|
Post by Moose on Jan 31, 2014 23:41:48 GMT
I guess that most people will have seen that yesterday, an American and an Italian national were reconvicted of the murder of a British student some seven years ago. I am putting this in politics as it seems likely to escalate into a political row, as the US will probably refuse Italy's demands to extradite Knox to serve the imposed sentence. What do people think? It does strike me that this woman is not blameless, whether she was responsible for murder or not. She implicated a completely innocent man and initially claimed that she had been present in the building at the time of the murder but had not participated. Doesnt sound innocent to me. I gather that in the US she has a great deal of public support though and a lot of rude things are being said about the Italian justice system.
Ironically, I cant even recall the name of Knoxs former boyfriend - Rafaelle something? - who has been reconvicted alongside her.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jan 31, 2014 23:42:32 GMT
I suppose the wider question is - does a country have an obligation to extradite one of its citizens who has been convicted of a serious offense in another country?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 1, 2014 0:43:42 GMT
Can she be extradited? Governments are picky when it comes to extradition and will not extradite one of their own citizens if they can find a reason not to. Italy has signed and ratified an optional part of the European Convention on Human Rights, which says that: No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State.
The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not prevent the reopening of the case in accordance with the law and penal procedure of the State concerned, if there is evidence of new or newly discovered facts, or if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings, which could affect the outcome of the case. Italy has decided there was a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings. However in America, double jeopardy is protected by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which says "... nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." This does not appear to provide for the reopening of a case in exceptional circumstances. Generally speaking, a person cannot be extradited unless the crime of which they are accused is a crime in both countries and so American law may rule that Amanda Knox cannot be extradited. See Amanda Knox. As for deciding whether she is guilty, I'm surprised she was convicted on such flimsy evidence. It appears to be based on a tiny amount of her DNA being found on a kitchen knife which they say could have been used as a murder weapon. But they didn't find the victim's blood on the knife, so I find it difficult to understand how they could consider it to be a murder weapon. If that's all they've got, they don't have any evidence and she should be acquitted.
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Feb 1, 2014 10:12:44 GMT
My first thought on reading Moose's initial post was that it depends on how "safe" the conviction is. I think people need to not think that they can commit a crime and then hide in another country, away from the consequences, but from what Tangent has posted, I would not be happy if that is all that was used to convict.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 1, 2014 11:43:09 GMT
That was the only hard evidence but there was evidence of a sort from Knox's own statements under interrogation. Reading the account of her interrogation, I don't believe a safe conviction is possible. Her treatment was horrendous and cross contamination of DNA evidence was certainly possible.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 1, 2014 18:19:33 GMT
BUT - she did frame a completely innocent man.
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Feb 1, 2014 18:31:37 GMT
I think there is potentially another charge to bring (attempting to pervert the course of justice or something like that) but the question of whether or not she did the murder herself remains and should be treated separately.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 1, 2014 18:41:11 GMT
Having read what the Italian police did to her, I'm not taking anything they say at face value. The circumstances under which she is said to have accused Lumumba were highly dubious. Her boyfriend, Sollecito, for example, was told to sign a document saying Knox was not with him all night, which he did to protect himself because he was terrified police would persuade Knox to implicate him. I think you have to read the whole account to understand how badly it was handled.
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Feb 1, 2014 18:55:41 GMT
Absolutely! I wasn't trying to imply anything either way in respect to guilt or innocence, but there is often implications that because the one case looks dodgy that the other may be. I don't have enough evidence to make a decision myself, so it has to be handled by the relevant authorities, even if it is the job of some authorities to protect people from the other authorities! The media has an unfortunate behaviour of not stopping at reporting the facts, but makes its mind up and then reports what it wants to, changing sides as necessary!
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 9, 2014 23:32:23 GMT
Steve - I really do not think that there is any excuse for implicating an innocent man. That guy - who was especially vulnerable as a black man and an African whose word was against that of a young white American woman - could have gone to jail for decades. She has refused to pay him the compensation that the court ordered her to pay, too.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 10, 2014 0:46:25 GMT
I would never condone such behaviour but that is not evidence of her guilt.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 10, 2014 1:42:24 GMT
No but you have to ask why she would say such a thing.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 10, 2014 13:22:07 GMT
I think it was a combination of being a silly young woman, intimidation by a foreign police force and panic.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 10, 2014 18:51:29 GMT
And I think you are too influenced by a pretty face She strikes me as being perfectly in control of herself and the things that she says.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 11, 2014 0:26:56 GMT
No, not true, I was influenced by the Wikipedia report. If she were in control of herself, she wouldn't have concocted a silly story (which implicated her) and then changed it.
I don't know whether she's guilty, of course, but I'm certain there isn't any evidence to convict her. Her boyfriend even less so.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 11, 2014 0:55:18 GMT
well if there isn't ANY evidence to convict her, how could there be 'even less' to convict her boyfriend?
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 11, 2014 0:55:34 GMT
well if there isn't ANY evidence to convict her, how could there be 'even less' to convict her boyfriend?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 11, 2014 10:01:59 GMT
There is circumstantial evidence but it is so flimsy it could not be used to convict Amanda Knox. Even less so for her boyfriend.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 11, 2014 19:30:25 GMT
But it HAS been..
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 12, 2014 0:59:53 GMT
OK, I may have to revise that statement, I cannot see how the circumstantial evidence could be used to convict Amanda Knox.
|
|