• 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!

Amanda Knox found guilty of murder again by Italian Court

PeteEU said:
Because of the US judicial system.



Then dont make extradition treaties with countries. My objection to extradition to the US is based on the pathetic US justice system and the very lopsided extradition treaties European countries have with the US. Now if my country or a country has an extradition treaty with the US, then I expect them to follow the law. I might not like the law, and might campaign against it and wanting it changed, but that does not mean the current law should not be followed.

The same goes for the US having to extradite to Europe. Chances are it wont happen simply because of the whole political process truimphing the legal process in the US on such cases, but like it or not, the US does have an extradition treaty with Italy and according to the law they should extradite her. Now that they most likely wont, just as they refused to extradite the CIA agents who committed crimes on Italian soil.. just shows yet again how arrogant and pathetic the US is towards its allies and international law in general.

I don't know if you could ever make a non-bigoted argument on America.
Click to expand...

Yet many of those could tries made extradition treaties with America. But your argument floods side as soon as it changes from America to Europe. European countries don't have to follow terms of extradition because America is stupid. But America has to follow terms of extradition despite serious concerns over a lopsided judicial system. It must demonstrates how pathetic and arrogant Europe is to its non-European allies.
 
Ikari said:
Yet many of those could tries made extradition treaties with America. But your argument floods side as soon as it changes from America to Europe. European countries don't have to follow terms of extradition because America is stupid. But America has to follow terms of extradition despite serious concerns over a lopsided judicial system. It must demonstrates how pathetic and arrogant Europe is to its non-European allies.
Click to expand...

That is not what I said. Let me try this again. Countries have to follow the treaties and agreements they make with each other. But that does not mean I or others like those agreements since in many people's view they are highly lopsided towards the US.. and that is pretty much any treaty out there. When Europe is forced to open up her markets to American companies, the US is not required to do the same. Stuff like that.

On the extradition front, the US has extradition treaties with many countries but not France (as far as I know). Now the US-UK extradition treaty is heavily lopsided despite the Tory government coming out with a supposed independent panel showing it is not.. but when you spend years fighting off the extradition of mentally handicapped and the only recourse is the court system.. then you know it is a problem. Another good example on upholding agreements.. Assange and Sweden. The European arrest warrant was never ever designed to be used in the way the Swedish prosecutor has done so, but it is legal, the UK has per the agreement followed the law and it forced Assange to fell to foreign soil. The key here is again... there is a treaty.. I dont like the fact that it is used in this way, and hell there are plenty on the UK right that dont like it, but that is how it is until the treaty is changed.

Now to Italy. They have a deal with the US. The US has several times refused to honour that deal, hence I suspect they wont honour this one either. Now there is still a treaty in place but it is pretty much worthless is it not? And I believe that treaty was originally put in place to get mafia people out of Italy for prosecution in the US. Good to know that Italian mafia families might be able to hide in Italy again eh? All because of a girl who is a convicted killer... and yes CIA operatives.

And that brings me to my original point. I dont like handing over people to the US because of the pathetic legal system there, but if my country has a treaty with another, then I damn well expect it to upheld that treaty despite me not liking it. If we cant uphold treaties between countries then where the hell are we heading? International treaties are the basis for our trade and movement.. throw them out of the window and you have anarchy.

So I expect the US to meet its treaty obligations and if met, hand over Amanda to her fate in Italy like any convicted criminal. Now if the US blocks the extradition, then it will have consequences for not only US - Italian relations but US - EU relations as there has been massive push back even in the UK against those agreements we have with the US on a number of issues. I doubt that one case can do much, but it is not just one case is it now. Of my head I can say that Denmark, Spain, Italy, Germany and France at least have serious doubt about treaties with the US.

We shall see.
 
PeteEU said:
That is not what I said. Let me try this again. Countries have to follow the treaties and agreements they make with each other. But that does not mean I or others like those agreements since in many people's view they are highly lopsided towards the US.. and that is pretty much any treaty out there. When Europe is forced to open up her markets to American companies, the US is not required to do the same. Stuff like that.

On the extradition front, the US has extradition treaties with many countries but not France (as far as I know). Now the US-UK extradition treaty is heavily lopsided despite the Tory government coming out with a supposed independent panel showing it is not.. but when you spend years fighting off the extradition of mentally handicapped and the only recourse is the court system.. then you know it is a problem. Another good example on upholding agreements.. Assange and Sweden. The European arrest warrant was never ever designed to be used in the way the Swedish prosecutor has done so, but it is legal, the UK has per the agreement followed the law and it forced Assange to fell to foreign soil. The key here is again... there is a treaty.. I dont like the fact that it is used in this way, and hell there are plenty on the UK right that dont like it, but that is how it is until the treaty is changed.

