There is no Double Jeopardy when you are Convicted at your first trial. Amanda Knox is going to be

[Fred Sanders]

extradited according to law and the Italian/American extradition treaty of 1937, and only State Department intervention can stop it.

Because that is the law.

I doubt that double jeopardy has technically attached because this still the same case. In the US, a person can be retried if the conviction is overturned and the double jeopardy rule will not apply. Professor Dershowitz also thinks that double jeopardy does not apply http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/30/22507219-amanda-knox-convicted-of-murder-in-italian-retrial

Some observers have questioned whether the American protection against double jeopardy — being retried and convicted of a crime after being acquitted — would give the U.S. an excuse to balk at extradition.

But Dershowitz doubts that would apply in the Knox case because she was intially found guilty and her acquittal took place at an intermediate appeals level.

"If that happened in the U.S., it wouldn't be double jeopardy," he said
_______________

More on the original verdict of conviction for the murder of Meredith Kercher, and the 400 page legal analysis of Judge Massei:

Summary of the Massei report
Version 1.5: June 4, 2011

This summary may be freely copied or otherwise reproduced and transmitted in the unedited pdf format provided that the document or excerpt therefrom is accompanied by the following attribution: “From the summary prepared by unpaid volunteers from http://www.perugiamurderfile.org to promote a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding the death of Meredith Kercher and the case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the English-speaking world”.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C378/

[hrmjustin]

1. And the state department should stop it.

There was no justice here.

[Fred Sanders]

4. Which would create a diplomatic row, where America is essentially telling 60 million Italians that

America's official position is that the Italian justice system should not be trusted....that will go over well.

[hrmjustin]

10. I think that is exactly what we should tell them.

[RichGirl]

33. Italy is almost a thousand years older that U.S....

And we should tell them we know better??? I hate American exceptionalism.

[hrmjustin]

39. Did I say we are better? No I did not. But if all this time they have the system they have

then something is wrong.

[CBGLuthier]

42. While I agree with your sentiment that is not exactly accurate.

Italy is 153 years old.

[tritsofme]

50. Italy was not an independent country until the 1860s.

They have one of the least stable governments in the West, from knowing absolutely nothing about the case mentioned in the OP, I don't doubt that we could in fact know better.

More than anything, the only reason I replied is that I am curious where your figure "almost a thousand years" came from...it doesn't really make sense from any angle.

[JJChambers]

69. IMO

America IS exceptional.

[pnwmom]

90. Yes, and their justice system is 1000 years old. They haven't moved

much beyond the inquisitorial system of medieval times.

[reACTIONary]

135. Totally false...

...Italy reformed its inquisitorial system in 1988 and moved it closer to an adversarial system. Inquisitorial systems of justice are not illegitimate: France's current, contemporary system is inquisitorial. Jeremy Bentham, one of great liberal legal reformers of all time argued persuasively for the superiority of the inquisitorial system.

No modern western democracy - the free world - has a "medieval" justice system.

[pnwmom]

138. Your words contradict themselves. "Moving closer" to an adversarial system doesn't mean

that they've gotten there. Their reform never got very far.

[reACTIONary]

139. Nope, not at all...

... the claim was that Italy's justice system is "1000 years old" and that it is basically the inquisitorial system of medieval times. On both points, it just isn't true.

- Italy's justice system was last updated in 1988. The system that was updated originated in the 1930's. There is no meaningful sense in which it can be said that Italy's justice system is 1,000 years old that can't be equally applied to every justice system in the world, since they all have traditions that go back at least 1,000 years. Justice is as old as humanity, and we should not hold that simple fact against any system of justice - we should look at it as it is.

- The fact that they moved "closer" to an adversarial system does not mean that the reform was "incomplete". There is no reason to believe that an adversarial system is superior to an inquisitorial system or that a mixed system is in some sense flawed or incomplete. They have the system of justice that they want, and it is as modern, fair, and legitimate as any other western liberal democracy's system.

- France has an inquisitional system, as far as I know untainted by any adversarial elements at all. I'm pretty sure their system goes back over a thousand years to medieval times. So would you denigrate the French system of justice?

- The good old USA has a mixed system of inquisitorial and adversarial justice. The Grand Jury system is fully inquisitorial in nature. And I have been told by a district attorney that it is amazing how much more effective it is than the adversarial proceedings that it initiates.

[pnwmom]

140. Fair and modern? Except they have no understanding of logic and science.

At least, not that's evident in their Court of Cassation and Massei opinions in Amanda's case, or in their conviction of geologists for manslaughter because they weren't able to predict that the small earthquakes in 2009 meant that a big one was coming.

However, they do allow attorneys to call female defendents "Luciferina" in court.

And they select jurors without regard to whether they've already formed an opinion from pretrial publicity; and then encourage them, during the trial, to go home and read about the case in the mass media and discuss it with their relatives and friends.

And they can find you guilty in your appeals trial based in large part on facts "proven" in another person's fast track trial, without giving you a chance to offer any evidence in that trial or question the witness.

That's really fair and modern.

[reACTIONary]

143. I see, Itialians are...

... all "hot blooded Latins" who are excessively emotional and can't think straight! The land of Galileo is so way, way, way behind even our most pitiful fundamentalists, who are level headed rocket scientists by comparison.

