Foxie Knoxie - Guilty AgainFollow

Recap:

Amanda Knox a young woman from Seattle, while an exchange student in Italy may or may not have helped murder her room mate. In 2009 her, her Italian bf and a third guy were convicted of the murder. In 2011 the conviction was overturned- for the two of them. The third guy remains in prison. The reason for the over-turned conviction is not well explained, nor justified - from what i can tell.

Anyways a recent retrial found them both re-guilty. Knox didn't go back to Italy for the retrial. She was found guilty in abstencia and sentenced to 28.5 years in Italian prison.

The double-jeopardy defense which we recognize here in the US favors Knox and her will to remain in the states as a free woman.

What do you think?

Is she a murderess?

Will she be extradited?

I haven't followed the trial at all so I have no opinion on whether or not she's guilty.

If she's found guilty in the Italian Supreme Court, I suspect that she'll be extradited. Italy was pissed already about us not extraditing several CIA agents who kidnapped a guy in Italy. There was an understandable reason not to extradite those guys but I don't think there is one to keep Knox, especially with the added bonus of weakening our extradition treaty with Italy further. I'll be the first to admit though that I haven't put any serious thought or research into it.


I don't think so. The Constitution doesn't travel with you abroad. Provided she was given a fair hearing by that nation's rules, I don't think there's grounds to refuse the extradition. This isn't some warlord's kangaroo court, it's a western European democracy that just happens to have some different rules on account of it not being the United States.

Edited, Jan 31st 2014 8:08am by Jophiel

I don't think so. The Constitution doesn't travel with you abroad. Provided she was given a fair hearing by that nation's rules, I don't think there's grounds to refuse the extradition

Wouldn't matter. There's no double jeopardy involved by any standard. The idea that thee might be generally arises from a misunderstanding of how double jeopardy actually works in US law.

So, it's possible that the decision of whether or not she's shipped off to Italy could be determined independently of her specific situation, but instead based on the current diplomatic relationship between the US and Italy?

This administration seems to want to down-play American exceptionalism - that could make things go bad for Amanda.

At least in Italy the jail food should be good.

She's white, which is legally almost as good as being white and male, so she'll probably get a year in minimum security and voluntary parole at worst.

I think she better be making good her escape from Seattle.







Edited, Jan 31st 2014 4:27pm by Elinda

Maybe she can flee to Russia and marry a nice American ex-pat.

He's a computer and surveillance whistle-blower on the run from the CIA
She's a cold-hearted sexual temptress fleeing from justice for a murder she claims she didn't commit
Together, they fight crime!

I think there's room in this story for an rich Australian hacker turned whistle-blower love triangle.

Articles I'm reading are suggesting that:

1. Double Jeapordy wouldn't protect Knox from extradition, because an intermediate court overturned her conviction, which somehow makes it not apply (I'm not going to pretend to understand the details - that's just straight from an article).

2. The chances of Italy requesting extradition before they finish with the appeals process is low. That's expending too much political capital when they might end up freeing her. If her conviction is for 25 years, it doesn't particularly matter if you wait through the 2-4 year appeal process. The chances of her fleeing are relatively low. For one, she wouldn't be welcome in most countries that don't have an extradition treaty with Italy. Two, it's not like she's a millionaire who could easily make a new life in one of the few that would have her.

I've only loosely followed the case. If I was on an American jury, I would have voted not guilty. Not necessarily because I think the chances of her being guilty are low, but because the police work in this case was shockingly ******. She was acquitted the first time because police contaminated DNA evidence.

The evidence from this conviction might have that same issue, and it's already a fairly shoddy argument (in my opinion). The prosecution is arguing that the victim's DNA is on a kitchen knife that was the murder weapon. Except that it might not be the murder weapon, and it might be Knox's DNA, and they both lived there so her DNA being on the knife isn't particularly interesting unless there's something else upping the statistical probability of it being the weapon.

It doesn't help that the prosecution changed the story they were arguing in the second case, either. And there was some disturbing anti-American track argumentation in the first trial (at least) that made it hardly seem unbiased.

She totally might have killed the girl. I'm not particularly confident she didn't. But no way in hell would I have voted guilty on the evidence I'm aware of.

Yeah, Yeah... I'm trying to title my TV show. Too bad she's the chick because "Hard Knox" would be good except Snowden wouldn't be a Knox. "Snowed In"? Name puns are all the rage these days, right?

I'm thinking a "Hart to Hart" meets "The Fugitive" style vibe here.

"From the producers of Scarecrow and Mrs. King...'Amanda and The Man who made a Stand.....a'"

The Snowdens in Exile. The Fox and the Snowden.

The Abominable Snowdens.

Secret Spiller and the Ladykiller?