gut;1415070 wrote:I doubt she goes back because of politics and public support (which could change with the retrial, but doubtful), that's not going to prove you right. I'm not sure they'd even go down that road, but maybe instead focus on the evidence and fairness of a trial. Not sure which would be less offensive to the Italians.

And the extradition treaty’s reference to double jeopardy may not be binding in some cases, [Alan Dershowitz] said. “In the United States, generally, when you appeal a conviction, you waive your double jeopardy rights, and we permit retrials of people who have had their convictions reversed, at least on procedural grounds,” he said.

Honestly there is a lot of stuff saying the Italians won't even try due to the fear of the U.S. telling them to piss off, and them looking bad.

LJ;1415071 wrote:Honestly there is a lot of stuff saying the Italians won't even try due to the fear of the U.S. telling them to piss off, and them looking bad.

Maybe. I think it was Dershowitz that was saying they want to re-try it and do it properly, saving face. He apparently doesn't hold quite the same regard for Knox as the media, which I thought was interesting. He said the case against her was quite strong, but botched.

But you're right. It's a loser for the Italians - barring a major swing in public sentiment she's not going to be extradited. So do the Italians look better convicting her and then sitting on their thumbs?

It could all be moot - the entirety of this most recent ruling could completely change the dynamic. They could re-try it quickly and be like "yeah, we were right the first time".

gut;1415070 wrote:I doubt she goes back because of politics and public support (which could change with the retrial, but doubtful), that's not going to prove you right.

It's a bottom-line world, of course winning would prove my position right. What a silly statement on your part.

I skimmed through most of this and have a question for Gut that could of possibly been answered already. If she wasn't already acquitted then how was she released and able to even get back to the US?

Rotinaj;1415261 wrote:I skimmed through most of this and have a question for Gut that could of possibly been answered already. If she wasn't already acquitted then how was she released and able to even get back to the US?

In their process, her appeal was not final (and the appellate process can only be final according to THEIR law), and it was ultimately annulled. Obviously she was released, but technically she has not been acquitted.

And it appears there were technical or procedural issues with her acquittal. This is simply not a case of double jeopardy - she would be facing re-trial in the US in similar circumstances. Not to mention double jeopardy doesn't really attach when you've been convicted and are then appealing that verdict.

But I don't think it matters because she won't be extradited with public sentiment where it is and with questions concerning chain of custodial evidence and DNA testing.

Just saw Italy's Supreme Court reinstates the guilty verdict. Does the US send her back?

Fab1b;1574450 wrote:Just saw Italy's Supreme Court reinstates the guilty verdict. Does the US send her back?

I guess she still has an appeal, so it will be pending that outcome. Extradition is still anyone's guess, but without being able to discern guilt from the evidence I doubt the US would extradite someone they aren't sure is guilty. If the chance was even 50/50, would Italy risk the public embarrassment of being rejected?

She won't be extradited by the US. She just better never leave the country again.

0% chance she's extradited by the US.

ohiobucks1;1574602 wrote:0% chance she's extradited by the US.

Agree with this. I don't know what happened, perhaps she's guilty of something, but I just think she is odd. The Italian courts have shown absolutely zero evidence of her involvement in the crime. There wasn't even evidence at trial. We don't extradite citizens on the whims of a Kangaroo court.

Manhattan Buckeye;1574651 wrote:Agree with this. I don't know what happened, perhaps she's guilty of something, but I just think she is odd. The Italian courts have shown absolutely zero evidence of her involvement in the crime. There wasn't even evidence at trial. We don't extradite citizens on the whims of a Kangaroo court.

The prosecution even changed their story in this last session. They went from it being a sadistic sex game to Knox being a witch and chopping the girl up because she left the apartment dirty.

Lets not forget there is already someone who confessed. Who also left his DNA all over the crime scene... the only DNA. The dirty ass prosecutor (look him up) offered Guede a deal if he gave up who else wad involved and he said" the others who live there"

It doesn't seem right, but it appears evidentiary review in an extradition hearing when a treaty is involved must only meet the level of probable cause. So whether Italy sufficiently proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt would not be a consideration.

However, if the case is as flimsy as some say it is then perhaps a judge could rule there is not probable cause (possibly finding grounds to throw out what little evidence there may be for a variety of reasons).

She also can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights on the basis she was denied a right to a fair trial. That sounds like the best bet. Also apparently some issues with her interrogation (denied a translator, denied a lawyer, etc). However, if she appealed to the ECHR and lost, that could substantially weaken her arguments against extradition. But the whole "miranda" issue regarding arrest/interrogation could be a pretty good basis for an American judge to determine there isn't probable cause.