[pnwmom]

144. Your words, not mine. How can you defend calling a defendant "Luciferina" in a modern, fair court?

[reACTIONary]

145. Ha - My words?

"They" have "no understanding of logic and science" - those are your words and those words do not seem to be very fair or reasonable applied to an entire people.

As far as "Luciferina" goes, I don't know what the word means, and I don't know in what context it was used. Maybe it means "evil woman", which might not be inappropriate. In American courts, prosecutors often use inflammatory, judgmental language during opening statements, closing statements and during sentencing hearings.

One of the reasons we disallow flamboyant language from being used in court is because we have a non-professional jury system composed of "ordinary folks" - our "peers". This sort of language can unduly sway a jury. From what I have read, the Italian justice system does not have a jury system like ours. Instead they have a panel of professional judges who are very knowledgeable of the law and have sat through many, many trials. It isn't their first time at the rodeo. Under those circumstances, flamboyant language would not be as unduly persuasive as with a less experienced and less knowledgeable panel.

[pnwmom]

147. You are incorrect. Their panels consist of two professional judges and several lay judges,

who aren't screened for bias before being put on the jury and are allowed to go home and read and discuss anything with their family and friends.

In Amanda's case, there were 6 of these lay judges, and 2 professional. The quote below refers to her first appeals trial but it applies to the other, too.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/04/amanda-knox-juror-speaks-out

The six jurors – Angeletti and five women – were selected using more demanding educational criteria than those at Knox's and Sollecito's first trial. The lay judges for the appeal had to have spent 13 years at school and obtained a high school diploma. Angeletti said he had heard appeals in four other murder trials.

[reACTIONary]

154. Thanks for the claification (nt)

[Adrahil]

92. I don't care how old they are. Nt

[BlueEye]

95. I hate it when America criticizes Russia for discriminating against gays.

They can discriminate against any minority they want! American exceptionalism at its worst!!!

*major league sarcasm to make a point*

As others have already posted, there is reason to suspect the Italian legal system is deeply flawed and arguably unjust. This is not stated from an American perspective but a universal one; that unjust things ought to be criticized. For your information, I take serious issue with certain unjust things in the American legal system. No exceptionalism here.

[reACTIONary]

137. And what would the reason to suspect be?

Disagreement with one verdict in one case? The original verdict was over turned on appeal and she was not only released but allowed to leave the country during the subsequent appeal. Does that sound like the course of events for a "deeply flawed" system?

Italy's system of justice is no more flawed than is any western, democratic member of the free world. Why would we have an extradition treaty with a country that maintained a "deeply flawed" system of justice?

[lancer78]

114. Remember

this is a country that tried several Seismologists for failing to predict an earthquake. The Italian justice system is pretty effed up.

[TBF]

121. Just because something is old

does not mean it is better.

[WinkyDink]

134. On what basis? OURS? *coughOJcough* *coughZimmiecough*

[hrmjustin]

156. Double Jeopardy!

[LanternWaste]

37. The US has refused extradition requests, and been refused extradition request. Life went on, and wen

The US has refused extradition requests, and been refused extradition request. And oddly enough, no one translated that as America telling Switzerland that their justice system should not be trusted. Life went on, and went over well.

(Insert distinction without a difference here...)

[RichGirl]

20. Why should they stop it???

She could very well be guilty. We need to respect Italian law as we would expect them to respect ours if this was the other way around.

[hrmjustin]

25. After the circus they put her through I would say their system is too flawed to send her back.

[Fred Sanders]

49. We can not respect Italian law as long as the Mass Media here has brainwashed most into thinking

Italians have no sense of justice or faith in their own system, which they do.

Put the shoe on the other foot for a minute, is all I ask.

[hobbit709]

51. They had little faith in it back in the 70s when I was there.

The average person's attitude about the justice system was that if you had connections and/or money you got justice.

[Fred Sanders]

54. The Italian justice system convicted their Prime Minister of corruption, there's that.

When will America's get around to convicting Bush and Cheney for their massive crimes?

[hobbit709]

57. Only when it became so obvious and what does that have to do with the current situation?

You seem to have a real fixation.

[11 Bravo]

79. And the American justice system sent a former Attorney General to prison. Your point?

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

130. Put the shoe on the other foot ?

We cannot respect Italian law as long as the mass media here has brainwashed most into thinking Italians have no sense of justice or faith in their own system ?

I find it somewhat strange that you site brainwashing ,somehow you may see there is that in this.

But you flipped it over to the mass media in this country being the brainwasher's.

Let me ask you this-,do you really think we in america are isolationists to such an extent that we are clueless to what goes on in the rest of western civilization ?

( MASS MEDIA ) ?

Knox was pronounced guilty by the mass media over there isn't that right?

Not to seem naive or anything like that but it seems to me the prosecution over there in Italy were quite effective in media manipulation as a means of getting a conviction. And brainwashing,thats a whole different issue.

And I think you flipped that issue over onto mass media in he United States.


Put the shoe on the other foot !
Gee Wizzz thats original .

Didn't they stick a poster up of Amanda Knox in Cop ola square over there with Italy's most notorious criminals ? You know of the place right ?

I see where yer going with it.

It's just a poster right ?

[StevieM]

110. Actually no...she could not be guilty. (eom)

[reACTIONary]

136. +10 (nt)

[pnwmom]

88. The poster joined in December and has been posting from hate sites about Amanda Knox.

They are all over the web promoting these lies.

[WinkyDink]

133. Because you attended the trial and heard all the evidence? Or because she's "cute"?

[hrmjustin]

157. I am gay so the cute thing is oh not applicable!

[laundry_queen]

2. Locked out of your other thread, hey? nt

[DURHAM D]

3. For those that missed it...

Fred got a Hide and thrown out of his own OP thread -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024420456

[Fred Sanders]

5. Because apparently having a contrary opinion is now objectionable on DU.

[DURHAM D]

7. Being a sexist is truly "objectionable on DU".

Are you an attorney?

[hrmjustin]

12. No because you wrre rude to another poster.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4420640

[Fred Sanders]

14. Yeah, like that never happens on DU, my post was mild by comparison to many.

[hrmjustin]

17. You have had several hides. I know because I was on mirt and saw them.

Go gently and be polite.

[Fred Sanders]

26. If you look at the "hides" before, they were misinterpreted as I was posting in response to a topic

regarding the GOP love of the death penalty and the sarcasm and link got lost in translation....not that I am sore about you taking the time to dig around.

[hrmjustin]

36. I did not dig around. your hides landed in my mail box.

The last one I voted to hide.

So I am going to say this to you and I mean this with all respect. Most people who get 3 hides in 2 months of being here usually don't last. When you post something just remember you take your chances with a jury.

[Skittles]

52. you want I should kick some hide-prone Fred ass, hrmjustin?

LEMME AT HIM!!!

[hrmjustin]

55. lol no thats ok my friend.

[Fred Sanders]

60. Now that was very civil, what say you, hrmjustin, will you report him for violence, or was it

just sarcasm, or jest?

Let a JURY decide.....15 minutes to deliberate.

[Skittles]

67. I'll report you for claiming I am a man

yes INDEED

[hrmjustin]

71. Um if you must know skittles is known for joking like this.

Listen just don't insult people like you did today.

[Iggo]

107. That's Skittles's tag line, dude.

Makin friends left and right, ain't ya!

[stevenleser]

129. Can I say yes on hrmjustin's behalf?

[brush]

86. Wow! Are we threatening people now?

This place has become nothing but arguments, arguments and more arguments back and forth.

That and all the right wing posters makes one thing about taking a long break.

[hrmjustin]

87. Threatening?

How so. I told him to behave.

[LanternWaste]

40. I used to rationalize my shortcomings the same way...

I used to rationalize my shortcomings the same way...

[uppityperson]

45. Sexism and rudeness is "a contrary opinion"? Yes, it is objectionable on DU.

[cherokeeprogressive]

63. No. Because being a "party girl" and "sex fiend extraordinaire" doesn't make one a "murderess".

Do you like apples?

How do you like THEM apples?

[sabrina 1]

6. Her legal team is preparing an appeal. So I doubt extradition will be an issue for a

long time.

[Fred Sanders]

9. I agree, it will be 90 days before the judgment details are released and Knox may well be in her

rights to remain in America until the appeal process plays through.

[ohheckyeah]

8. How about

fuck the law?

[TacoD]

78. and the rule thereof! (nt)

[countryjake]

11. Give it up, Fred.

You've been kicked out of your other thread on this, so now you go and begin another one?

I understand that you passionately think that Ms. Knox is guilty and deserves to fry for the crime, but starting thread after thread in GD, when you feel thwarted in your attempt to indict her, is not the way things are done here.

[Fred Sanders]

13. I am just analyzing the verdict from the point of view of 2 out of 3 Italian tribunals, but if that

is too much for some to handle, so be it.

And I am against the death penalty, your hyperbole not withstanding.

[HERVEPA]

21. Two to go Fred. You can do it.

[countryjake]

30. This is analyzing??

It is damning, plenty of exclusive opportunity evidence and Knox WAS a party girl and sex fiend extraordinaire.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4420640


Your sexist statement perfectly reflects the attitude of that Italian tribunal who convicted her in the first place. And that is not the way guilt is determined in the USA.

[LanternWaste]

41. You're confusing analysis with editorial... hyperbole aside.

You're confusing analysis with editorial... hyperbole aside.

[pnwmom]

99. There was a great deal of evidence in the 2nd trial, and that evidence

was never thrown out. The high court only disputed the final conclusion of "innocent," not the evidence that was presented.

Until you can read and refute the Hellman report, you're just blowing a bunch of hot air.

[Astrad]

34. I'm not sure why he should 'give it up'

It is a legitimate subject of discussion. No one knows for sure whether an extradition request would be honored or not. It's interesting to speculate about the legal and political ramifications involved. Don't see the reason to object to discussing it.

[pnwmom]

100. The sites he's been linking to are hate sites filled with misinformation.

He just joined DU a month ago and all of a sudden he's repeatedly posting from guilter sites. He's not really here to discuss the legal aspects of extradition. This is his second anti-Knox OP in two days, both drawing from the guilter sites. He's pretty damn obvious.

Do you see him mentioning that Amanda was interrogated for days, including overnight, with no attorney present?

Does he mention that Amanda was given no neutral translator during these interrogations even though she barely spoke Italian?

Does he mention that though Italian law requires it, Amanda's interrogation wasn't taped? That they claimed they didn't have the funds to tape it -- but they did have the funds to make a $180K cartoon of the murder scene? And they taped all the other witness statements?

Do you see him mentioning that the high court ruled out her first "statement" as evidence for the murder trial -- but allowed it IN as evidence for the civil trial -- which was held at the same time and by the same jurors?

Amanda and Raffaele's case was a textbook example of how NOT to conduct a fair trial -- something that is important to most DUers. Anyone is welcome to post whatever they want about the case. But if they post from the guilter sites, people here will react appropriately.

[Gothmog]

101. There are a ton of problems with this case including the burden of proof

I agree with your comments about the statements. The interviews and statements given by Knox would never be admitted in the US.

I am not sure what the burden of proof is under the Italian justice system but it is not "beyond a reasonable doubt." This case would have never made it to a jury in the US or survived a motion to dismiss. The circumstantial evidence is very weak in my opinion and does not really prove anything.

Again, I am waiting for any of the other lawyers on this board to give their opinion of the "facts" cited by the OP.

[pnwmom]

106. There is at least one DUer claiming to be a lawyer

who is a guilter, but it's become clearer and clearer that he or she hasn't bothered to read the Hellman decision -- the decision of the appeals trial in which Amanda's conviction was overturned. I don't take seriously anyone who only read the first decision. In Italy, half of initial convictions get overturned on appeal. They pull in a lot of innocent people at that stage, including Amanda and Raffaele.

The high court's recent decision is written in such a twisted, convoluted way. But the bottom line is that they said the appeals court was wrong not to consider "the totality" of the evidence. They apparently think that lots of pieces of very weak evidence adds up to a strong case, as long as you have enough of them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. Italy still functions under a Napoleonic system

The burden to prove anything is not for the state, but the accused.

Some Napoleonic states have recently switched to innocent until proven guilty, pre trial agreements and the existence of double jeopardy (Mexico for example), but that is a huge cultural change. It will take time for it to go from letter of law to well actual practice. Hell, there are places in the States, rural mostly and isolated, that at times have issues with these concepts, and we have been at it since Magna Carta.

Mark Ash has suggested that this now is more the nationalistic desire to show their legal system as having jurisdiction over a poor Seattle girl after we violated Italian (and American law) ten ways to Sunday during the Bush years with rendition. The CIA did kidnap Italian citizens from the streets of Rome. I think he has something on it, since shit, even Napoleonic systems let it go after a court throws a conviction.

[Gothmog]

118. Napoleonic Code jurisdictions are very strange and US concept of due process do not apply

Louisiana still has provisions that go back to the Napoleonic Code that are very strange. The presumption of innocence and the burden of proof are very different in Code jurisdictions. It has taken time bit Louisiana is now closer to the rest of the civilized world

Amanda Knox's verdict can be explained due to the combination of a lack of due process and the burden of proof. I stand by opinion that the case outlined on another thread would never get to a US jury or survive a motion to dismiss

[nadinbrzezinski]

119. In a non politized case in Mexico

I doubt it would have made it to trial as well. Even for down there the state had no case.

[Lost_Count]

15. In the four times I've seen this one article posted today...

... there is a definite undertone of glee.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should know that this whole thing has become a farce....

[Fred Sanders]

18. Posted four times? Where and by who?

[Lost_Count]

32. Well it seems you were at least one of them in your own thread before...

The rest were references in the grown up threads about the "trial."

Why do you seem so desperate to get a pound of flesh from her ?

[cali]

16. your obsession with Knox is disturbing

and rather creepy.

[Fred Sanders]

19. One man's obsession is another man's truth, I am simply in agreement with the Italian court verdict.

[lapfog_1]

53. over and over again, apparently

and if you looked into the wacko prosecutor in the original case... and the errors committed by the police, perhaps you wouldn't be so obsessed... unless you think that there was a Satanic ritual murder by 3 people, 2 of which only knew each other for 1 week before the murder (Knox and her boyfriend).

That's the theory (and not much evidence behind it) that caused either of them to be accused.

[11 Bravo]

83. Amanda called. She's sorry she stood you up on Prom Night and hopes that you can get over it.

[alarimer]

89. Based on what evidence?

They convicted the ACTUAL person who did it.

There is no evidence tying her to the crime.

[Spirochete]

131. Just admit it -

you're really Nancy Grace, aren't you?

[Throd]

31. Well, she is quite the looker.

If she looked like me, nobody would have heard about it.

[Astrad]

38. The vitriol directed at him

for merely saying he agrees with 6 jurors and two judges is what's creepy.

[Fred Sanders]

44. Exactly. Many seem to just hate the Italian justice system on the basis of one case, that is what

is creeping me out.

[Cooley Hurd]

48. Haha!

You "creepy" feelers need serious fine-tuning.

[cali]

64. uh, no. starting thread after thread on her is just weird.

he hardly simply saying he agrees with the appeals decision when that's virtually all he's posted about.

creepy. and those who can't see that? you folks are... interesting too, my friend.

[Astrad]

72. Why the innuendo?

What is the subtext to agreeing with the Italian verdict? Frankly neither I nor you nor the OP know if she's guilty. It's all just opinion. Internet forums are a place where one can argue a perspective or learn about someone else's perspective. It seems sort of tribal to me to rally around one position or the other when the facts are in dispute and will likely remain so. Saying that those one disagrees with have a sick or unhealthy obsession or is, as you say, 'just weird', seems like a tactic to shutdown discussion and to indicate that that person's opinion is unacceptable. But I really don't see how agreeing with the verdict is unacceptable. It's just a debate.

[Cooley Hurd]

46. Yep!

[reACTIONary]

142. I don't know anything about Fred...

...other than what I have read in his posts, but he seems to have an extraordinarily detailed and technical understanding of the Italian legal system. If someone who truly understands the way a system works in depth encounters seemingly superficial criticisms that are (in some cases) expressed in a seemingly biased fashion, it would be upsetting and he would feel compelled to defend the system.

I don't see anything wrong with it - as long as it is civil and we all learn a bit more about the wider world.

[Fred Sanders]

148. Thanks for the shout out, but I do not have any extradorinary understanding of the Italian legal

system. Rudimentary for sure, but I understand that other nations have perfectly fine but different systems that work as well as America's, or not as well depending on how you want to look at it.

If Americans truly do not want to extradite Knox to face the music in Italy, then what good is any extradition treaty? Would Italy be justified in denying a convicted murderer in American courts to remain in Italy and not face the sentence for the CONVICTION American courts have registered?

P.S. The American pilot who flew into the ski line extradition request was denied by an Italian judge who ruled NATO treaties took precedence, a lot of misinformation out there on the legalities and history of extradition law.

[sked14]

149. Why would she "face the music in Italy" for a bogus trial

and conviction? The investigation was totally botched from the beginning and the trial was a sham.

[Fred Sanders]

150. Truly, the trial where she was convicted was not perfect, the DNA trail is sketchy, doubts remain

BUT the bottom line is that she was and remains convicted of murder in a country with which we have an extradition treaty that implicitly and explicitly states in clear and understood writing that we trust their system of justice, and they trust ours.

Trashing the rule of law in another nation like Italy leads nowhere.

[sked14]

151. The bottom line is why should she go back to a country

that falsely accused and covicted her of a crime she had nothing to do with? Would you?

[Fred Sanders]

153. My take on it is simply that Italian law and process has to be respected by the government

of America, and I respect anyone's right to disagree with any court verdict, nothing can ever be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, which is why that is not the legal criminal standard for conviction, but the legal process by a nation vis a vis another reciprocating nation not being respected will lead to international legal chaos.

[sked14]

152. Aren't you the one who started this thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024420456

Amanda Knox should surrender to Italian authorities, The EVIDENCE Is Clear Enough- SHE DID IT.

Having some doubts now?

[Fred Sanders]

155. I am not judging the judgment, only that the judgment is supportble by the evidence and on the basis

of respecting the extradition treaty and whatever the Italian evidence rules are. Criminal law is complex, everywhere.

"Beyond a shadow of a doubt" is not even the standard in English criminal law. It is "beyond a reasonable doubt", so maybe I have doubts, but are they reasonable doubts, although we are now discussing the English standard, the Italian standard is obviously different, it is a different language, how would the standard there translate?

___________

PS: to my detractors, Amanda DID turn me down for a date, what ya gonna do?

[hobbit709]

22. So after getting locked out of your previous thread, you're starting over?

[Gothmog]

23. The real issue is the burden of proof

The case or facts listed in the other thread were all circumstantial evidence that was very weak. In the US, you have to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard and I do not think that this evidence meets this standard. In the US, I doubt that this case would get to a jury or survive a motion to dismiss. Again, the burden of proof appears to be very different in the Italian judicial system and I really have no confidence in this system.

BTW, I am a lawyer.

[Fred Sanders]

27. A criminal laywer, with trial and appeal experience in the criminal courts?

[Gothmog]

43. I have been a lawyer for 30+ years

I have tried a few cases and have consulted in a number of other cases on the civil side. So far I am undefeated in the contingent fee cases that I have taken to trial and have achieved some good results. Evaluation of white collar matters come up in my practice and I worked with a number of white collar attorneys over the years.

I am confident as to the law here. I have not seen any other attorney on this board (and there are a good number of us) rush to your defense. The burden of proof here is a rather basic issue and to me it is clear that the facts recited in the other thread are weak and would not survive a motion to dismiss. Again, there are a good number of attorneys who post on this board.

BTW, read your own thread. I am not arguing about double jeopardy on this thread because the law here is clear enough for me that I think that this concept does not apply. If you check your first thread you will see that I said so on that thread.

As to the burden of proof, the facts that you cited simply do not hold up in my opinion. I will be curious to see the opinions of my fellow lawyers as to this issue. Lawyers can and do disagree on issues but such disagreements are based on a common understanding of the law.

[Fred Sanders]

47. The criminal standard of burden of proof in Italy is this:

"Burden of Proof: In Italy the "burden of proof" is extremely high, and this allows many criminals to go free. While this is obviously a serious matter in organised crime, it is also relevant in matters of lesser gravity. For example, the fact that a man is in possession of stolen property, whether automobiles, motor scooters or jewellery, may not be held against him to the extent that it would be in Britain, Australia, Canada or the United States, even though possession of stolen property is a criminal offence in Italy as elsewhere. The question of burden of proof also comes into play in rape trials (see below)."

http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art315.htm

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (Criminal)

The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.

[Gothmog]

59. This is a very weak explanation

In the US, it is simple and direct, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard you cited is not really clear to me. In law school, there are great examples of explaining the different standards for the burden of proof and these standards can be very different and outcome determinative.

In this case, I can not tell what standard was applied. I am pretty sure that it was not the US standard given the result and the fact that there is no direct evidence. In this case, the evidence presented or cited is all circumstantial and there is nothing directly tying Knox to the crime. There is no theory or motive that have been cited. People are convicted in the US based on circumstantial evidence on a routine basis but there has to be both a motive and a direct tie to defendant. I have not seen either so far. IN addition, I have seen numerous reports that the police did not conduct a proper investigation and that forensic evidence was not properly preserved because in part the wrong type of police officer were the first responder in this case. If a case in the US was retried based on new theories for the crime, the judge would either instruct the jury to take this difference into account or dismiss the case.

I also have problems with the so-called confessions and statements taken in this case. These statements would not be admissible in US courts for a host of reasons.

I have my opinion on the evidence cited. I really have no confidence in the Italian justice system and the explanation of the burden of proof you cited has not changed that opinion.

[flamingdem]

24. No one is going to force her to go to Italy

Dream on.

[tkmorris]

28. You REALLY have a thing for Amanda Knox

Good for you. I hear she is a "sex fiend extraordinaire" you know. Play your cards carefully and you never know WHAT might happen!

[gopiscrap]

29. In think the State Department shoulkd stop it

this was a kangaroo court case from the beginning

[tkmorris]

35. Refresh my memory. Did we extradite these guys?

"MILAN — An Italian judge found 23 Americans and two Italians guilty Wednesday in the kidnapping of an Egyptian terror suspect, delivering the first legal convictions anywhere in the world against people involved in the CIA's extraordinary renditions program.

Human rights groups hailed the decision and pressed President Barack Obama to repudiate the Bush administration's practice of abducting terror suspects and transferring them to third countries where torture was permitted. The American Civil Liberties Union said the verdicts were the first convictions stemming from the rendition program."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/04/italy-convicts-23-america_n_345274.html

[questionseverything]

128. good point

eom

[Fred Sanders]

132. No request of extradition by Italy was ever made, so no.

Chicago (AFP) - The United States will have little legal argument for turning down an extradition request should Italy seek the return of Amanda Knox for the 2007 murder of her British housemate.
http://news.yahoo.com/us-likely-extradite-knox-italy-asks-000547631.html


In the latest dramatic twist in the high-profile case, a court in Florence on Thursday sentenced Knox to 28 years and six months in prison for killing Meredith Kercher in the university town of Perugia.

Knox was following the proceedings from her hometown of Seattle in the United States, where she has lived since a previous acquittal in 2011, which Italian prosecutors appealed.

Her lawyers now plan to appeal this latest conviction in turn to the Italian Supreme Court, but if they fail Knox could find herself flying back to a country where she has already spent four years in jail.

"As popular as she is here and as pretty as she is here -- because that's what this is all about, if she was not an attractive woman we wouldn't have the group love-in -- she will be extradited if it's upheld," said Harvard law professor Alan Derkowitz.
____________

The Italian government originally denied having played any role in the abduction. However Italian prosecutors Armando Spataro and Ferdinand Enrico Pomarici indicted 26 CIA agents, including the Rome station chief and head of CIA in Italy until 2003, Jeffrey W. Castelli, and Milan station chief Robert Seldon Lady, as well as SISMI head General Nicolò Pollari, his second Marco Mancini and station chiefs Raffaele Ditroia, Luciano Di Gregori and Giuseppe Ciorra.[4] Referring to the Italian military intelligence agency, the Italian press has talked of a "CIA-SISMI concerted operation." The prosecutors sent extradition requests for the indicted American citizens to the Italian Ministry of Justice, then headed by Roberto Castelli, for onward transmission to Washington. However Castelli refused to forward the demand for extradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case

[stg81]

56. The Italian court seems like a joke, playing to local sympathies.

[Fred Sanders]

61. Yes, like the Florida jury that aquitted Zimmerman, that kind of playing to local sympathies?

And remember Know was convicted at her first trial.

[stg81]

62. ignore

[WillowTree]

58. For some reason I find your cock-suredness amusing. Just sayin'.

[pnwmom]

91. He's a guilter and based on his use of language

appears to be British. He just joined DU in December, and now he's posting repeated posts about Amanda Knox from the hate sites.

[WillowTree]

97. Yeah, I noticed that.

I just can't ever take anyone seriously when they're so arrogantly sure of themselves. All that chest thumping is just too humorous.

[atreides1]

102. I wonder

Could "Fred Sanders" be a possible associate of the Kercher family?

His rabid attacks on Amanda Knox are a little intense for someone that isn't connected.

Just a theory.

[pnwmom]

104. There are a number of these very rabid posters, and other people

have wondered if any of them are family members. I tend to think they're just haters. But who knows.

[sked14]

105. I just gotta say,

thank you for your thoughtful and informative posts on this subject, I've learned a great deal of info by reading your post.
FTR, I agree with you on the OP.

[pnwmom]

108. Thank you, sked14. I didn't get interested in this till after they'd been convicted

the first time -- I just assumed they were guilty. That's how they were portrayed in the media, and it was more comfortable thinking that they were. I have a son her age, and who wants to realize how vulnerable our young adults are?

But something got me started, finally, and then it took a while to sort through the different web sites. The ones listed in the OP are really vicious. I've never actually seen them posted here on DU before, thank goodness.

[Ecumenist]

115. That's exactly what I was thinking and have been thinking this since I first saw the beginnings of

Fred's posts. It seems a bit too transparent, if you ask me.

[bravenak]

65. Good grief!

[hobbit709]

66. At least this OP doesn't have 22 edits.

[bravenak]

68. I see he got locked out of the last one.

Didn't notice the edits. Giggle giggle!

[Fred Sanders]

70. "Calling out" another poster is actually against DU rules that you seem to respect ever so much.

[REP]

74. You do not understand what a call-out is

Not a surprise.

[bravenak]

75. When did I ever say I respected rules?

I'd really like to know. I'll say it to you directly.
I find it interesting and quite amusing that you posted this thread after you got locked out of the last one for making a sexist statement.

You have a few hides in the short time you have been here, indicating that you yourself have no respect for the rules of DU. I find I hypocritical for you to inform me of rules that you choose not to follow yourself. So I'm laughing at you now.

[DURHAM D]

77. There is no call out rule on DU.

[bravenak]

80. Thanks.

I guess I should read the rules, ha ha.

[DURHAM D]

82. You can't find what isn't there.

[bravenak]

85. Right.

Time for a bowl. This is amusing.

[DURHAM D]

76. Wrong.

Call outs are not against the rules.

[X_Digger]

81. And how would a 200 post, 90 day poster be familiar with old DU rules?

Hrmmmm.

[DURHAM D]

84. LOL

I have assumed from the get go that Fred is a returnee and use of a DU2 rule seems to prove it.

[pnwmom]

93. LOL!!! n/t

[Dr. Strange]

96. And yet bravenak was convicted by an Italian court of brazen calling-out.

Sorry, bravenak, but you should be extradited post haste.

[bravenak]

109. Where do I turn myself in?

Do they serve cake? I like cake.

[uppityperson]

103. Because you deserve the best...

[struggle4progress]

73. Lawyers will fight this out in court if Italy requests extradition, which (I'd guess) won't happen

before all appeals are exhausted, if ever. And at that point, if it occurs, all of the issues about how to compare the Italian process to the US process, and the questions about whether the appeals court ruling was equivalent to a US trial finding of "not guilty," and whether Knox waived her presence in court or was unfairly tried in absentia -- and all manner stuff like that -- will be argued in various briefs submitted to the state department and various courts

It seems premature to speculate about it now

[countryjake]

94. For the honest truth about this case...

please read the facts at this site:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/index.html

[Savannahmann]

98. Let me know when we extradite Robert Lady

[rustydog]

111. Nice arguement, does your point fit ITALIAN LAW?

Because they are a bit sloppy when it comes to EVIDENCE and testimony...
Keep banging your pot and posting, it is entertaining to see legal ignorance. You are quoting American law to support a guilty verdict decided in a FOREIGN COURT...American law doesn't have jurisdiction.

I'll ask you once again : Based on your original post of being found guilty in a foreign court, you said Knox should surrender. Do you feel the same way since Bush and Cheny were tried and found guilty of war crimes?

Do you support and loudly advocate for their surrender and or extradition? to answer for their guilt decided in a court of law?

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. Correct me, if I do not remember my legal system correctly,

But isn't Italy using a version of the Napoleonic System? You know where she had to prove her innocence before the court, and the state did not really have to prove it's case? Oh and isn't double jeopardy pretty much a British concept not in existence in Continental systems?

Ergo, isn't this something akin to apples and oranges? They are both fruits, but that is about it?

Oh and no, under a British system the case was far from proven and there is double jeopardy at play here, but we are not talking of a British system here.

By the way, she has appealed to the Italian Supreme Court.

Oh and I agree with Mark Ash, this has more to do with George Bush than the case itself...something about rendition. You might want to look that up before you continue this wrong headed comparisons of legal systems. Being familiar with one that is Napoleonic though, after the first conviction was thrown out, it should be over. But see Ash's article.

Oh and I forgot another aspect that is rather problematic in this case. Correct me if I am wrong, but is Italy a signatory of the Geneva Convention? Did't the US Government had a right to be informed that a citizen was detained? And that this citizen needed a certain minimum level of representation under the Geneva Convention? I might add, this includes a translator that is neutral under questioning? I know this is an angle most people are not aware off when traveling, so I will forgive you if you are ignorant of it. I know I killed those trees plenty of times. FYI, none of this was complied with. Before you mention the US not doing it, I know, with Mexican citizens it is a common problem, but since you are throwing the letter of the law, well, there you have it.

[Iggo]

116. Thanks for the info.

I didn't realize that was in the Geneva Convention. In fact, I guess I always think of the Geneva Convention as a relic of some misty early twentieth century past, straight out of a WWII movie and not applying to the modern world at all (not unlike a lot of Americans my age, I suppose.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

117. We called consulates,

When we had patients who were not Mexican Nationals in the ER, regularly. There is a specific form that should be filled every time you detain a non national before or after you place the call. An ER is very much a gray area, medical consent and ethics laws apply. But since most were there due to vehicle accidents, usually drunk and at times due to assault and fights...well, better be safe. Now prison is not a gray area. We helped the Federales and State Police with that form a few times. Hell, I trained them on the importance of complying with the letter of the convention.

I know my local cops are trained in this at the Academy. They even fill mock forms. Tourist town, by the border, yup, they come across non nationals like regularly.

[Gothmog]

120. Good post

Code jurisdictions do not have the same due process protections that we are use to. The facts listed by the OP on another thread would not get to a US jury or survive a motion to dismiss.

[mainer]

122. Of course, you link to two debunked sites.

"Perugia murder file" and "truejustice.org" have been exposed by a Time journalist.

http://world.time.com/2013/03/29/the-amanda-knox-haters-society-how-they-learned-to-hate-me-too/

[Fred Sanders]

123. You really should read the Massei Report, the original trial conviction, there is link

and the EVIDENCE speaks for itself, no matter how vilified the author may be.

[mainer]

124. And you should read what a veteran FBI agent says about the EVIDENCE

The knife, the bra clasp, the "bleached apartment" that never was bleached (prosecutor's lie), the luminol evidence.

Yes, the EVIDENCE does speak for itself.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI3.html

[Fred Sanders]

125. I understand the defence postion, that it was only one person involved, the one convicted, but

I trust the judgment of the Judges who actually heard all the evidence and rendered the verdicts, in the last appeal it was rendered by 9 Judges. Who would know the case and the evidence and the burden of proof better?

[mainer]

126. How about talking to THESE forensic/FBI experts?

The ones who just collaborated on an extensive analysis of the facts:

AUTHORS:
DOUGLAS PRESTON is a journalist and author who has published 25 books, nonfiction and fiction, several of which have been #1 New York Times bestsellers.
JOHN DOUGLAS, who served as special agent for the FBI for twenty-five years, is the Bureau’s pioneer of behavioral profiling and modern criminal investigative analysis. He authored the landmark study of incarcerated serial offenders that ultimately led to the FBI’s operational profiling program.
MARK OLSHAKER is an Emmy Award-winning filmmaker and New York Times bestselling nonfiction author who has worked closely with many of the nation’s leading experts in law enforcement and criminal justice.
STEVE MOORE retired from the FBI following a 25-year career as a Special Agent and Supervisory Special Agent. During his tenure, he ran Al Qaeda investigations for the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Los Angeles, and later headed the investigation of terror attacks against the US throughout Pakistan and Asia. Steve has received multiple awards from the US Department of Justice for his successful US and overseas investigations, which ran the gamut from bombings to school shootings, anthrax threats to kidnappings and murders to international terrorist organizations.
JUDGE MICHAEL HEAVEY is a distinguished former lawmaker and jurist who has become a champion for the rights of those wrongfully convicted. He is the founder of "Judges for Justice", a non-profit organization committed to providing independent, impartial, and experienced judicial analysis of cases of alleged innocence..

http://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Killer-Murder-Meredith-Kercher-ebook/dp/B00I3QZ7G0/ref=sr_1_31?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1390997043&sr=1-31

[mainer]

127. Here's someone who DID read the Massei Report

And this was his comment, on a UK site. I guess that "absolutely convincing" Massei report is only convincing to you.

Judge Massei's motivational document released last month. I was flabbergasted to read the number of conjectures and assumptions with no semblance of proof offered, that this judge used to convict Knox & Sollecito. They were found guilty because, apparently, it was this judge's opinion they were guilty but he had to turn the facts into pretzels to make them so. If you wash the dishes at 8 pm it goes without saying you're lying about having dinner at 11. Swing over my house some time. I can't have dinner until I've washed the dishes. If you turn off your cell phone, you're obviously about to commit a crime. If you run home to take a shower before a day trip you're planning to inhibit a police investigation. It's all well and good as far as it goes, judge, but could you deliver some verifiable facts to back up what you say? I know exactly what Moore means. You keep waiting for the smoking gun and it never arrives. You've got to hand it to Massei, though, he actually convicted them on this nonsense.

Apparently, the only motive Massei could come up with was that Amanda made the "inexplicable choice of evil."

[snooper2]

141. She DID turn you down for that date

LOL.. I knew it was something!

[wyldwolf]

146. I'm not qualified to argue law, but I can say with some confidence she will not be extradited.

[madrchsod]

158. wait a minute...this isn't huffington post!

after reading this "discussion" i thought i was at huffington post....

[Gothmog]

159. From a legal standpoint, I think the fact that the case against Knox is so weak is an issue

The State Department and Sec. John Kerry has to sign off on any extradition. The fact that the evidence is so very weak in this case will affect the determination of the State Department to approve the extradition. I also think that the Italian government knows that its legal system is on trial in this case and so that government may not even ask for extradition

[Iggo]

160. Not gonna happen.