I never heard of this bitch before, but I guess shes up for murder charges in Italy. Her verdict is due in about 5 minutes if CNN can be believed. I can't WAIT to see if she gets the dea..Oh right, Europe. Life.
*giddy*
What was I thinking? An American on trial in Europe. She was fucked since day 1.
is she hott?
I dont think so, at least not by internet standards.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftothewire.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F02%2Famanda_knox_purple_1356759c.jpg&hash=409f6158a88272f1be3ce6b66e2016b38d63de4d)
She's ok looking. Needs implants tho. Anyway, go go Foxy Knoxy! :cool:
Wow, she looks sinister in that pic. :lol:
Guilty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
She looks pretty great to me.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsnbcmedia2.msn.com%2Fj%2FMSNBC%2FComponents%2FPhoto%2F_new%2F090116-amanda-knox-vmed-245a.widec.jpg&hash=10f32794f6d7ba2ae07b730cc69bbefc15a9531a)
She looks good in that photo. Jaron's makes her look like a member of the Manson family. :lol:
CNN had some harpie that writes for Esquire or Vanity Fair or one of those going on and on about how unfair the Italian court system is, how the prosecutor had it out for Amanda because she liked to get stoned and fuck, how there was no physical evidence and no reasonable theory.
I figure the harpie is connected to Amanda's family, who judging by the fact that they're moving out to Italy to expedite the appeals process are stinking rich.
Media campaign -> US public opinion -> request to have her transferred back to US prison -> parole/pardon.
I also remember some pictures from before in which she looked pretty damn good.
Quote from: Jaron on December 04, 2009, 06:23:09 PM
Guilty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who'd of thought. :rolleyes:
She is a cute girl from Seattle area a UW student iirc.
A quick google for this in the Seattle press brings this:
Quote from: SeattlePI
Much of the case against University of Washington honor student Amanda Knox, trapped inside an Italian murder mystery, has vaporized in the six months she's been in the Big House.
Somehow this has escaped the attention of the international press, so eager to fabulate a sexed-up persona for the 20-year-old from Seattle. Nor has it caused a stir in her hometown.
PictureAlong with Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito, she's suspected of participating in the Nov. 1 murder of her British flatmate Meredith Kercher in Perugia. Held without formal charges, they can linger in that limbo until Nov. 2008.
For Knox, there is hope. Not only did the Supreme Court of Italy recently throw out her so-called "false confession" because of her lawyer-less interrogation, but her defense team felt confident enough this week to file for house arrest.
If successful, she could be released within a week, but we have no crystal ball. It's like trying to predict whether Big Brown will win the Triple Crown or stumble like Funny Cide.
I trust the Italians to do the right thing, whatever that is (We still have not seen all the evidence.). But beware the zig-zag path. Beware Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, even though he's being investigated himself for abuse of power.
He's capable of a June surprise. He could be hiding cards or even new evidence under his long black sleeves.
PictureWhile we're waiting for PM Giuliano Mignini to wrap up the investigation fairly soon, let's update "What If She's Innocent?" the story in which I asked readers to step back and take a fresh look at the case against Knox.
1. The sex games and stir-fry mushroom party theory was tossed after a new post-mortem cast doubt on whether Meredith was raped.
2. Middleaged male reporters have finally stopped perving Knox's schoolgirl sex life. Paris Hilton and Britney Spears once again serve their needs. Meanwhile, the media shows zero interest in the sex lives of the two male suspects.
3. The robbery motive has sprung back to life, thanks to Rudy Guede, who is pointing the finger at Amanda. The Supreme Court has scoffed at his alibi, but he's singing arias to the prosecutor.
Guede first said Amanda wasn't there on the night of the murder. Next he said she was at the door and he heard her voice. Now he claims she was inside the house, quarreling with Kercher about money.
4. The international press hasn't noticed the dramatic improvement in Knox's legal battle. They're too busy listening to Rudy sing.
5. The Supreme Court in April said it's "indisputable and evident" that Guede took part in the murder. The role of the other two suspects remains a jigsaw puzzle.
Picture6. Police had claimed Knox and Guede called each other on their cellphones before and after the murder. Guede didn't have a cellphone with him that night, his lawyer revealed.
6. Amanda's computer was damaged in police custody, so they can't evaluate her hard drive.
7. Alibis for all three suspects need clearing up. Questions, questions. We'd like to ask them questions.
8. The prosecution hasn't proven Amanda and Raffaele knew Rudy (although they may have known OF him, sure, it's a small town.).
We do know Rudy used to visit the boys downstairs in the girls' house. But did he know Meredith? He says yes, but nobody will back up his tale.
Picture8. Rudy and Amanda remain in Capanne prison.
9. Raffaele has been moved to Terni. This week he acquired a glamorous new lawyer, Guila Buongirno
She says: "My client is very, very stressed by the whole episode. He feels like any other 23-year-old who is in custody for murder - he feels like the second victim.
"I have accepted this appointment because having looked at the paperwork I am convinced of his innocence."
10. Remaining evidence against Knox. Two blood stains in the small bathroom the two girls shared. Mixed blood in the bidet (well, they shared that too). A drop of blood of Amanda's on the sink tap.
11. The suspected murder weapon looks iffier all the time. A kitchen knife found in Raffaele's apartment, it's supposed to have Knox's DNA on the handle and (the disputed part) Kercher's near the tip. In or out of evidence? Hang on. We should know for sure soon.
12. The bloody footprint. Rudy's or Raffe's? C'mon, polizia, decide. You're giving us vertigo.
13. Rafe's DNA on bra strap. Besides the footprint, this appears to be the only evidence still against him. Real thing or result of contamination (crime scene footage makes this appear to be a possibility, but too soon to call. We need more information).
14. Bogus: The La Repubblica interview with Amanda Knox. The "Amanda annoying other prisoners by singing Beatle songs" story (OK, we love that one. Why Paul McCartney songs, Amanda. Can't you see John Lennon is the man?). The infamous bleaching and cleanup stories remain unproven. The press hasn't mentioned them for ages, usually a very bad sign for conspiracy theorists. Let's wait and see.
15. Face-to-face hearing. Every reporter's fantasy, Rudy, Amanda, Rafe, together at last Well, actually it could be for the very first time, since the prosecution has yet to offer proof that this trio knew each other let alone conspired.
Nothing in the works yet, but a reporter can dream.
Looks like an ed, but the facts do indeed look like a rather weak case. What say you, Mr. Barrister?
Edit: From here - http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/138524.asp
There are a lot of links there, probably with better details.
I like it how US media paint Italy as some sort of Third World hellhole :lol:
Seattle PI does not appear to be the most sober and even-handed reciter of facts.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2009, 06:44:32 PM
CNN had some harpie that writes for Esquire or Vanity Fair or one of those going on and on about how unfair the Italian court system is, how the prosecutor had it out for Amanda because she liked to get stoned and fuck, how there was no physical evidence and no reasonable theory.
I figure the harpie is connected to Amanda's family, who judging by the fact that they're moving out to Italy to expedite the appeals process are stinking rich.
Media campaign -> US public opinion -> request to have her transferred back to US prison -> parole/pardon.
I also remember some pictures from before in which she looked pretty damn good.
The idea that the Italian criminal justice system is corrupt and any actual justice that might come from it is purely coincidentally isn't exactly new.
Quote from: Jaron on December 04, 2009, 06:14:21 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftothewire.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F02%2Famanda_knox_purple_1356759c.jpg&hash=409f6158a88272f1be3ce6b66e2016b38d63de4d)
Just look at that maniacal stare. She did it.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 04, 2009, 06:49:56 PM
Looks like an ed, but the facts do indeed look like a rather weak case. What say you, Mr. Barrister?
I say that it is foolish to come to conslusions about any criminal case without actually being in the courtroom or reading the decision.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2009, 06:56:38 PM
The idea that the Italian criminal justice system is corrupt and any actual justice that might come from it is purely coincidentally isn't exactly new.
Corruption usually works in favour of stinking rich defendants.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 04, 2009, 07:01:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2009, 06:56:38 PM
The idea that the Italian criminal justice system is corrupt and any actual justice that might come from it is purely coincidentally isn't exactly new.
Corruption usually works in favour of stinking rich defendants.
But rarely foreigners.
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2009, 06:59:11 PM
I say that it is foolish to come to conslusions about any criminal case without actually being in the courtroom or reading the decision.
So don't come make a prediction, just give us the keys to the game.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 04, 2009, 07:07:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2009, 06:59:11 PM
I say that it is foolish to come to conslusions about any criminal case without actually being in the courtroom or reading the decision.
So don't come make a prediction, just give us the keys to the game.
She needs to stay strong in the key and rebound well.
What is this I heard on the news about the verdict comes first and motive some weeks later?
Quote from: Caliga on December 04, 2009, 06:18:32 PM
She's ok looking. Needs implants tho. Anyway, go go Foxy Knoxy! :cool:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Fafp%2F20091202%2Fcapt.photo_1259771675970-1-0.jpg&hash=dcde979883ba4ec65214ad8879a902ce98fc6b20)
So I read a bit more about the case and don't know what to say.