Now to Italy. They have a deal with the US. The US has several times refused to honour that deal, hence I suspect they wont honour this one either. Now there is still a treaty in place but it is pretty much worthless is it not? And I believe that treaty was originally put in place to get mafia people out of Italy for prosecution in the US. Good to know that Italian mafia families might be able to hide in Italy again eh? All because of a girl who is a convicted killer... and yes CIA operatives.

And that brings me to my original point. I dont like handing over people to the US because of the pathetic legal system there, but if my country has a treaty with another, then I damn well expect it to upheld that treaty despite me not liking it. If we cant uphold treaties between countries then where the hell are we heading? International treaties are the basis for our trade and movement.. throw them out of the window and you have anarchy.

So I expect the US to meet its treaty obligations and if met, hand over Amanda to her fate in Italy like any convicted criminal. Now if the US blocks the extradition, then it will have consequences for not only US - Italian relations but US - EU relations as there has been massive push back even in the UK against those agreements we have with the US on a number of issues. I doubt that one case can do much, but it is not just one case is it now. Of my head I can say that Denmark, Spain, Italy, Germany and France at least have serious doubt about treaties with the US.

We shall see.
Click to expand...

These treaties are already violated often. Some countries, such as Canada, won't extradite to the US if the accused faces the death penalty as Canada doesn't have the death penalty. They aren't alone, many will refuse extradition based on the individual laws or customs of the State.
 
Andalublue said:
He was. He was acquitted and released at exactly the same time as Knox. He was only rearrested the day before yesterday as he was, apparently, making his way to the Austrian border.
Click to expand...

He should have left earlier.
 
Moon said:
He should have left earlier.
Click to expand...

No doubt. I would have, but where to go? Had he chosen to follow Foxy Knoxy to Seattle, I'm in little doubt who would have been extradited first. Are you?
 
I've read that her teammates gave her the nickname (which sport I don't remember--soccer?).
 
Ikari said:
It was something the media came up with and thought they were all cute and cool about.
Click to expand...

Actually she used "Foxy Knoxy" and on her MySpace account.
 
Andalublue said:
No, I can't give you a summary of the evidence. I'm sure that info must be available somewhere, but that's not really the issue. The issue is that this conviction has been handed down by the Court of Cassation, which is the highest court of last resort in the Italian criminal justice system. It comprises 5 senior judges and its decisions are not subject to jury decision. Those 5 learned judges must have been mindful of something more than the prosecutor's gut instinct.

It's been a pig's ear of a case from start to finish. That doesn't necessarily mean that the final outcome (we haven't reached that point yet, btw) will inevitably give the wrong verdict. I certainly think you can discount the idea that this has something to do with anti-Americanism - the US really isn't as unpopular in Europe as all of you here seem to believe you are - and do you really believe the highest criminal court in the land would perjure itself in order to deal a blow against the Yankees?

He was. He was acquitted and released at exactly the same time as Knox. He was only rearrested the day before yesterday as he was, apparently, making his way to the Austrian border.
Click to expand...

I feel sorry for him. I don't think he or Amanda had anything to do with the murder. I think it was that shady guy that Meredith took home from the bar. Now he is going to spend most of his life behind bars for a crime he didn't commit.

Of course this is just my opinion about his and Amanda's innocence, but I really don't believe they played a part in the murder of Meredith. It doesn't even make sense, the MO especially. Her and Amanda were roommates and seemingly got along fine. Suddenly Meredith meets this man, and they all go back to the apartment, and then the three decide to kill Meredith? It just doesn't add up at all in any way to me.
 
Andalublue said:
No doubt. I would have, but where to go? Had he chosen to follow Foxy Knoxy to Seattle, I'm in little doubt who would have been extradited first. Are you?
Click to expand...

It would be a political decision, so who knows.
 
Ikari said:
These treaties are already violated often. Some countries, such as Canada, won't extradite to the US if the accused faces the death penalty as Canada doesn't have the death penalty. They aren't alone, many will refuse extradition based on the individual laws or customs of the State.
Click to expand...

Err refusing to extradite because of the death penalty is standard part of all these treaties. Only way the US can get anyone is if they agree not to go for the death penalty.
 
PeteEU said:
Err refusing to extradite because of the death penalty is standard part of all these treaties. Only way the US can get anyone is if they agree not to go for the death penalty.
Click to expand...
Pete, are you Peter Schmeichel? He's Danish too. Or not 'too' if he's you, of course. Then it would be you're Danish. Still. You know what I mean.

Do you work for the organisation, Pete? Or are you just supportive of the great project?
 
