• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Amanda Knox Be Extradited to Prison in Italy?

Should Amanda Knox Be Extradited to Prison in Italy?

  • Yes, in accordance with the US-Italy extradition treaty.

    Votes: 18 33.3%

  • Yes, she should be imprisoned somewhere, but maybe in the US.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, Americans shouldn't be extradited to foreign nations even if they're guilty.

    Votes: 6 11.1%

  • No, she isn't guilty.

    Votes: 30 55.6%
  • Total voters
    54
NoC_T said:
Your servant, madam.

And the clarification I requested?
Click to expand...

"Don't we all have enough enemies at home without looking beyond our shores to invent some?"
Acquiring enemies along the way in life is a bit of an inevitability. We can all unintentionally confront something in someone that is rooted in sentimentality as opposed to reason and their lack of a sound defense results in your classification as an enemy. Sometimes we play a larger role in the acquisition of those enemies. Sometimes we knowingly confront or offend, demean or judge thereby accumulating a longer list enemies then had we chosen to tolerate and accept, understand and withhold judgment.

I have, admittedly, strayed from the thread topic.
 
opendebate said:
"Don't we all have enough enemies at home without looking beyond our shores to invent some?"
Acquiring enemies along the way in life is a bit of an inevitability. We can all unintentionally confront something in someone that is rooted in sentimentality as opposed to reason and their lack of a sound defense results in your classification as an enemy. Sometimes we play a larger role in the acquisition of those enemies. Sometimes we knowingly confront or offend, demean or judge thereby accumulating a longer list enemies then had we chosen to tolerate and accept, understand and withhold judgment.

I have, admittedly, strayed from the thread topic.
Click to expand...
This is about the feminazi stuff, isn't it?
 
Wiggen said:
Anything - anything - printed in that anti-American fish wrap known as the Guardian is automatically discounted by anybody who knows anything about the political leanings of that rag.
Click to expand...

Actually, the current editorial position of the Guardian is that she is innocent. Its really only the mail, mirror and its ilk that hold a guilty view.They have a very good interview with her on the site.
 
Wiggen said:
Anything - anything - printed in that anti-American fish wrap known as the Guardian is automatically discounted by anybody who knows anything about the political leanings of that rag.
Click to expand...

It's a review of John Follain who writes for the Sunday Times Book and not the Guardian. Follain sat through the entire trial and has been through all 10,000 pages of evidence.
 
Knox was not badly treated by Italian Authorities and was not questioned for any unreasonable length of time.


Many in the US are now seemingly convinced that Knox was coerced by police into false statements, and that the Italian court processes have been a travesty of justice. Yet there seems very little in the way of hard evidence that bears this out.

This much appears undisputed: that Knox – roughly an hour into her questioning – admitted being in the house when Meredith died, and accused her Congolese boss at the bar where she worked, Patrick Lumumba, of killing Meredith. She alleged he was alone with Meredith as she was sitting in the kitchen and heard a single scream.

Much later that evening, she produced a long, garbled note that appeared to be expanding her options, albeit contradictory ones. She said she was “confused” but that she stood by “events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik [sic]” although they now seemed “more unreal to me than what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele’s house”. She said that “everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith’s death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.” The latter part of that sentence – “the best truth that I have been able to think” – bears consideration.

Numerous Italian witnesses, from a large number of police staff to Knox’s interpreter, testified that Knox was properly treated during her questioning. Mr Lumumba was arrested and held for two weeks, before a customer at the bar provided a definitive alibi and he was released.

We must, of course, bear in mind that Knox was relatively immature and no doubt intimidated by the situation. But the prosecution case is not one to be lightly dismissed: as the Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz put it, the factors that led to Knox’s initial conviction included an admission that she was at the crime scene, her false accusation of an innocent man, an inconsistent alibi and evidence of her DNA on the alleged murder weapon. Those things would not be dismissed as negligible, either in the UK or the US.

Read more: How The UK Sees Amanda Knox - Business Insider
Click to expand...

Knox was not questioned for "hours". She had turned up with Sollecito at the police station, not as a suspect, but as a witness, (she said she had come because she "did not want to be alone"). Witnesses don't call for lawyers, nor is there any legal duty to supply her with one.

From approximately 11.30pm to 1.30 am, (two hours), she was questioned as a WITNESS.

When Sollecito withdrew his alibi, (that Knox had been with him all of the night of the murder), the police told Knox, who panicked and suddenly blamed Diya Lumumba. Prior to her naming him, Mr Lumumba was not on the police radar. More importantly, while implicating Mr Lumumba in her "evidence", Knox also put herself at the scene of the crime. However by blaming Diya Lumumba she sucessfully moved the focus of the police investigation away from her and her boyfriend.

Her statement was typed in both English and Italian and Knox signed it. Now that she was a suspect, (out of her own mouth), the police asked her is she wanted a lawyer and Knox declined.

Far from keeping quiet, as any sensible suspect should, Knox then asked for a pen and paper and in her own words, "spontaneously" confirmed in writing that Mr Lumumba was Meredith's killer, while Knox cowered in the bathroom, covering her ears to block out Meredith's screams.

Knox accounted for her change of story, on the grounds that it was because of the persistence of the questioning which had made her imagine what could have happened. In this earlier account, she had described returning home to Via della Pergola, in the company of Patrick Lumumba, on the evening of November 1, 2007, after 9pm. She had described many things which she now realized she had imagined, including Meredith having had sex and being killed, while Knox held her own ears closed so as not to hear Meredith’s screams.

Most of the supporters of Knox usually use supporting arguments built around Knox's own uncorroborated, or even self-conflicting, evidence - for instance, that she had been "interrogated for hours". In so doing, they assist Knox is perpetuating her lies so often that they begin to believe them.
 
Last edited:
Ben K. said:
Actually, the current editorial position of the Guardian is that she is innocent. Its really only the mail, mirror and its ilk that hold a guilty view.They have a very good interview with her on the site.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info, Ben. I will check it out. The Mirror - I'm not sure my stomach can take that.
 
Ben K. said:
Actually, the current editorial position of the Guardian is that she is innocent. Its really only the mail, mirror and its ilk that hold a guilty view.
Click to expand...

Would you like to back that up by linking to the latest Guardian editorial that claims she's innocent? I just went through all the editorials back to the beginning of the year, and there's nothing to back up your claim. I don't believe the Guardian has taken a position on her guilt or innocence.
 
Andalublue said:
Would you like to back that up by linking to the latest Guardian editorial that claims she's innocent? I just went through all the editorials back to the beginning of the year, and there's nothing to back up your claim. I don't believe the Guardian has taken a position on her guilt or innocence.
Click to expand...

When trying to gauge a media outlets bias, you look at the number of sympathetic articles. The comments section of Guardian articles are rife with accusations of bias, ridiculous claims.being paid off by the "Knox media machine", etc. Obviously the editor themselves is not going to claim she is innocent, but if you understand how the news media works...
https://www.google.com/search?as_si...ox#q=amanda+knox+site:theguardian.com&start=0
 
Chatter said:
In terms of the computer forensics, they were analysed by specialists from the Italian Postal Police which is noted on pages 304-306 of the Massei Report.

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/TheMasseiReport.pdf

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/MasseiSummaryVersion1_5.pdf
Click to expand...

Glad you linked that (link worked earlier and not any more). I encourage everyone to read that even though it will take a few hours. It really is an exercise in trying to get a hypothetical, desired scenario to prevail over physical evidence. Countless forensic pathologists contradict/cast that doubt more than one knife was used and that the knife matched Solletico's dimensions. The doubt placed on the physical evidence is repeatedly ignored to fit the scenario.

As for PC evidence (the police wrecked his other one):

And so, the certainty that is reached is limited to the fact that, at most, starting from 00:58 on 2 November a certain use of the computer was made, where however its usage in the preceding hours can only be ascertained by a crystal ball.
Click to expand...

:roll:

So they finished Amelie after 9.00pm (we all know how stone cold killers/sexual deviants love Amelie and just put them in the mood for killing), they grab Solletico's huge kitchen knife, head over to Knox's, kill her with Guede, Clean up, Solletico returns home by midnight to use his computer but not to browse the web on how to clean up a crime scene.

:shock:
 
ChrisL said:
I don't know why would agree to extradite prisoners to another country that's justice system is sub par.
We should only ever agree to extradite people to another country if their judicial system is equal to and in agreement with our own IMO.
Click to expand...
 I don't think she got a fair trial, and I think the murder investigation itself was fraught with human error and contamination of evidence (what LITTLE circumstantial evidence they actually had), they had next to NO physical evidence as far as I've seen so far. The way they went about interrogating her I also have an issue with. Did she have an opportunity to have a lawyer present? There are a lot of issues with this case and with extraditing prisoners in general.
Click to expand...




If the USA doesn't extradite people to countries with which it has extradition treaties it can't expect those countries to extradite people to the USA.

IOW: the USA should do unto other countries the same way that it would like those countries to do to the USA.

If the USA doesn't send this lady to Italy, you can't blame Italy if it treats the USA the same way.

"What goes around, comes around.", "You reap what you sow" and etc.
 
Ben K. said:
Glad you linked that (link worked earlier and not any more). I encourage everyone to read that even though it will take a few hours. It really is an exercise in trying to get a hypothetical, desired scenario to prevail over physical evidence. Countless forensic pathologists contradict/cast that doubt more than one knife was used and that the knife matched Solletico's dimensions. The doubt placed on the physical evidence is repeatedly ignored to fit the scenario.

As for PC evidence (the police wrecked his other one):




:roll:

So they finished Amelie after 9.00pm (we all know how stone cold killers/sexual deviants love Amelie and just put them in the mood for killing), they grab Solletico's huge kitchen knife, head over to Knox's, kill her with Guede, Clean up, Solletico returns home by midnight to use his computer but not to browse the web on how to clean up a crime scene
Click to expand...

The Italian Communications Police (page 4 of the Summary below) had already examined the computer and found evidence that the film and computer had not been used on the night in question during the hours it was claimed and was not accessed until 5.32am. Whilst in terms of DNA there was some DNA left despite the fact there was an overpowering smell of bleach and Knox had been seen that morning by a shopkeeper at his shop near the cottage, during a time when she claimed to have been in bed at her boyfriends, this was after claiming earlier that she was at the cottage and then changing her mind.

A summary of the report can be found here -

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/MasseiSummaryVersion1_5.pdf

Massei Report Summary (Page 4) said:
The last human activities on Sollecito's computer were at 9:10pm. Analysis of the hard drive by the Communications Police concluded that there was no further human interaction with the computer until 5:32am the following morning.A defence expert noted a very brief (4 seconds) access to Apple iTunes at 00:58am: the court accepted that this could have been a human interaction with the computer, but that it was after the time when the murder was believed to have taken place.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Chatter said:
The Italian Communications Police (page 4 of the Summary below) had already examined the computer and found evidence that the film and computer had not been used on the night in question during the hours it was claimed and was not accessed until 5.32am. Whilst in terms of DNA there was some DNA left despite the fact there was an overpowering smell of bleach and Knox had been seen that morning by a shopkeeper at his shop near the cottage, during a time when she claimed to have been in bed at her boyfriends, this was after claiming earlier that she was at the cottage and then changing her mind.

A summary of the report can be found here -

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/MasseiSummaryVersion1_5.pdf
Click to expand...

I quoted from the massei report. The conputer was accessed at 1am. The prosecution are unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt it wasnt used between 9 and 1.

Regardless, no food was found in Merediths duodenum (her last meal was at 6) indicating she was killed at around 9.

The shopkeeper originally stated he had not seen Knox that day. A year later he said he had.

Again, the DNA evidence is weak as it does not exist in the bedroom aside from the contaminated bra strap.

The prosecutions reasoning that Amanda carried a large kitchen nice for defence is laughable. The dimensions of the knife used that night are in heavy doubt anyway (see the Massei Report).
 
Chatter said:
Knox was not badly treated by Italian Authorities and was not questioned for any unreasonable length of time.




Knox was not questioned for "hours". She had turned up with Sollecito at the police station, not as a suspect, but as a witness, (she said she had come because she "did not want to be alone"). Witnesses don't call for lawyers, nor is there any legal duty to supply her with one.

From approximately 11.30pm to 1.30 am, (two hours), she was questioned as a WITNESS.

When Sollecito withdrew his alibi, (that Knox had been with him all of the night of the murder), the police told Knox, who panicked and suddenly blamed Diya Lumumba. Prior to her naming him, Mr Lumumba was not on the police radar. More importantly, while implicating Mr Lumumba in her "evidence", Knox also put herself at the scene of the crime. However by blaming Diya Lumumba she sucessfully moved the focus of the police investigation away from her and her boyfriend.

Her statement was typed in both English and Italian and Knox signed it. Now that she was a suspect, (out of her own mouth), the police asked her is she wanted a lawyer and Knox declined.

Far from keeping quiet, as any sensible suspect should, Knox then asked for a pen and paper and in her own words, "spontaneously" confirmed in writing that Mr Lumumba was Meredith's killer, while Knox cowered in the bathroom, covering her ears to block out Meredith's screams.

Knox accounted for her change of story, on the grounds that it was because of the persistence of the questioning which had made her imagine what could have happened. In this earlier account, she had described returning home to Via della Pergola, in the company of Patrick Lumumba, on the evening of November 1, 2007, after 9pm. She had described many things which she now realized she had imagined, including Meredith having had sex and being killed, while Knox held her own ears closed so as not to hear Meredith’s screams.

Most of the supporters of Knox usually use supporting arguments built around Knox's own uncorroborated, or even self-conflicting, evidence - for instance, that she had been "interrogated for hours". In so doing, they assist Knox is perpetuating her lies so often that they begin to believe them.
Click to expand...

You do not question a witness until 1.30am, starting at 11.30 after leabing her eaiting for hours. If you are questioning a witness you do not lie about what others said, and you certainly don't say they have physical evidence that she was there when they certainly didn't at the time.
 
Ben K. said:
When trying to gauge a media outlets bias, you look at the number of sympathetic articles. The comments section of Guardian articles are rife with accusations of bias, ridiculous claims.being paid off by the "Knox media machine", etc. Obviously the editor themselves is not going to claim she is innocent, but if you understand how the news media works...
https://www.google.com/search?as_si...ox#q=amanda+knox+site:theguardian.com&start=0
Click to expand...

Having a couple of decades of experience of working in the media has given me a bit of an insight into how things work, and how to be able to distinguish between opinions expressed in a newspaper, and the editorial position of that newspaper.

"When trying to gauge a media outlets (sic) bias..." is not what you were doing in your previous post. You were quite specific. You said: "the current editorial position of the Guardian is that she is innocent". I merely pointed out that there's no evidence to back up the claim that The Guardian's editorial position is that she is innocent. I don't believe that is The Guardian's editorial position at all.

As far as, "Obviously the editor themselves is not going to claim she is innocent", why the hell not? The newspaper has taken positions on countless court cases in the past, and will do so in the future, I've no doubt. Why would they be loath to comment on this particular case?
 
Andalublue said:
Having a couple of decades of experience of working in the media has given me a bit of an insight into how things work, and how to be able to distinguish between opinions expressed in a newspaper, and the editorial position of that newspaper.

"When trying to gauge a media outlets (sic) bias..." is not what you were doing in your previous post. You were quite specific. You said: "the current editorial position of the Guardian is that she is innocent". I merely pointed out that there's no evidence to back up the claim that The Guardian's editorial position is that she is innocent. I don't believe that is The Guardian's editorial position at all.

As far as, "Obviously the editor themselves is not going to claim she is innocent", why the hell not? The newspaper has taken positions on countless court cases in the past, and will do so in the future, I've no doubt. Why would they be loath to comment on this particular case?
Click to expand...

You must be fairly naive then.

If you publish opinion pieces predominantly sympathetic to the accused and a sympathetic interview, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the papers sympathy.
 
Ben K. said:
You must be fairly naive then.

If you publish opinion pieces predominantly sympathetic to the accused and a sympathetic interview, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the papers sympathy.
Click to expand...

I think it would be naive to claim that The Guardian had a clear editorial policy on the matter having never published an editorial on the matter and having published just 2 opinion articles (Nick Richardson's on Jan 30 - clearly seeing room for innocence and guilt; and Andrew Gumbel's on Jan 31 - pro-innocence). The longest piece they have published on the subject is Simon Hattenstone's Feb 8 interview with Knox. It's a sizeable piece of work, is not unsympathetic to Knox, but certainly doesn't pretend to exonerate her. I really don't see where you're getting this idea from. Your Google search mainly linked to The Guardian's news reports.
 
shrubnose said:
If the USA doesn't extradite people to countries with which it has extradition treaties it can't expect those countries to extradite people to the USA.

IOW: the USA should do unto other countries the same way that it would like those countries to do to the USA.

If the USA doesn't send this lady to Italy, you can't blame Italy if it treats the USA the same way.

"What goes around, comes around.", "You reap what you sow" and etc.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of instances where other countries have refused to extradite prisoners to the United States. Besides, it was a kangaroo court and a ridiculous circus of a trial. I have yet see any evidence besides circumstantial and suspicions. We probably shouldn't have such deals with countries who's justice systems don't align with our own.
 
shrubnose said:
If the USA doesn't extradite people to countries with which it has extradition treaties it can't expect those countries to extradite people to the USA.

IOW: the USA should do unto other countries the same way that it would like those countries to do to the USA.

If the USA doesn't send this lady to Italy, you can't blame Italy if it treats the USA the same way.

"What goes around, comes around.", "You reap what you sow" and etc.
Click to expand...

The Euros already refuse to extradite to the US for death penalty cases because they don't have the death penalty. In the US we don't permit double jeopardy, a principle the Italians seem to have violated. Your reciprocity argument actually works against extradition in this case.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
The Euros already refuse to extradite to the US for death penalty cases because they don't have the death penalty.
Click to expand...
That is enshrined in the extradition treaty.

In the US we don't permit double jeopardy, a principle the Italians seem to have violated. Your reciprocity argument actually works against extradition in this case.
Click to expand...
Appeals, mistrials and retrials are commonplace in all jurisdictions, including the US. They do not necessarily imply double jeopardy. This is clearly not a case of DJ, and I don't believe anyone on the Knox team are claiming that it is. Also, double jeopardy is not mentioned in the US-Italy extradition treaty, unlike the death penalty.
 
Andalublue said:
That is enshrined in the extradition treaty.

Appeals, mistrials and retrials are commonplace in all jurisdictions, including the US. They do not necessarily imply double jeopardy. This is clearly not a case of DJ, and I don't believe anyone on the Knox team are claiming that it is. Also, double jeopardy is not mentioned in the US-Italy extradition treaty, unlike the death penalty.
Click to expand...

One of the Knox lawyers raised the DJ question in a television interview. And it will be tough to claim DJ isn't involved since she was acquitted by the appeals court.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
One of the Knox lawyers raised the DJ question in a television interview. And it will be tough to claim DJ isn't involved since she was acquitted by the appeals court.:peace
Click to expand...

Not quite. The appeals court of Italy decision is not final until approved by the Court of Cassation. They did not do it, but over-ruled that judge in the end, but not before she was released and returned to the states. Thus, it was not actually overturned, nor was there double jeopardy.
 
Chatter said:
In terms of the computer forensics, they were analysed by specialists from the Italian Postal Police which is noted on pages 304-306 of the Massei Report.

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/TheMasseiReport.pdf

http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/MasseiSummaryVersion1_5.pdf
Click to expand...

I want to thank you for these resources. Being able to go directly to the transcipts of the proceedings gave me a much better understanding of the whole case. There has been so much that has been said on both sides, that when you just go to these documents, you get the answer. For example, the statement always made that the police had abused her during hours of interrogation...well, right there near the beginning you see Amanda and all of Meredith's friends were right there at the police department together waiting there turn to be questioned...and it was really not that long compared to what has been stated. That is what caught me, if she was so tired, but had slept until 10am in the morning as she said...why tired? Or is that all the more reason to believe she had indeed been up all night, and doing what?

Also, the friends of Meredith in the document you gave the link to from the trial, state that in the police department lobby, they were all solemn...except for Amanda and her boyfriend. They were kissing, playing, laughing....all this while Meredith was now in the morgue.....In fact...one of the girls testifys that she asked out loud where Meredith might be (where did they take her body)...and Amanda looked up....they said....and she said..."Probably in a wardrobe with a blanket over her head."

I will continue reading, but after that....I think I can believe she was involved in the murder, and should be sent back.

Again, thank you for these links.
 
SayMyName said:
Not quite. The appeals court of Italy decision is not final until approved by the Court of Cassation. They did not do it, but over-ruled that judge in the end, but not before she was released and returned to the states. Thus, it was not actually overturned, nor was there double jeopardy.
Click to expand...

We shall see. The translation of the Italian appeals court verdict that I saw used the words "acquitted" and "not guilty." Under US law, once those words are in play there's no going back.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
One of the Knox lawyers raised the DJ question in a television interview. And it will be tough to claim DJ isn't involved since she was acquitted by the appeals court.:peace
Click to expand...

She was acquitted by an appeals court, whose verdict needed ratifying by the higher court to be effective. The higher court threw out the acquittal. All a part of the same process, so no DJ. And as I pointed out, the extradition treaty makes no mention of DJ being grounds for a refusal to extradite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom