Court agrees with the evidence and the procedure, then she gets extradited, so what I am saying is basically fat chance in hell she gets extradited, I can't see any federal court agreeing with this. As far as the slippery slope, how about you (the EU) give us Roman Polansky first, you know, someone who actually DID commit a heinous crime and will will think about Knox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 As far as the slippery slope, how about you (the EU) give us Roman Polansky first, you know, someone who actually DID commit a heinous crime and will will think about Knox. That is exactly the problem I'm talking about. I TOTALLY agree Polansky should be sent back to the US, picking and choosing who and who does not get extradited to Countries with whom you have extradition treaties on anything other than strict legal grounds is what I have been arguing AGAINST the last few pages. I'm not saying either that there should not be an appeal process in the US but you also have to understand that appeals process is not about retrying the case and deciding if the guilty verdict is right or wrong it's about the legality of the appeal request. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 That is exactly the problem I'm talking about. I TOTALLY agree Polansky should be sent back to the US, picking and choosing who and who does not get extradited to Countries with whom you have extradition treaties on anything other than strict legal grounds is what I have been arguing AGAINST the last few pages. I'm not saying either that there should not be an appeal process in the US but you also have to understand that appeals process is not about retrying the case and deciding if the guilty verdict is right or wrong it's about the legality of the appeal request. Like I said before, the extradition treaty has to go through the US Federal court system. That is a part of the treaty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.