Verdict looms in Amanda Knox sex-murder retrial
Source: AFP/Yahoo
Rome (AFP) - American Amanda Knox and her former Italian boyfriend face their fourth verdict in six years for the murder and sexual assault of a British student brutally killed in the Italian city of Perugia in 2007.
Knox has been in the United States ever since an appeal court acquitted her and lover Raffaele Sollecito in 2011 of the murder Meredith Kercher, who was found partially naked in a pool of blood in the house she shared with Knox.
She has not returned to Italy because says she fears being "wrongly convicted".
The pair's acquittals were overturned by the supreme court in 2013, which accused the appeal judge who freed them of "a rare mix of violation of the law and illogicality" and criticised the approach taken to DNA evidence and witnesses.
The case was sent to a retrial in Florence, where a verdict is expected on Thursday.
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/verdict-looms-amanda-knox-sex-murder-retrial-081534053.html
Either way...this still won't be the end. No matter what the verdict, there will almost certainly be another appeal. The Italian legal system is like a maze.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)showing that they were in use during the evening of the murder. Also, the re-testing of the knife from Raffaele's kitchen showed only DNA from Amanda -- no blood or DNA from the murder victim.
Also, the prosecution has dropped the earlier motive of a sex-game-gone wrong. Now the theory is that Meredith, the murder victim, got upset because Guede, the burglar previously convicted in a separate trial, had left unflushed poop in the toilet. That caused, according to the prosecution, Amanda and Raffaele to rise up with Guede to kill Meredith. I realize this sounds like something from The Onion, but it is pathetically true. This is the prosecution's bizarre new theory of the case.
And yet many observers are worried that Amanda and Raffaele will be re-convicted, because the High Court has told this appeals court that they need to look at the "totality" of the evidence -- whether or not individual items, such as the only piece of DNA evidence linking Raffaele to the murder room, have been discredited.
There wasn't a single speck of physical evidence -- not blood, DNA, fingerprints, footprints, fiber, or anything -- linked to Amanda in the murder room and yet she is still facing another 26 years in prison. Extradition proceedings, if they take place, won't occur before the high court ratifies any conviction.
Most people who are not active on hate sites don't believe that the U.S. will extradite Amanda, but this is still hell for her to go through. Raffaele, who has already spent 4 years in prison because he refused to falsely implicate her, is in Italy and could be arrested immediately, if re-convicted.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)It's as if the government can keep re-trying a case with a new theory every time until they finally get the conviction they want. The very definition of a kangaroo court.
Thank god we forbid double jeopardy here. I dont see how the US would agree to extradite her under these circumstances. You never know though. Ultimately, she'll probably not be able to leave the US ever again.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)are just one long extended trial until the high court finally ratifies something. But from an American perspective, it looks like the definition of double jeopardy. She was actually found "innocent" (not just "not guilty) in her first appeals trial, but then the high court ruled that there should be a do-over with a new appeals court. And there is no guarantee that whatever is decided now will stick either. Whatever the current court decides, either side can appeal to the high court. And then the high court could ratify the result -- or they could send it to a third appeals court to try again. If the current court decides that she is not guilty, that is a real possibility.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Like how after a conviction, double jeopardy gets waived by the defendant for the purpose of a re-trial.
So the double jeopardy argument can get problematic. A better argument I think would be that simply we don't believe the evidence shows a reasonable basis of guilt. To my understanding, the treaty requires the nation requesting extradition to submit a case summary showing the evidence and investigation. And then US officials (federal judge and then ultimately the State Department) would have to determine if that evidence shows a "reasonable basis" that the accused is guilty.
Of course this could all be potentially years away.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)Some thought the double jeopardy argument was stronger, and some thought the lack of evidence argument was stronger.
As you say, it will probably be a year or more before we get to that point. I'm actually more worried about Raffaele right now, since the prosecution's already calling for arrests. He's already spent 4 years in prison because he refused to falsely implicate Amanda. I don't know how he and his family can stand this.
Dr. Strange
(25,921 posts)The state is changing their story and bringing in different evidence--in essence a completely new bite at the apple.
7962
(11,841 posts)Gothmog
(145,486 posts)The Italian justice system seems to be a joke
elias7
(4,026 posts)Amanda Knox had been in Italy all of two months, when she and the guy she had been dating for one week were accused of brutally murdering her roommate, though no motive can be established, no physical evidence connects her to the crime, and someone has already been convicted of the crime based on an abundance of physical evidence.
Doesn't really pass the sniff test.