The Italian justice system doesn't have the highest regard in the world, but it's not a soviet-style showtrial either. Random assertions about "corrupt italy" really aren't helpful.
I didn't see a whole lot of direct evidence tieing her to the crime, but again the english-language media seems somewhat biased in favour of her innocence.
Quote from: Sahib on December 04, 2009, 06:55:52 PM
I like it how US media paint Italy as some sort of Third World hellhole :lol:
Poor Euros are lampooned as soft on crime...until they convict somebody then they conduct showtrials where the result is a forgone conclusion.
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2009, 07:22:15 PM
Quote from: Sahib on December 04, 2009, 06:55:52 PM
I like it how US media paint Italy as some sort of Third World hellhole :lol:
Poor Euros are lampooned as soft on crime...until they convict somebody then they conduct showtrials where the result is a forgone conclusion.
I just remember how the Louise Woodward trial was covered over there and I say: Fuck 'em. Fuck Amanda Knox, Fuck Miss Woodward, and fuck Europe.
this is the love-triangle girl, right?
saw a report on her a few years ago, and i don't know the facts of the case, but it seemed like she could have very well been guilty. after being told of her roommate's death, she was seen shopping with her boyfriend and looking positively gleeful in the following days. obviously this doesn't prove that she did it, but i wouldn't be surprised if she did
Post-offense mood and behaviour is a really dangerous area to assess credibility. Not everyone reacts to stress or tragedy in the same way.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 04, 2009, 07:26:50 PM
I just remember how the Louise Woodward trial was covered over there and I say: Fuck 'em. Fuck Amanda Knox, Fuck Miss Woodward, and fuck Europe.
I'd certainly like to fuck Amanda Knox.
She's pretty cute IMO, you guys have not posted the best photos :huh:
I don't think there's any particular reason to suspect a mis-trial, not in a apolitical criminal case.
How long until they release her lesbian prison rape video??
MISSCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE :mad:
Where's Otto Skorzeny when we need him? :(
Italian guards have some snazzy uniforms.
I remember reading a lot of articles that bashed the Italian judicial system for going after an American girl. However, I've tried to be careful not to get whipped into hysteria just by those articles. It's very common in case where people are tried in foreign countries to have their home team rooting for them, and cover the trial in less than flattering terms. I'm sure American press is going to tilt its reporting in favor of Americans, just like European press would tilt its reporting in favor of pedophiles.
Apparently she's also being sued for defamation by the guy that she originally implicated as the murderer.
I'd hit it. Her being crazy making it more interesting.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.metro.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2007%2F11%2Fknoxgun_450x291.jpg&hash=052da9f2684b3f81cbb5b17b18124dc9e66d1c92)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos.thefirstpost.co.uk%2Fassets%2Flibrary%2Fpeople-amanda-knox--123211805787753500.jpg&hash=4f622948ec231dee0b8c1744b3ecafc23377f1a0)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftimesonline.typepad.com%2Fphotos%2Funcategorized%2F2008%2F10%2F30%2Famanda_knox.jpg&hash=953329ebd8a2579f8a8c698e390d81e4c2e898ba)
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2009, 07:20:46 PM
So I read a bit more about the case and don't know what to say.
The Italian justice system doesn't have the highest regard in the world, but it's not a soviet-style showtrial either. Random assertions about "corrupt italy" really aren't helpful.
I didn't see a whole lot of direct evidence tieing her to the crime, but again the english-language media seems somewhat biased in favour of her innocence.
Well, the prosecution, despite having over two years to formulate a case, couldn't decide on one theory or another. So they pretty much threw everything at the wall, even the shoddy forensics.
And let this be a lesson to you, kids: NEVER LEAVE AMERICA.
Quote from: DGuller on December 04, 2009, 11:05:11 PM
I remember reading a lot of articles that bashed the Italian judicial system for going after an American girl. However, I've tried to be careful not to get whipped into hysteria just by those articles. It's very common in case where people are tried in foreign countries to have their home team rooting for them, and cover the trial in less than flattering terms. I'm sure American press is going to tilt its reporting in favor of Americans, just like European press would tilt its reporting in favor of pedophiles.
The Italian press already considers her guilty calling her "The devil with an angel's face" and all.
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2009, 07:53:11 PM
Post-offense mood and behaviour is a really dangerous area to assess credibility. Not everyone reacts to stress or tragedy in the same way.
while you make a good point, i was merely offering my own pointless observations of the case that i remembered from a likely biased "documentary" on a nationally broadcast american television show years back :D
I wonder if at any point she went, "You can't do this, I'm an American!"
It's heartwarming to see that Polish press is not the only one in being tough on crime except when it is one of our boys/girls being tried abroad.
We had a case last year of a Polish guy being accused of rape and attempted murder in the UK. They had his DNA and he was caught on CCTV, yet Polish tabloids depicted him as innocent and the UK court system as some cangaroo farce. The same tabloids that routinely call for castration or bringing back death penalty for locally-operating rapists. :D
And of course there is the Polanski's case. Of course, it's hard to compare his relatively small crime to murder this bitch is guilty of.
One thing missing from this thread is Merri's reaction, though. Although I can predict that had the girl was her daughter, she would have probably taken her out into an empty parking lot and blew her brains out with a Magnum. HOTT.
IMHO most Americans should be convicted.
That's just the black ones old chap :huh:
Well, if this reassures anyone about the quality of italian justice system ( :lmfao: :rolleyes:), the Knox girl was not the only one judged guilty, but his italian boyfriend Sollecito too (26 years in jail, for Amanda 25) and a ivorian guy, Rudy Guede, who was sentenced 30 years.
No prejudice against amerikka, it seems. :yeah:
L.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2009, 07:03:40 PM
But rarely foreigners.
The victim was also a foreigner . . .
Quote from: Sahib on December 04, 2009, 06:55:52 PM
I like it how US media paint Italy as some sort of Third World hellhole :lol:
It isn't?
Yes, it has a lot of culture, and history. Yes, it has added a lot to the world as a whole. That still doesn't mean it isn't a Third World Hellhole.
Quote from: Strix on December 05, 2009, 11:11:45 AM
Quote from: Sahib on December 04, 2009, 06:55:52 PM
I like it how US media paint Italy as some sort of Third World hellhole :lol:
It isn't?
Yes, it has a lot of culture, and history. Yes, it has added a lot to the world as a whole. That still doesn't mean it isn't a Third World Hellhole.
One word: Berlusconi.
Quote from: Strix on December 05, 2009, 11:11:45 AM
Quote from: Sahib on December 04, 2009, 06:55:52 PM
I like it how US media paint Italy as some sort of Third World hellhole :lol:
It isn't?
Yes, it has a lot of culture, and history. Yes, it has added a lot to the world as a whole. That still doesn't mean it isn't a Third World Hellhole.
Now, now, let's be realistic here. Post-unification Italy has no culture or history and has added nothing to the world as a whole.
Quote from: Neil on December 05, 2009, 11:51:35 AM
Quote from: Strix on December 05, 2009, 11:11:45 AM
Quote from: Sahib on December 04, 2009, 06:55:52 PM
I like it how US media paint Italy as some sort of Third World hellhole :lol:
It isn't?
Yes, it has a lot of culture, and history. Yes, it has added a lot to the world as a whole. That still doesn't mean it isn't a Third World Hellhole.
Now, now, let's be realistic here. Post-unification Italy has no culture or history and has added nothing to the world as a whole.
Post unification Italy gave the world: fascism. :ph34r:
Quote from: Winkelried on December 05, 2009, 11:59:14 AM
Post unification Italy gave the world: fascism. :ph34r:
Fascism was merely an extention of the total war mentality of the Great War to peacetime.
They gave us pizza. :unsure:
They're pretty good at pumping out the tasty babes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 05, 2009, 12:28:55 PM
They're pretty good at pumping out the tasty babes.
Monica Bellucci alone gives them a free pass for fascism.
Quote from: Scipio on December 05, 2009, 01:07:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 05, 2009, 12:28:55 PM
They're pretty good at pumping out the tasty babes.
Monica Bellucci alone gives them a free pass for fascism.
bleh
Quote from: Neil on December 05, 2009, 11:51:35 AM
Quote from: Strix on December 05, 2009, 11:11:45 AM
Quote from: Sahib on December 04, 2009, 06:55:52 PM
I like it how US media paint Italy as some sort of Third World hellhole :lol:
It isn't?
Yes, it has a lot of culture, and history. Yes, it has added a lot to the world as a whole. That still doesn't mean it isn't a Third World Hellhole.
Now, now, let's be realistic here. Post-unification Italy has no culture or history and has added nothing to the world as a whole.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent9.flixster.com%2Fquestion%2F37%2F11%2F43%2F3711439_std.jpg&hash=9eefbc2e219616b73a11a06a60e29962df611d99)
What have the Italians ever given to us?
CBS has a 48 Hours special on the case starting at 10pm EST, for anybody you wants a refresher.
Will it have recreations of the sex games?
Quote from: Jaron on December 05, 2009, 10:10:01 PM
Will it have recreations of the sex games?
If you mean the Italian court system, then yes. Yes, it will.
Quote from: DGuller on December 04, 2009, 11:05:11 PM
I'm sure American press is going to tilt its reporting in favor of Americans, just like European press would tilt its reporting in favor of pedophiles.
:lol:
Quote from: Jaron on December 05, 2009, 12:11:37 PM
They gave us pizza. :unsure:
The kind with thin crust and not enough cheese...
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 05, 2009, 10:24:40 PM
Quote from: Jaron on December 05, 2009, 12:11:37 PM
They gave us pizza. :unsure:
The kind with thin crust and not enough cheese...
Pizza is about the sauce. What is bread with cheese on it but cheese bread? What is bread with cheese and toppings on it but a sandwich?
Do not forget to *enjoy* the *sauce*.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.star-control.com%2Fhosted%2Fhappycamper%2Fgifs%2Forz-sitting.gif&hash=0294e71fbb87be4c3749ff8f5609b539647e818d)
Whooooooaaaa, trippy.
I can't think of any person who looks as different in various pictures as this chick.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 05, 2009, 11:09:15 PM
Whooooooaaaa, trippy.
I can't think of any person who looks as different in various pictures as this chick.
Lon Chaney?
Quote from: grumbler on December 05, 2009, 10:17:41 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 04, 2009, 11:05:11 PM
I'm sure American press is going to tilt its reporting in favor of Americans, just like European press would tilt its reporting in favor of pedophiles.
:lol:
He has a point, though. When a German guy (16 or 17) had sex with and/or raped a 13 year old English girl in Turkey, the tabloids in Germany were reporting in his favor.
While the rest of the nation didn't give a damn.
Watched the 48 Hours show on this last night.
What I found interesting about the Amanda Knox case was that the prosecutor has been under indictment for another case for abuse under the color of authority, tampering of evidence, and illegal wiretapping during the whole case. His trial is set for January, and he's looking at two years.
Also, Italian forensics really need to get into the 20th century, let alone the 21st. Submitting DNA evidence that was found at the crime scene 6 weeks later, with videotape of the forensics team stepping all over it? LULZ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JhuOicPFZY&feature=related
Gotta love those Italian jurys!
Quote from: katmai on December 06, 2009, 08:02:44 AM
Gotta love those Italian jurys!
Heh, the ones that don't get sequestered during a trial, and bring the tabloid comic books of the sex-and-Satanic-ritual murder with them to court? Too funny.
Well, don't feel too bad. At some point, she'll probably get moved to an American prison, at which point she's likely to be immediately freed.
Quote from: Neil on December 06, 2009, 08:36:25 AM
Well, don't feel too bad. At some point, she'll probably get moved to an American prison, at which point she's likely to be immediately freed.
By an angry mob that'll proceed to string her up in the nearest telephone pole...
Oh, she's not black. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Gambrinus on December 06, 2009, 10:14:33 AM
Oh, she's not black. :Embarrass:
She's also not guilty. But hey.
Shame on you Italy! Shame on you!
Hot girls that like to fuck should remain free for all the world to enjoy.
Selfish sons of bitches.
Looks like most trials in Italy are like Knox's.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/12/10/can_anyone_get_a_fair_trial_in_italy
QuoteCan Anyone Get a Fair Trial in Italy?
What the Amanda Knox verdict tells us about the Italian legal system.
BY ANNA MOMIGLIANO | DECEMBER 10, 2009
In November 2007, a British college student named Meredith Kercher was brutally murdered in her rented apartment in Perugia, Italy. Her roommate, a pretty Seattle native, Amanda Knox, admitted under interrogation that she had committed the crime, but later retracted her confession, claiming police abuse. Nevertheless, Knox and her former boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, were tried and convicted of Kercher's rape and murder last week in an Italian court.
The Knox trial was fraught with controversy, and the media coverage in the Italian and British press was obsessive. Papers painted Knox as an ice queen, a libertine, and a demon. Speculating wildly, prosecutor Giuliano Mignini accused Knox of "harboring hatred against Meredith" until "the time came for taking revenge," and drunkenly attempting to drag Kercher into "heavy sexual games." Moreover, Knox's family argued the DNA test upon which the case rested was compromised. U.S. cable shows declared the verdict a sham, shredding the evidence and the court's conduct. And now, the Knox case is turning into an international trial on the reliability of Italy's justice system.
The truth is, Italians have long since recognized the unreliability and compromised nature of their courts. At the moment, the Italian public's trust in the justice system is at an all-time low. According to a November poll by Euromedia research group, only 16 percent of Italians fully trust it; just two years ago, the figure was 28 percent. And Italian civil rights groups are intense in their criticism of what they view as kangaroo courts.
For one, they say that coerced confessions and the use of dubious forensic evidence, as might have happened in the Knox case, are way too common. "Inquiries are conducted without any reliable methods," says Roberto Malini, president of EveryOne, a nongovernmental organization that defends ethnic minorities in jail. "Tests take place solely in the laboratories of the state police. There's no independent lab, and independent observers do not have access to the police's work."
He also claims that prosecutors routinely present evidence as proof. "Recently we've followed the case of Romulus Mailat, a young man accused of raping and murdering a woman in Rome," Malini says. "The prosecutors [said] the defendant had blood under his fingernails, assuming it was the victim's. Oddly enough, they didn't think of taking a DNA test. The defendant's lawyer had to ask for it. When finally the test was taken, the prosecutors claimed it was unreliable because the blood had been reportedly altered by water, and they refused to show the results." Mailat was convicted.
Legal experts also share concerns about Italy's bar for admissibility. Il Giornale, a conservative newspaper, for instance, recently published an interview with Marco Morin, a Venice-based firearms expert who declared he no longer wanted to work in Italian courts. "In the United States, federal judges must study a 637-page manual in order to be able to evaluate [forensic] evidence," he told the newspaper. "Here, they accept everything without questioning, as long as it comes from the institutional laboratory."
Further, some Italians believe the media is complicit in "creating a general sense of social alarm," says Malini, pressuring authorities to arrest, indict, and sometimes even convict suspects without solid evidence. Newspapers routinely blame blood crimes on suspects belonging to "dangerous minorities" -- that is, immigrants from Romania or Italian Roma -- not just perverting the course of justice, but stoking racism to boot.
"Here in Italy trials take place in TV, rather than in court," Judge Francesco Cananzi, a representative of the national council of magistrates, publicly stated this year. And as the Knox case demonstrated, the court of public opinion is often defamatory. For instance, the Italian press routinely demonizes defendants by revealing embarrassing details about their personal lives, even if unrelated to the trial -- such as the pornography kept on their home computers. Knox's alleged sexual promiscuity, even her preferred underwear, made headlines across the globe.
Additionally, the length of criminal trials has become an issue of hot dispute. Defendants have access to a multi-part trial process, including automatically granted appeals. Thus, criminal trials "take ages -- on average from 5 to 6 years," explains Vincenzo Ricciuto, a law professor at Tor Vergata University in Rome. "This means an innocent person can wait behind bars for several years. What kind of justice is this?" he asks -- noting that the European Court of Justice routinely sanctions Italy due to its drawn-out legal processes.
Hoping to fix these problems, the conservative government is proposing a series of reforms, including one nicknamed processo breve (fast trial). The law would set a maximum trial length, reportedly, six years, start to finish. After that deadline, most charges would expire. "The idea behind it is a good one" -- Ricciuto says -- "but unfortunately the timing and the details of this reform are poorly managed."
For one, shorter trials are not necessarily fairer trials, and the reforms do little to change the underlying dynamics. More importantly, any judicial reforms are complicated by the man in charge: prime minister and perpetual defendant Silvio Berlusconi, who is currently facing three separate corruption charges in court.
Berlusconi recently raised eyebrows when Parliament approved a law granting him immunity. A court overruled it, noting that it violated the principle that all citizens are equal. But the processo breve law, if enacted, might have the same effect, nullifying some of the charges against the prime minister.
Italians do not much mind Berlusconi's frequent court appearances or possible judicial meddling -- his favorability rating has hovered above 50 percent -- likely because the courts are so compromised through and through. But the Knox verdict has brought an extraordinary amount of international attention to bear on this broken system.
The guilty verdict caused an immediate outcry in Europe and abroad. Sen. Maria Cantwell, from Knox's home state of Washington, said in a statement that she had "serious questions about the Italian justice system." (Some Italian media outfits misreported Cantwell's criticism, saying it came from none other than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has agreed to meet with Cantwell.) No less than Foreign Minister Franco Frattini had to step in to assuage fears over harmed U.S.-Italy relations over the case.
Italy has gone on the defensive, with editorials insinuating American chauvinism behind the criticism of the courts, and Berlusconi's government, ironically, defending the courts he so often accuses of activism against him. But it remains to be seen whether the world will reach the same que sera, sera verdict as the Italians.
I hope she gets raped in prison.
Verdict overturned.
Fuck you, Italy.
http://www.businessinsider.com/amanda-knox-verdict-2011-10
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 03, 2011, 02:54:57 PM
Fuck you, Italy.
Isn't that verdict a good thing? Why the hostility?
if she wasn't hot she'd still be in jail.
So, is she really guilty or not? It's kind of hard to know how to feel about the news, if you don't know the truth.
Quote from: DGuller on October 03, 2011, 03:34:19 PM
So, is she really guilty or not? It's kind of hard to know how to feel about the news, if you don't know the truth.
Back when she was originally convicted the evidence against her seemed thin to me, and the prosecutor seemed to be scoring points on prosecuting an American. But I generally try and resist making any pronouncements on court cases because after being involved in them I know that what gets reported in the media is less than 1% of the overall story.
Well the Italian legal system is something or a farce.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 03, 2011, 03:44:07 PM
Well the Italian legal system is something or a farce.
Hopefully girl can take the first thing smoking out of Italy if she can. Run girl run.
Oh and what Ed said.....
I forgot what I said. I assume it involved vaginas.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 03, 2011, 04:11:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 03, 2011, 03:44:07 PM
Well the Italian legal system is something or a farce.
Hopefully girl can take the first thing smoking out of Italy if she can. Run girl run.
Oh and what Ed said.....
I have no idea if the girl is innocent or not. Haven't been following the story at all. Don't really care, but any country where Silvio Berlusconi can not only be free but serve as Prime Minister has something really wrong with it.
I'd have a bunga bunga party with Foxy Knoxy.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 03, 2011, 03:44:07 PM
Well the Italian legal system is something or a farce.
Agreed that it's one of those two. Perhaps both.
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2009, 07:20:46 PMI didn't see a whole lot of direct evidence tieing her to the crime, but again the english-language media seems somewhat biased in favour of her innocence.
Not in the UK it wasn't. The assumption in our media, from the start, was that she's guilty.
Indeed the Daily Mail accidentally uploaded the KNOX GUILTY version of their story just after the verdict was quashed :bleeding:
Let us hope the cunt gets murdered when she's back in the US. Her Italian boyfriend was cute though.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 03, 2011, 06:11:03 PM
Let us hope the cunt gets murdered when she's back in the US. Her Italian boyfriend was cute though.
G.
For what? If you're gonna be a vagina-hating imbecile, shouldn't you at least take solace that the court system still felt she needed to be punished for "false accusations" after basically kidnapping her?
Maybe Foxy Knoxy and the pig Louise Woodward can meet and blow each other up. Like matter/antimatter.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 03, 2011, 06:14:11 PM
For what? If you're gonna be a vagina-hating imbecile, shouldn't you at least take solace that the court system still felt she needed to be punished for "false accusations" after basically kidnapping her?
If you can't see she's guilty than you're the imbecile. This is the Bernardo/Homolka thing all over again.
G.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2011, 06:06:58 PM
Indeed the Daily Mail accidentally uploaded the KNOX GUILTY version of their story just after the verdict was quashed :bleeding:
Yeah I saw that. :lol:
Quote from: Grallon on October 03, 2011, 06:16:43 PM
If you can't see she's guilty than you're the imbecile. This is the Bernardo/Homolka thing all over again.
:blink: No, it's not. It's not even remotely close to that.
I don't think anyone can "see she's guilty" other than anyone who might have been in the room. Certainly those of us in the peanut gallery have no business making assertions like that, either of guilt or innocence.
In Grallon's world, she probably really did it and left all kinds of obvious evidence. Like writing "I am Amanda Knox and I killed that bitch!" in the lollipop tree just outside the crime scene. And certified dna blood samples in the refrigerator right next to the unicorn milk.
Quote from: Caliga on October 03, 2011, 06:19:25 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 03, 2011, 06:06:58 PM
Indeed the Daily Mail accidentally uploaded the KNOX GUILTY version of their story just after the verdict was quashed :bleeding:
Yeah I saw that. :lol:
The full article was pretty bad:
http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2011/10/mailonline-makes-up-events-quotes-from.html
:hmm: It's a tabloid... don't they do shit like that all the time? If not... is there really a Bat Boy in West Virginia? :o
Which acquitted non-murder is hotter, Amanda Knox or Casey Anthony?
Quote from: sbr on October 03, 2011, 07:12:20 PM
Which acquitted non-murder is hotter, Amanda Knox or Casey Anthony?
I'd do both of them.
Quote from: Grallon on October 03, 2011, 06:11:03 PM
Let us hope the cunt gets murdered when she's back in the US. Her Italian boyfriend was cute though.
G.
She will also outlive you. :)
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 03, 2011, 07:14:16 PM
Quote from: sbr on October 03, 2011, 07:12:20 PM
Which acquitted non-murder is hotter, Amanda Knox or Casey Anthony?
I'd do both of them.
That would be a killer threesome. :perv:
Quote from: Razgovory on October 03, 2011, 07:16:37 PM
She will also outlive you. :)
*cackles*
Remember - I'll be here to cheer the 'departure' or many of you. ^_^
G.
If I see her in the produce aisle at QFC, I'll slap her.
I want a better alibi than, we were both at his house, oh and no one saw us!
What a marvelous season for prosecutors getting egg on their proverbial faces! :D From DSK grandstanding to Casey Anthony to this...
Anyway, the moral of this story is: America rules. Britain sucks. Italy sucks. Grallon sucks. :showoff:
Quote from: Caliga on October 03, 2011, 09:07:46 PM
Anyway, the moral of this story is: America rules. Britain sucks. Italy sucks. Grallon sucks. :showoff:
Isn't that the moral of pretty much any story? :unsure:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnimg.sulekha.com%2Fothers%2Foriginal700%2F2008-9-16-14-44-56-af9780fe9fb640d58b39e7d4fb49709e-af9780fe9fb640d58b39e7d4fb49709e-2.jpg&hash=a851cc11b7acd68925d373380bbb5aea45214882)
The sister is ok with the exception of her eyes. She kinda looks like that lizard from the Rango movie. Eh, still doable. Just make her wear a pair of googles.
Quote from: grumbler on October 03, 2011, 09:27:37 PM
Quote from: Caliga on October 03, 2011, 09:07:46 PM
Anyway, the moral of this story is: America rules. Britain sucks. Italy sucks. Grallon sucks. :showoff:
Isn't that the moral of pretty much any story? :unsure:
:yes:
Quote from: sbr on October 03, 2011, 07:12:20 PM
Which acquitted non-murder is hotter, Amanda Knox or Casey Anthony?
Foxy Knoxy by a mile.
Anthony.
Didnt lifetime do some stupid movie recently on Knox?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 03, 2011, 06:24:53 PM
In Grallon's world, she probably really did it and left all kinds of obvious evidence. Like writing "I am Amanda Knox and I killed that bitch!" in the lollipop tree just outside the crime scene. And certified dna blood samples in the refrigerator right next to the unicorn milk.
I thought they had found murdered girl's dna on a knife with her fingerprints on it.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 03, 2011, 11:15:30 PM
I thought they had found murdered girl's dna on a knife with her fingerprints on it.
Defense brought in a new expert witness that says the Italian cops were stoopid in collecting evidence, so that pretty much got washed away.
From my perspective, if this girl went free in Italy, she had to be damn innocent, not just a little innocent. But then, my opinion of Italy isn't a good one. :P
I dunno Meri, lots of very guilty people are free to walk around in Italy.
I don't think Knox helped herself early on, going along with the Lumumba allegations. The shakey alibi, sort of odd behavior at the trial, played into Mignini's case. She was obviously a young person overwhelmed, and seems to have had bad legal advice (the behavior during trial) probably helped Mignini (along with the press free for all.) The BF seems to have just been pulled along, didn't hear much about him.
Quote from: Habsburg on October 03, 2011, 11:52:29 PM
The BF seems to have just been pulled along, didn't hear much about him.
Wasn't he an Italian? You wouldn't expect American media to care about him.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 03, 2011, 03:44:07 PM
Well the Italian legal system is something or a farce.
Assuming it's "of" and not "or", do you base this on anything substantial, when it comes to bringing flimsy criminal charges against people in Italy? I get the whole Italy bashing is all the rage and it has its failings, but I never thought that sentencing innocent people is one of them. In fact, if I was to name a single Western country which is rather infamous for putting innocent people in jail, it's probably the US.
We're hardly "infamous" for that, unless you're counting people convicted of drug crimes as innocents.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 04, 2011, 02:28:38 AM
We're hardly "infamous" for that, unless you're counting people convicted of drug crimes as innocents.
Obvious troll was obvious, and you fell for it anyway. :(
If we never responded to posts that weren't made in perfect sincerity, this forum would be an awfully quiet place.
Quote from: Martinus on October 04, 2011, 02:19:56 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 03, 2011, 03:44:07 PM
Well the Italian legal system is something or a farce.
Assuming it's "of" and not "or", do you base this on anything substantial, when it comes to bringing flimsy criminal charges against people in Italy? I get the whole Italy bashing is all the rage and it has its failings, but I never thought that sentencing innocent people is one of them. In fact, if I was to name a single Western country which is rather infamous for putting innocent people in jail, it's probably the US.
My knowledge of Italian judicial system is that they're the bane of auto racing. When Jim Clark was involved in a collision with Wolfgang von Trips, who was driving a Ferrari and was killed, Clark was harassed by Italian legal authorities for years. Clark also happened to be a title contender throughout his career, and often against Ferrari drivers. Mind you, von Trips was responsible for the accident, and fatal accidents are something that happened in racing, and pretty often in 1961.
The second example was when Ayrton Senna was killed in 1994 in a Williams car, probably because his steering column broke. Again, the owner of Williams and several other people were tried for manslaughter for years afterwards. Coincidentally, Williams was the main title contender of Ferrari those years.
I thought Senna died because of shitty track design and bad luck.
Quote from: Warspite on October 04, 2011, 07:11:55 AM
I thought Senna died because of shitty track design and bad luck.
That contributed.
Quote from: grumbler on October 04, 2011, 06:33:28 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 04, 2011, 02:28:38 AM
We're hardly "infamous" for that, unless you're counting people convicted of drug crimes as innocents.
Obvious troll was obvious, and you fell for it anyway. :(
Yeah, it's not worth even responding to something so dumb.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdesmond.yfrog.com%2FHimg806%2Fscaled.php%3Ftn%3D0%26amp%3Bserver%3D806%26amp%3Bfilename%3Dypgq.jpg%26amp%3Bxsize%3D640%26amp%3Bysize%3D640&hash=245d4a4577698b8204420c75aa554937f4cc9612)
Yes, yes I would.
Foreigners are under the impression that all Brits are sophisticated and well-spoken because we've only met the ones who've fled their wretched homeland.
And of course I would.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on October 04, 2011, 03:29:07 PM
Foreigners are under the impression that all Brits are sophisticated and well-spoken because we've only met the ones who've fled their wretched homeland.
And of course I would.
Talking to actual Brits has disabused me of that notion.
I realize she is probably a huge mess just now...
I felt her press conference today came off badly, maybe just her personality.
It was like watching Byrce Dallas Howard act, didn't buy it, painful to watch.
Thought it went as expected for someone in her position.
Quote from: 11B4V on October 04, 2011, 11:10:27 PM
Thought it went as expected for someone in her position.
Guilty as hell but about to make millions from her crime?
Quote from: Gups on October 05, 2011, 02:58:41 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on October 04, 2011, 11:10:27 PM
Thought it went as expected for someone in her position.
Guilty as hell but about to make millions from her crime?
Guilty????
In the, she killed someone sense rather than the legal sense.
I saw this and thought of Languish :lol:
QuoteThe Wright Stuff's Amanda Knox Would Ya? segment prompts outrage
TV presenter Matthew Wright has sparked fury on Twitter after asking viewers of his show The Wright Stuff whether they would consider going back to Amanda Knox's room after meeting her in a bar.
On this morning's Channel 5 programme Wright, delivering a monologue to the camera, said: 'She's entirely innocent of the murder of Meredith Kercher and foxy as hell, so what I want to know this morning is: If you met Amanda Knox in a bar and she invited you back to her room - would ya?'
A preview blurb on the Channel 5 website under the tag line 'Foxy Knoxy: Would Ya?' read: 'So Amanda Knox has been cleared of the murder of British student Meredith Kercher. She's entirely innocent. She's also undeniably fit and loves wild sex. Or did.
'So if you were a guy who'd met her in a bar and she invited you back to hers, would you go? I'm being quite serious. Or would something in your brain make you think twice?'
Amanda Knox was cleared of the murder of British student Meredith Kercher at her appeal in Perugia on Monday night, in a case that has seen huge interest in the media.
Meredith's distraught family held a press conference today and told the world they were 'back to square one', knowing full well some involved in their daughter's death was still roaming free.
Twitter users were quick to criticise Matthew Wright's flippant discussion.
John Reynolds labelled it 'abysmal' while Tom Rose tweeted: 'The Wright Stuff sinking to all new lows, didn't think it was possible for it to get any worse.'
BBC presenter Jeremy Vine also contributed to the debate surrounding Knox's 'Foxy Knoxy' appellation recently, saying: 'Can we now drop the "Foxy Knoxy" thing. It is just too serious for that'
Presenter Matthew Wright defended the segment, telling Metro.co.uk: 'For the last four years, the world has been more than happy to refer to a woman, then presumed to be a killer, as "Foxy Knoxy" something I find appalling.
'I thought it would be interesting to find out if mud sticks, or whether an innocent young woman could now go out and behave in a perfectly normal way. The real disgrace is the Foxy Knoxy epithet.'
A Wright Stuff spokesperson added: 'The discussion conducted between Matthew Wright and our panel of Kelly Hoppen, Christopher Biggins and Liz McClarnon was handled extremely sensitively and at no point did we lose sight of the fact that at the heart of the matter is the tragic death of a young girl - Meredith Kercher.'
http://www.metro.co.uk/tv/877508-the-wright-stuff-s-amanda-knox-would-ya-segment-prompts-outrage (http://www.metro.co.uk/tv/877508-the-wright-stuff-s-amanda-knox-would-ya-segment-prompts-outrage)
Quote from: Gups on October 05, 2011, 03:35:05 AM
In the, she killed someone sense rather than the legal sense.
"Italian appeals court threw out her murder conviction."
Unless it's guilty til proven innocent.
:huh:
Which is why I said she's not guilty in the legal sense.
IMO the Court made a bad mistake. The circumstantial evidence against Knox is overwhelming.
Quote from: Brazen on October 05, 2011, 03:37:13 AM
I saw this and thought of Languish :lol:
Quote
Presenter Matthew Wright defended the segment, telling Metro.co.uk: 'For the last four years, the world has been more than happy to refer to a woman, then presumed to be a killer, as "Foxy Knoxy" something I find appalling.
I find the parochialism of Brits like this funny as balls. "The world" to whom he refers is merely the British new media, which are hardly known for their professionalism or taste. The Aussie press may have picked that up, but they aren't any better.
It's funny how the case has focused almost entirely on Mrs. Knox, almost to the point of forgetting that there was also an Italian guy involved, Sollecito, who has also been released. Is it a variety of the "pretty white girl missing" phenomenom?
Quote from: The Larch on October 05, 2011, 05:56:05 AM
It's funny how the case has focused almost entirely on Mrs. Knox, almost to the point of forgetting that there was also an Italian guy involved, Sollecito, who has also been released. Is it a variety of the "pretty white girl missing" phenomenom?
Yep.
Imagine if she was from Texas instead of Washington State. She would have never been convicted.
Quote from: grumbler on October 05, 2011, 04:05:14 AM
Quote from: Brazen on October 05, 2011, 03:37:13 AM
I saw this and thought of Languish :lol:
Quote
Presenter Matthew Wright defended the segment, telling Metro.co.uk: 'For the last four years, the world has been more than happy to refer to a woman, then presumed to be a killer, as "Foxy Knoxy" something I find appalling.
I find the parochialism of Brits like this funny as balls. "The world" to whom he refers is merely the British new media, which are hardly known for their professionalism or taste. The Aussie press may have picked that up, but they aren't any better.
Are any media known for its professionalism or taste?
Quote from: Warspite on October 05, 2011, 06:20:11 AM
Are any media known for its professionalism or taste?
I am both professional and tasteful :bowler:
There is certainly an absence of good taste and high-minded journalism in British tabloids. I'm not sure about the charge of them lacking professionalism though; the object presumably is to sell tabloid newspapers, not to please people who prefer more substantial news reporting.
Edit. I suppose that many journalists do adhere to a professional code of ethics. In which case unethical behaviour would be unprofessional :hmm:
Quote from: The Larch on October 05, 2011, 05:56:05 AM
It's funny how the case has focused almost entirely on Mrs. Knox
Not entirely, IIRC her daughter has received some coverage as well.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 05, 2011, 09:27:47 AM
Quote from: The Larch on October 05, 2011, 05:56:05 AM
It's funny how the case has focused almost entirely on Mrs. Knox
Not entirely, IIRC her daughter has received some coverage as well.
:lmfao:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 05, 2011, 09:27:47 AM
Quote from: The Larch on October 05, 2011, 05:56:05 AM
It's funny how the case has focused almost entirely on Mrs. Knox
Not entirely, IIRC her daughter has received some coverage as well.
:lol:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 05, 2011, 08:31:13 AM
There is certainly an absence of good taste and high-minded journalism in British tabloids. I'm not sure about the charge of them lacking professionalism though; the object presumably is to sell tabloid newspapers, not to please people who prefer more substantial news reporting.
Edit. I suppose that many journalists do adhere to a professional code of ethics. In which case unethical behaviour would be unprofessional :hmm:
As well as the wider laws governing journalism such as defamation and copyright, there are codes of practice which must be adhered to, the main one of which is the PCC Editor's Code of Practice in the UK. Read up on the cases, there's some interesting stuff.
http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html (http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html)
Quote from: grumbler on October 05, 2011, 04:05:14 AM
Quote from: Brazen on October 05, 2011, 03:37:13 AM
I saw this and thought of Languish :lol:
Quote
Presenter Matthew Wright defended the segment, telling Metro.co.uk: 'For the last four years, the world has been more than happy to refer to a woman, then presumed to be a killer, as "Foxy Knoxy" something I find appalling.
I find the parochialism of Brits like this funny as balls. "The world" to whom he refers is merely the British new media, which are hardly known for their professionalism or taste. The Aussie press may have picked that up, but they aren't any better.
Without disagreeing with your general view of the British media, the sobriquet "Foxy Knoxy" was used by the American media. Someone said she invented the term herself but I don't know if that's true.
I watched her coming-home speech and thought she was nothing short of innocent. She appeared to be exactly what a young, rich white girl would be after spending 4 years in a legal circus in a foreign country.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 05, 2011, 10:34:14 AM
I watched her coming-home speech and thought she was nothing short of innocent. She appeared to be exactly what a young, rich white girl would be after spending 4 years in a legal circus in a foreign country.
The public relations firm the family hired earned their money.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 05, 2011, 10:34:14 AM
I watched her coming-home speech and thought she was nothing short of innocent. She appeared to be exactly what a young, rich white girl would be after spending 4 years in a legal circus in a foreign country.
Because ehr demeanour four years after the event tells you so much about someone's guilt or innocence? :huh:
Quote from: Habbaku on October 05, 2011, 10:34:14 AM
I watched her coming-home speech and thought she was nothing short of innocent. She appeared to be exactly what a young, rich white girl would be after spending 4 years in a legal circus in a foreign country.
She's a submissive lesbian now?
Quote from: Barrister on October 05, 2011, 11:23:00 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on October 05, 2011, 10:34:14 AM
I watched her coming-home speech and thought she was nothing short of innocent. She appeared to be exactly what a young, rich white girl would be after spending 4 years in a legal circus in a foreign country.
Because ehr demeanour four years after the event tells you so much about someone's guilt or innocence? :huh:
Is there any other way of determining someone's guilt or innocence? :unsure:
Quote from: DGuller on October 05, 2011, 11:45:28 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 05, 2011, 11:23:00 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on October 05, 2011, 10:34:14 AM
I watched her coming-home speech and thought she was nothing short of innocent. She appeared to be exactly what a young, rich white girl would be after spending 4 years in a legal circus in a foreign country.
Because ehr demeanour four years after the event tells you so much about someone's guilt or innocence? :huh:
Is there any other way of determining someone's guilt or innocence? :unsure:
Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to look at the evidence...
Quote from: Barrister on October 05, 2011, 11:59:52 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 05, 2011, 11:45:28 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 05, 2011, 11:23:00 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on October 05, 2011, 10:34:14 AM
I watched her coming-home speech and thought she was nothing short of innocent. She appeared to be exactly what a young, rich white girl would be after spending 4 years in a legal circus in a foreign country.
Because ehr demeanour four years after the event tells you so much about someone's guilt or innocence? :huh:
Is there any other way of determining someone's guilt or innocence? :unsure:
Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to look at the evidence...
Typical you - all substance and pleated pants.
Quote from: DGuller on October 05, 2011, 11:45:28 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 05, 2011, 11:23:00 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on October 05, 2011, 10:34:14 AM
I watched her coming-home speech and thought she was nothing short of innocent. She appeared to be exactly what a young, rich white girl would be after spending 4 years in a legal circus in a foreign country.
Because ehr demeanour four years after the event tells you so much about someone's guilt or innocence? :huh:
Is there any other way of determining someone's guilt or innocence? :unsure:
See if they float or sink. :rolleyes:
I make snap judgements based on their looks or nationality.
Foxy Knoxy - American and cute. Innocent
Louise Woodward -Brit and a fatty. Guilty
OJ- Black. GUILTY
Van Der Sloot - Dutch, therefore shifty. Guilty.
Quote from: Gups on October 05, 2011, 12:05:49 PM
See if they float or sink. :rolleyes:
Pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Besides the float or sink test resulted in very little court delay and cases didnt take years to make it to court and weeks or months to actually hear like they do now. Similarly having a reality TV panel of judges (screened to ensure they have watched sufficient hours of Court TV as training) judge defendants on their poise and grace would also reduce cost and may even be a revenue generator if enough of an audience can be attracted to the proceedings.
Further, if viewership drops we can always go back to things like trial by combat or even the float test to bring ratings back up.
Quote from: Gups on October 05, 2011, 10:25:49 AM
Someone said she invented the term herself but I don't know if that's true.
No, her teammates on her soccer team gave her the nickname when she was eight years old.
Quote from: Barrister on October 05, 2011, 11:59:52 AM
Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to look at the evidence...
You don't consider the defendant's testimony and demeanor as part of that?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 05, 2011, 12:45:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 05, 2011, 11:59:52 AM
Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to look at the evidence...
You don't consider the defendant's testimony and demeanor as part of that?
On cross-examination? sure.
In a pre-planned media event? Not at all.
Besides there are studies that have shown that "demeanour in court" is a very poor way to determine truthfulness.
Quote from: Warspite on October 05, 2011, 06:20:11 AM
Are any media known for its their professionalism or taste?
Yes.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 12:10:57 PM
Quote from: Gups on October 05, 2011, 12:05:49 PM
See if they float or sink. :rolleyes:
Pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Besides the float or sink test resulted in very little court delay and cases didnt take years to make it to court and weeks or months to actually hear like they do now. Similarly having a reality TV panel of judges (screened to ensure they have watched sufficient hours of Court TV as training) judge defendants on their poise and grace would also reduce cost and may even be a revenue generator if enough of an audience can be attracted to the proceedings.
Further, if viewership drops we can always go back to things like trial by combat or even the float test to bring ratings back up.
I've seen arguments that trial by ordeal may for various reasons actually have been pretty effective in identifying guilt and innocence.
Analysis of medieval legal proceedings is obviously very difficult given the paucity of useful documentation. But ordeals were in use for quite a long time - indeed, it probably would have lasted even longer in England had the Pope not put an end to the practice. It is unlikely that such a practice would last for so long unless it "worked" in some meaningful sense.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 05, 2011, 02:48:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 05, 2011, 12:10:57 PM
Quote from: Gups on October 05, 2011, 12:05:49 PM
See if they float or sink. :rolleyes:
Pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Besides the float or sink test resulted in very little court delay and cases didnt take years to make it to court and weeks or months to actually hear like they do now. Similarly having a reality TV panel of judges (screened to ensure they have watched sufficient hours of Court TV as training) judge defendants on their poise and grace would also reduce cost and may even be a revenue generator if enough of an audience can be attracted to the proceedings.
Further, if viewership drops we can always go back to things like trial by combat or even the float test to bring ratings back up.
I've seen arguments that trial by ordeal may for various reasons actually have been pretty effective in identifying guilt and innocence.
Analysis of medieval legal proceedings is obviously very difficult given the paucity of useful documentation. But ordeals were in use for quite a long time - indeed, it probably would have lasted even longer in England had the Pope not put an end to the practice. It is unlikely that such a practice would last for so long unless it "worked" in some meaningful sense.
It worked in the sense that it appealed to cultural bias in the same way trial by reality TV would work today. Ok, only partly tongue in cheek.
So the Italian Supreme Court overturned Foxy Knoxy's acquittal. :huh:
I guess in Italy, they can keep trying someone until they get the desired result? :)
Anyway, since she's safely in America now I guess she can just ignore this.
Imagine that.
Yeah, I've read that Italy can't actually compel Knox to come to Florence for the trial itself. If the next appellate level, which I guess is the "final" one, confirms the conviction then Italy could seek her extradition. It's less clear as to whether that would happen or not. As with any extradition treaty, Knox would have a hearing here in the United States (if the government even wanted to pursue extraditing her for the wops) and I imagine a lot of the frankly goofy shit from the Italian justice system and various problems with the physical evidence would make it very hard for a U.S. court to be able to extradite her as we can't constitutionally extradite someone if it would violate core constitutional rights.
FWIW while foreign to us, the appellate system in Italy isn't that messed up, it's just a different approach. Basically they have a trial level court where a verdict happens. In the U.S. that would be considered the "real" verdict. If it's an acquittal, it's over right there. If it's a conviction, it can be appealed, only if there are serious problems with the way the trial was conducted or genuine proof of innocence will the appellate courts reverse the conviction. In Italy after you've gotten the trial court conviction the person isn't considered "convicted", and the appellate process is automatic. It has to go through several levels of appellate courts before the conviction is "confirmed" and then it's finalized.
So instead of the U.S. approach where the trial court is the "real" verdict, and the defendant can appeal it if they wish, in Italy the trial court is just the first step in a full conviction.
What's really concerning about the Italian justice system is the prosecutors do not appear to operate within the bounds of justice and just randomly prosecute stuff for crazy reasons (geologists not predicting earthquakes) and are allowed to try stuff that wouldn't fly here (ignore physical evidence and suggests a defendant is a witch) and the courts actually seem to allow it. I still don't know if Knox did it but the evidence against her was quite weak, and I doubt she'd have been convicted under American law. Same reason I said all along Casey Anthony was going to walk, I read the details of that case one time and said "well, there isn't anywhere near enough physical evidence and the only thing they have against her is she lied to the police." In that case Anthony's "accidental death coverup" storyline was no more or less substantiated than the murder storyline put forth by the prosecution, so there was really no way for me to see how a court could rule for a conviction. Now, I think it's an O.J. type case where she probably did it and got away with it, but the bar for conviction is pretty high. In the U.S. luckily something like 3/4ths of all murder defendants confess in a police interview which makes things vastly easier, the rest frequently leave incriminating evidence or have accomplices that flip on them. But if they don't confess and they can't find compelling physical evidence there's really not an easy route to conviction.
She's still a pretty girl, so unless she put on like 30 lbs or got hit in the face by a shovel since the last trial then this outcome won't be any different (assuming they even get an extradition).
I think we should tell the pasta eaters to go fuck themselves and refuse any extradition.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 26, 2013, 10:43:39 AM
I think we should tell the pasta eaters to go fuck themselves and refuse any extradition.
We need to knock some more cable cars down.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 26, 2013, 10:43:39 AM
I think we should tell the pasta eaters to go fuck themselves and refuse any extradition.
We will. There's no way we'd extradite for a clear case of double jeopardy.
It's starting to smell really whiffy, anyway. These guys are
desperate to get her locked up. Either they know something they haven't gotten into previous hearings, or she knows something they'd rather she not say.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 26, 2013, 11:18:58 AM
We will. There's no way we'd extradite for a clear case of double jeopardy.
It's starting to smell really whiffy, anyway. These guys are desperate to get her locked up. Either they know something they haven't gotten into previous hearings, or she knows something they'd rather she not say.
Did you read OvB's post?
Quote from: Jacob on March 26, 2013, 11:22:10 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 26, 2013, 11:18:58 AM
We will. There's no way we'd extradite for a clear case of double jeopardy.
It's starting to smell really whiffy, anyway. These guys are desperate to get her locked up. Either they know something they haven't gotten into previous hearings, or she knows something they'd rather she not say.
Did you read OvB's post?
The fact that they have a different system doesn't mean that a US court wouldn't look on it as double jeopardy.
I wonder what the precedent is with double jeopardy and extradition. Still the prosecution appealing a case seems strange to me.
Quote from: Jacob on March 26, 2013, 11:22:10 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 26, 2013, 11:18:58 AM
We will. There's no way we'd extradite for a clear case of double jeopardy.
It's starting to smell really whiffy, anyway. These guys are desperate to get her locked up. Either they know something they haven't gotten into previous hearings, or she knows something they'd rather she not say.
Did you read OvB's post?
I did, and this still sounds like, in terms of fishing expeditions, it's gone from a hired boat in the local bay to a fleet of Japanese whalers. Why would you even have a trial court handing out acquittals if its authority is automatically in question?
I know the Italians aren't exactly the shining light of fiscal responsibility, but I doubt even they spend the money on trying and retrying and retrying cases over and over again like this, unless somebody's got something big to lose.
If you had also read OvB's earlier post, he mentioned we can't legally extradite if it would violate a citizen's constitutional rights; overturning an acquittal would be double jeopardy here.
In the end, extraditions aren't cut-and-dry "will do this, must do that" situations. There's a lot of negotiation that goes on as to who's best interests are served, and it seems painfully clear that someone's got an agenda here in prosecuting Knox. The court hasn't released any reasoning for its decision, but the evidence was successfully challenged. At
best, this means someone withheld substantial evidence during the trial. At worst, somebody stands to walk out of this with so much egg on their face, that they're going to try again and again until they can get her back behind bars and away from interviews.
Even if the US doesn't extradite her, she can probably never again travel with a guilty verdict as Italy would probably put her on some Interpol list.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 26, 2013, 11:46:20 AMI did, and this still sounds like, in terms of fishing expeditions, it's gone from a hired boat in the local bay to a fleet of Japanese whalers. Why would you even have a trial court handing out acquittals if its authority is automatically in question?
I know the Italians aren't exactly the shining light of fiscal responsibility, but I doubt even they spend the money on trying and retrying and retrying cases over and over again like this, unless somebody's got something big to lose.
If you had also read OvB's earlier post, he mentioned we can't legally extradite if it would violate a citizen's constitutional rights; overturning an acquittal would be double jeopardy here.
In the end, extraditions aren't cut-and-dry "will do this, must do that" situations. There's a lot of negotiation that goes on as to who's best interests are served, and it seems painfully clear that someone's got an agenda here in prosecuting Knox. The court hasn't released any reasoning for its decision, but the evidence was successfully challenged. At best, this means someone withheld substantial evidence during the trial. At worst, somebody stands to walk out of this with so much egg on their face, that they're going to try again and again until they can get her back behind bars and away from interviews.
Ah... you read it, you just missed the point.
Carry on.
Raz, Jacob: results of a quick Google for you- it would almost definitely be denied. Page 14:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-958.pdf
Okay, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 11:59:02 AM
Okay, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know.
Raz, the article that DontSayBanana posted the link to isn't in legalese.
QuoteTIAS 10837
ARTICLE VI
Non Bis in Idem
Extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been
convicted, acquitted or pardoned, or has served the sentence
imposed, by the Requested Party for the same acts for which
extradition is requested.
Ah, and I just found it. Not a snowball's chance in hell Italy could extradite her. This is direct text from the extradition treaty between Italy and the US.
Go fish.
Quote from: dps on March 26, 2013, 12:03:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2013, 11:59:02 AM
Okay, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know.
Raz, the article that DontSayBanana posted the link to isn't in legalese.
I meant I didn't know before hand. I read the part Banana posted.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 26, 2013, 12:04:07 PM
QuoteTIAS 10837
ARTICLE VI
Non Bis in Idem
Extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been
convicted, acquitted or pardoned, or has served the sentence
imposed, by the Requested Party for the same acts for which
extradition is requested.
Ah, and I just found it. Not a snowball's chance in hell Italy could extradite her. This is direct text from the extradition treaty between Italy and the US.
Go fish.
I am not a lawyer, but doesn't that just exclude extradition by the US for a crime in which the US has already tried the person? "Requested Party" refers to the USA, Italy would be the "Requesting Party", no?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 26, 2013, 07:16:14 AM
What's really concerning about the Italian justice system is the prosecutors do not appear to operate within the bounds of justice and just randomly prosecute stuff for crazy reasons (geologists not predicting earthquakes) and are allowed to try stuff that wouldn't fly here (ignore physical evidence and suggests a defendant is a witch) and the courts actually seem to allow it. I still don't know if Knox did it but the evidence against her was quite weak, and I doubt she'd have been convicted under American law.
I suppose if you can collect DNA evidence 6 weeks after the event from a crime scene that's no longer a crime scene without even a nod to chain of custody, then I guess you can pretty much make up the rest as you go along. I bet BB would love that kind of latitude in sending drunken Eskimos to the chair.
Quote from: ZanzaI am not a lawyer, but doesn't that just exclude extradition by the US for a crime in which the US has already tried the person? "Requested Party" refers to the USA, Italy would be the "Requesting Party", no?
Er, yeah, you're right. I was in a hurry to post the slam dunk. :blush:
OvB's point was actually Article II of the treaty, which seems more likely to kick in.
QuoteARTICLE II
Extraditable Offenses
1. An offense/ however denominated, shall be an extraditable
offense only if it is punishable under the laws of both Contracting
Parties by deprivation of liberty for a period of more than one year
or by a more severe penalty. When the request for extradition
relates to a person who has been sentenced/ extradition shall be
granted only if the duration of the penalty still to be served
amounts to at least six months.
2. An offense shall also be an extraditable offense if it
consists of an attempt to commit, or participation in the commission
of, an offense described in paragraph 1 of this Article. Any type
of association to commit offenses described in paragraph 1 of this
Article, as provided by the laws of Italy, and conspiracy to commit
an offense described in paragraph 1 of this Article, as provided by
the laws of the United States, shall also be extraditable offenses.
3* When extradition has been granted foe an extraditable
offense, it shall also be granted for any other offense specified in
the request ever. 1C tne lather offense is punishable by less than
one year's deprivation of liberty, provided that; all other
requirements for extradition are met.
It's less cut-and-dry, but since it hinges on the offense being an offense in both jurisdictions, we could argue that since she was acquitted, it's no longer a valid offense in the United States.
That article just says that e.g. the US would never extradite someone to Germany for Holocaust Denial because that's not an offense in the US. Knox is accused of murder, which is clearly an offense under both Italian and American law, so I don't see why that article would apply to this case. The definition of the offense has nothing to do with whether the US jurisdiction acknowledges the Italian appellate process as double jeopardy or not.
EDIT: confused about jurisdiction and jurisprudence. :blush:
Quote from: Zanza on March 26, 2013, 12:44:53 PM
That article just says that e.g. the US would never extradite someone to Germany for Holocaust Denial because that's not an offense in the US. Knox is accused of murder, which is clearly an offense under both Italian and American law, so I don't see why that article would apply to this case. The definition of the offense has nothing to do with whether the US jurisdiction acknowledges the Italian appellate process as double jeopardy or not.
EDIT: confused about jurisdiction and jurisprudence. :blush:
Yes, clearly there was a murder. That's obviously a valid offense under the treaty. The posted Article still leaves it an open question as whether or not a US court would view the Italian procedures as violating due process.
The general underlying premise of an extradition treaty is that both parties assume that due process is upheld in the other parties' trials. Otherwise an extradition makes no sense. Of course in exceptional cases that may not be a given and then the person to be extradited should have the possibility to appeal against an extradition decision of the executive through the courts of the extraditing country.
Quote from: Zanza on March 26, 2013, 11:49:23 AM
Even if the US doesn't extradite her, she can probably never again travel with a guilty verdict as Italy would probably put her on some Interpol list.
So she'll be like most Americans and not travel abroad, big whoop. I'm sure she'd prefer that to doing time.
I'm not sure it would even go on interpol. Doesn't Spain indict people from other countries for things like war crimes?
INTERPOL is a fucking mailing list.
Quote from: dps on March 26, 2013, 11:35:20 AM
The fact that they have a different system doesn't mean that a US court wouldn't look on it as double jeopardy.
Yes it does. Unless US courts are odd they'll look at the substance of what the Italian courts are doing.
A similar example is the Assange case. There (from memory) the issue was that we could only extradite someone for arrest or prosecution and the Swedes wanted Assange for an interview - which in England is just assisting the police. In Sweden the prosecuting magistrate has to interview the accused, even if they've enough to charge them, before they can formally arrest them. It's a formal difference but on the substance it's not like an interview in the English system but a necessary formality for an arrest.
The High Court said (and the Supreme Court agreed) that there was no easy analogy with the English system, but on the substance Assange was wanted to start criminal proceedings not to assist with enquiries.
I imagine in a case with Italy the US court would consider the finalisation of the verdict and the fact that Italy has automatic appeals etc. What they'll want to see is if it's actually double jeopardy, or just looks like it in terms of form.
QuoteI'm not sure it would even go on interpol. Doesn't Spain indict people from other countries for things like war crimes?
I think they've done that a couple of times, because there were Spanish victims. Belgium used to claim universal jurisdiction and has a war crimes law, to the best of my knowledge no-one's ever successfully charged :lol:
Now they just claim jurisdiction if the accused or the victim is Belgian or a Belgian resident.
Like I said, the argument could be made, since the prosecution would be illegal under US law; it's not a straight "this is against the text of this treaty."
Also Sheilbh, it's difficult to compare a UK extradition case, since the UK explicitly recognizes double jeopardy within the requesting party as grounds to refuse an extradition. There've been a couple more cases solidifying that practice in the meantime:
http://www.jfhlaw.co.uk/news/extradition-success-in-double-jeopardy-case/
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4206584/Brit-Graham-Mitchells-horror-over-double-jeopardy-extradition-battle.html
That's not the argument I made though.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 26, 2013, 11:18:58 AM
We will. There's no way we'd extradite for a clear case of double jeopardy.
And that's why the whole Polanski thing was just.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 26, 2013, 02:45:10 PM
INTERPOL is a fucking mailing list.
Didn't they used to be part of the Gestapo?
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 26, 2013, 07:53:49 PM
Quote from: dps on March 26, 2013, 11:35:20 AM
The fact that they have a different system doesn't mean that a US court wouldn't look on it as double jeopardy.
Yes it does. Unless US courts are odd they'll look at the substance of what the Italian courts are doing.
A similar example is the Assange case. There (from memory) the issue was that we could only extradite someone for arrest or prosecution and the Swedes wanted Assange for an interview - which in England is just assisting the police. In Sweden the prosecuting magistrate has to interview the accused, even if they've enough to charge them, before they can formally arrest them. It's a formal difference but on the substance it's not like an interview in the English system but a necessary formality for an arrest.
The High Court said (and the Supreme Court agreed) that there was no easy analogy with the English system, but on the substance Assange was wanted to start criminal proceedings not to assist with enquiries.
I imagine in a case with Italy the US court would consider the finalisation of the verdict and the fact that Italy has automatic appeals etc. What they'll want to see is if it's actually double jeopardy, or just looks like it in terms of form.
I don't think that we are fundamentally in disagreement here. I didn't say that the US courst will definately look at it as a violation of due process. Obviously we don't insist that proceeding in foreign courts follow the exact rules as proceeding in US courts before we agree to extradite someone; if we did, essentially no one would ever be extradited. The issue is whether the US courts will look at it as merely a matter of Italian courts having a different procedure, or whether the Italian procedure is a violation of double jeopardy. While I think it's likely that it would be looked on as double jeopardy, I don't think it's a given that it would be so regarded.
Quote from: Neil on March 26, 2013, 08:53:46 PM
And that's why the whole Polanski thing was just.
No, the whole Polanski thing stunk to high heaven. He bolted before his sentencing hearing, so he never actually served any time for his conviction. The US extradition treaties usually do provide for extradition to serve the remainder of a sentence (which, in his case, would have been the whole thing). The Euros didn't like that or the fact that we were going to add criminal evasion into the mix.
And Sheilbh, what I was saying was that it was pointless to use the Assange extradition case as an example, since the UK has extra codified protections that wouldn't be available to Amanda Knox here in the US.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 27, 2013, 01:01:14 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 26, 2013, 08:53:46 PM
And that's why the whole Polanski thing was just.
No, the whole Polanski thing stunk to high heaven. He bolted before his sentencing hearing, so he never actually served any time for his conviction. The US extradition treaties usually do provide for extradition to serve the remainder of a sentence (which, in his case, would have been the whole thing). The Euros didn't like that or the fact that we were going to add criminal evasion into the mix.
:secret: Neil is trolling.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 27, 2013, 01:02:59 AM
:secret: Neil is trolling.
I'm sorry for feeding the troll. :weep:
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 26, 2013, 07:53:49 PMQuoteI'm not sure it would even go on interpol. Doesn't Spain indict people from other countries for things like war crimes?
I think they've done that a couple of times, because there were Spanish victims. Belgium used to claim universal jurisdiction and has a war crimes law, to the best of my knowledge no-one's ever successfully charged :lol:
Now they just claim jurisdiction if the accused or the victim is Belgian or a Belgian resident.
It's not done anymore, though, as since they booted Garzón out of the judiciary nobody wants to embark in such cases anymore. And our courts already have more than enough to do with domestic corruption before launching campaigns for universal justice.
Funnily enough, now cases are being opened in Argentina against Francoist stooges. :lol:
Regarding Italy's messed up judicial system, IIRC some of the automatic appeals and huge delays were a result of Berlusconi's reforms, which aimed at delaying verdicts as long as possible in order to allow him to avoid his own processes.
Yes, foreign courts do not have to comply entirely with U.S. criminal law and U.S. bill of rights. If they did, no country on Earth would be a valid country to extradite people to and we'd have no extradition treaties. Generally the order of precedence in U.S. law is Constitution > Treaties > Statute. That means a treaty can't overrule the constitution, but it specific stuff like double jeopardy is only vaguely defined in the constitution. So the courts here can look at a situation and determine if the situation in the foreign country is similar to double jeopardy here, they do not have to get hung up on the technicalities. The courts can look at it and make judgments.
So for example they could very easily say, "In the Italian system the equivalent of an actual verdict had yet to be reached since their system requires multiple levels of conviction before the verdict is finalized. In our system what is happening here might be more equivalent to either a mistrial or an appellate court throwing out a lower court trial and allowing for a retrial, so it isn't at fundamental odds with rights guaranteed under the Constitution."
I wouldn't be surprised if that is what they'd say, because it's basically true. Here in the United States you can have an appellate court throw out a trial court's result, and then the prosecution can decide whether it wants to retry the case or not. Rarely, in cases of "genuine innocence" you might have an appellate court actually declare someone innocent of the crime they committed, in which case I don't believe the prosecution is allowed to bring a new case. But when an appellate court finds such a defect with the lower court trial as to essentially dismiss it, they can allow for a new trial and sometimes that happens.
There was a recent death penalty case in Texas that hinged in part around stuff like that. Something like 5-6 black defendants over the years had been sentenced to death where the State brought in a psychologist during the sentencing hearing who claimed that blacks are inherently more dangerous than whites and are not safe in society. The juries sentenced all 5-6 to death. In every one of those cases other than one, the higher court ruled that testimony like that was so injurious to the rights of the defendants that they were entitled to an entirely new sentencing hearing. But it didn't overturn their convictions or overturn their sentence, it just said "you have to have a new sentencing hearing." All of them were later resentenced to death. (The one who wasn't even given a new sentencing hearing is the one that made news because of how it negatively reflected on the application of the death penalty.)
But anyway, you can overrule lower courts here without disallowing a retrial. In the Italian system they used different legalese and "acquitted" Knox at the appellate level, but it's not really the same thing as an "acquittal" here. An acquittal is a final determination at the end of a trial, the Italian result is more like a ruling within the larger context of the whole trial process, which is multilayered in Italy.
But U.S. courts also are allowed to dig into the evidence to some degree. If they were to determine sever evidentiary problems on Italy's part, they might not extradite. I think there are more legal concerns at play here than just double jeopardy, which probably wouldn't apply.