PeteEU said:
Err refusing to extradite because of the death penalty is standard part of all these treaties. Only way the US can get anyone is if they agree not to go for the death penalty.
Click to expand...

That's also not true, but besides the point allowances are made for major law or custom. And it is part of these treaties indeed. I didn't say Canada had to extradite to us in cases involving the death penalty because they have a treaty with us. No, instead Canada has no death penalty and will not.extradite in capital cases as is their right as a sovereign country. Local custom and culture is accounted for in these treaties.
 
Andalublue said:
It was a nickname she adopted for herself while in Perugia.
Click to expand...

And popularised by the gutter press as if it says anything about her character. What was a nickname, self coined or not, to reference her footballing skills is translated into upfront salaciousness.
 
Last edited:
Ben K. said:
And popularised by the gutter press as if it says anything about her character. What was a nickname, self coined or not, to reference her footballing skills is translated into upfront salaciousness.
Click to expand...

Don't exaggerate. I'm not saying it's a complimentary nickname, but it's hardly a calumny. Are you forgetting that she's a convicted murderer? What does that say about her character?
 
Andalublue said:
Don't exaggerate. I'm not saying it's a complimentary nickname, but it's hardly a calumny. Are you forgetting that she's a convicted murderer? What does that say about her character?
Click to expand...

Exagerrate? It's Daily Mail fodder, surprised you'd buy into it.

And I'm confused by the premise that technically it's not double jeopardy what's happening now, yet she's a convicted murderer. Regardless, she wouldn't be the first person wrongfully convicted in history, so it doesn't say much.
 
Ikari said:
That's also not true, but besides the point allowances are made for major law or custom. And it is part of these treaties indeed. I didn't say Canada had to extradite to us in cases involving the death penalty because they have a treaty with us. No, instead Canada has no death penalty and will not.extradite in capital cases as is their right as a sovereign country. Local custom and culture is accounted for in these treaties.
Click to expand...

You do realize you agreed with me and said it was not true? You state that Canada has no death penalty will not extradite in capital cases as is their right as sovereign country... yea and it is not a capital case because the US agrees not to go down that road? :)
 
Amandi said:
I am by far no expert but it appears that actually our treaty with Itally specifically states that we wont extradite if the person is danger of facing double jeapardy:

Article 6:
http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/Italy International Extradition Treaty with the United States.pdf
Click to expand...
Good link!
Article 6 provides that extradition shall be denied when the person sought has been in
jeopardy in the requested State for the same offense.
Click to expand...
I think that seals this up pretty good.
Our extradition treaty with Italy has a double Jeopardy clause.
 
PeteEU said:
You do realize you agreed with me and said it was not true? You state that Canada has no death penalty will not extradite in capital cases as is their right as sovereign country... yea and it is not a capital case because the US agrees not to go down that road? :)
Click to expand...

No, I said it's not true that no country will extradite to us for death penalty cases. But that is besides the point. Extradition treaties do tend to have common exceptions from extradition, of which death penalty crimes are included. So of course Canada can deny extradition to the US for cases involving the death penalty. This has nothing to do with our current case other than to note the standard list of exceptions is not limited to the death penalty.
 
There was plenty of DNA evidence in that house linking Knox to the knife and scene and none of it was ever judged to have been cross contaminated by the Italian Courts. It was also shown by forensic experts that there were numerous people involved in the murder rather than just one individual.

It's not right to say there is

The Murder of Meredith Kercher

The Evidence - The Murder of Meredith Kercher

Knox initially confessed that she was in the house on the night of the murder and that she heard Miss Kercher scream, identifying a Congolese bar owner, Patrick Lumumba, as the assailant. She told the court during the trial that the confession was made under duress but then repeated the entire account in a five page memorandum the next morning. She later claimed Italian Authorities beat her, something which was strongly denied by everyone involved in the inquiry.

Lumumba was promptly arrested and spent two weeks in jail and Knox seemed quite happy for him to remain jail . It was only by chance that a Swiss businessman read about the case and came forward to say he had been talking to Lumumba in his bar on the night of the murder — offering him a rock-solid alibi. Lumumba has also always claimed Knox was the one behind the murder that night.

Knox then changed her story saying she was far away from the scene with her boyfriend at his place that night and that they watch the film Amelie on his lap top.

Sollecito could not back up Knox’s alibi on the night of the murder. Whilst she claimed she spent the evening with him, smoking marijuana, watching the French film Amelie and making love. Sollecito told police he could not remember if Knox was with him that evening or not.

Even assuming his memory was hazy because of the drugs, it seemed odd that a young man who had just embarked on a new relationship could not recall whether he had spent the night with his girlfriend or not.

Sollecito claimed he used his computer to download and watch cartoons and Amelie. But computer experts told the court that there was no activity on his laptop between 9.10pm on Nov 1, and 5.32am the next morning — the time frame in which the murder took place.

Knox and Sollecito turned off their mobile phones on the night of the murder, from around 8.40pm, and turned them back on at around 6am, inviting further suspicion.

A bedroom belonging to one of Miss Kercher’s Italian flatmates was ransacked on the night of the murder, with a window smashed with a rock. But police said the break-in was staged - broken glass from the window was found on top of clothes scattered on the floor, suggesting the window was broken after the contents of the room were messed up. Prosecutors accused Knox and her boyfriend of staging the break-in to make the killing look like a burglary that had turned into rape and murder.

Knox claimed that she slept in late the next morning but this was contradicted by a local shop keeper who clearly saw her very early next morning following Meredith's murder, when she came in to his shop allegedly to buy cleaning products such as bleach.

Why Amanda Knox's story just doesn't wash - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

Evidence against Amanda Knox makes conviction seem likely

Shopkeeper Says He Saw Knox After Murder - ABC News

Then there is the The 3am call to her mother which she denied making, her table lamp locked in the murder room, the different accounts of the locked door, the witness who saw her and her boyfriend overlooking the cottage on the murder night and numerous other such evidence such as the fact Amanda Knox made two statements to Meredith's friends that the police found suspicious because they contained details that Amanda Knox should not have known. Indeed Meredith's roommate Natalie Hayward and other friends of Meredith's in Perugia at the time such as Amy Frost and Robyn Carmel Butterworth have always claimed they believe Knox to be the murderer.

Amanda Knox Knew Details of the Crime She Shouldn't Have Known - The Murder of Meredith Kercher

Local News | Roommate testifies in Amanda Knox murder trial | Seattle Times Newspaper

Why I believe Knox killed my friend

Fellow student

Whilst Rudy Guede was sentenced to 30 years in prison for his part in the murder, but has had his sentence cut to 16 years and who is eligible for parole later this year has always maintained that it was Knox who was in fact the murderer, and it will be interesting to hear his views once he is released and has nothing to lose.

There are people in US Prisons serving life for murder on far less evidence than Knox and Knox has proved her self to be nothing more than a blatant liar in the past, even accusing a man she knew to be innocent. So cold is Knox, that I honestly think she would have quite happily have seen Patrick Lumumba serve a life sentence for something she knew he hadn't done, and her behaviour throughout the case has been extremely questionable.

I am also not the only one to believe there is significant evidence, Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard University School of Law also thinks there is significant evidence, as does fellow US Law Professor Julian Ku, and both agree that Knox should be extradited.



There is also a new motive for the crime been uncovered which further implicates Amanda Knox, with the Italian Courts to due to release this information shortly.

'Evidence of a motive' for the crime behind Amanda Knox verdict - Europe - World - The Independent

Finally the people I feel sorry for in all of this are the forgotten victims, Meredith and her family who have lost a much loved daughter and sister, and who have sat through the trial and having listened to the evidence fully support Knox's extradition.

Amanda Knox Weeps And Vows To 'Fight Till End'

 
longview said:
Good link!

I think that seals this up pretty good.
Our extradition treaty with Italy has a double Jeopardy clause.
Click to expand...

It's dubious as to whether the US can use 'Double Jeopardy'. Furthermore the whole Italian system is based around three courts or grades.

The Telegraph said:
Some lawyers and supporters of Ms Knox have argued that having been acquitted in 2011, she would be protected under the US Constitution from “double jeopardy” – being tried twice for the same charge.

Yet the US-Italy extradition treaty only protects Americans from extradition to face prosecution again in Italy for an offence that has already been dealt with by the US legal system. “This is not applicable in this situation,” said Professor Julian Ku, who teaches transnational law at Hofstra University.

For extradition candidates like Ms Knox who have already been convicted, the treaty states that Italy must merely produce “a brief statement of the facts of the case,” as well as the text of the laws governing the crime committed, the punishment it would receive, and its statute of limitations.

Her conviction would “easily satisfy the conditions of the treaty,” said Prof Ku. “So it would be hard for the US to explain why she should not be handed over”.

What next for Amanda Knox? - Telegraph
Click to expand...
 
Chatter said:
It's dubious as to whether the US can use 'Double Jeopardy'. Furthermore the whole Italian system is based around three courts or grades.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what is dubious in the treaty,
Article 6 provides that extradition shall be denied when the person sought has been in
jeopardy in the requested State for the same offense.
Click to expand...
A lower Italian court found her Not Guilty, In the US, It's over,
She can NEVER be placed in Jeopardy for that offense again.
Why would the US violate it's own Constitution, and place her in Jeopardy
a second time for the same offense?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom