General Discussion

davidn3600

(6,342 posts)

105. It's not a 100% sure thing that we wouldnt extradite her back

Mon Sep 30, 2013, 09:08 PM

Sep 2013

There is an extradition treaty between Italy and the USA. So technically our country considers their legal system to be legit enough to our standards.
With one exception...double jeopardy. There is a clause in the treaty that allows an exception in the case of double jeopardy.

Whether this qualifies for that exception seems to be something legal analysts can't agree on. The treaty really hasn't been tested before in this manner. However an extradition request would be potentially years away. Even if she's found guilty, she can appeal yet again. And this can be drawn out for a very long time. This is an incredibly slow justice system that they have there. A conviction would have to first be accepted by their highest court before a request for extradition can even be made.

Regardless, if she is found guilty and isn't extradited, she'll never be able to leave the US. She could probably go to countries without an extradition treaty to Italy or the EU, but it'd still be a risk.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

115 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Today's first ruling in Amanda Knox's fourth trial for murder doesn't bode well for a fair trial. [View all] pnwmom Sep 2013 OP

No wonder Italy's such a fucking joke Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Sep 2013 #1

It's the same country that convicted half a dozen PHD geologists of manslaughter pnwmom Sep 2013 #3

And this is the country JustAnotherGen Sep 2013 #12

Human Rights Watch has Italy near the bottom in its rankings pnwmom Sep 2013 #18

I still prefer JustAnotherGen Sep 2013 #22

Congratulations, you are the first person Boudica the Lyoness Oct 2013 #114

Did Amanda Knox ever pay Diya Lumumba the damages she owes him? On edit-- msanthrope Sep 2013 #2

I have no idea whether she paid the damages she owed him because pnwmom Sep 2013 #5

Well, she caused an innocent man to go to jail with her signed statement, an innocent msanthrope Sep 2013 #7

Living up to your screen name once again. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2013 #9

Ahem--getting the boss who fired you arrested for killing your roommate isn't a msanthrope Sep 2013 #16

Yeah, but Amanda is pretty so it's all okay. Pretty sure that's how that works. nt Demo_Chris Sep 2013 #79

What is Lumumba's attorney doing? Why is he even there? Comrade Grumpy Sep 2013 #11

Lumumba is a victim of Knox. He's there, representing his client's interests, and providing msanthrope Sep 2013 #13

He's there because Lumumba has a better chance of getting more money pnwmom Sep 2013 #14

He already has his damage award. As for the Kerchers, I don't blame them for suing all three msanthrope Sep 2013 #17

The Kerchers and anyone else who thinks Amanda and Raffaele were involved are sadly deluded. pnwmom Sep 2013 #19

Having read the Massei and Micheli reports, and being a criminal defense attorney, I will tell you msanthrope Sep 2013 #27

But you didn't read the Hellman report. How telling. pnwmom Sep 2013 #29

Oh--I read Hellmann-Zanetti. Helmann's denial of DNA testing is perplexing, and frankly, his msanthrope Sep 2013 #32

You didn't read it carefully then. He didn't deny DNA testing. pnwmom Sep 2013 #34

Yes--he did. I am giving you an American language link, since I presume you do not read Italian.... msanthrope Sep 2013 #36

Why would he do that? Because that testing would have been pointless pnwmom Sep 2013 #37

Wait a second--you want DNA testing of some stain on a pillow downthread, but here, you don't msanthrope Sep 2013 #46

The pillow was found underneath the sexually assaulted woman's body. pnwmom Sep 2013 #50

Wait a second--she wants the stains on a pillow tested....but not the murder weapon? I say 'stains' msanthrope Sep 2013 #55

She's NOT objecting to having the kitchen knife tested. She wanted it tested even more pnwmom Sep 2013 #57

Excellent. Then when Kercher's DNA is found on it, I suspect she won't be surprised. nt msanthrope Sep 2013 #71

I wouldn't be surprised at all because it was transported in an unsanitary box to the police station pnwmom Sep 2013 #72

Well, the defense can certainly try that argument. I mean, OJ managed to explain away the bloody msanthrope Sep 2013 #74

A reasonable explanation for how Knox's DNA ended up on the knife handle in the kitchen pnwmom Sep 2013 #76

First of all, like you, my username clearly indicates my gender. Second of all, since the msanthrope Sep 2013 #80

It's not the prosecution that wanted the knife taken apart -- it was the DEFENSE. pnwmom Sep 2013 #81

Nencini granted the prosecution request for testing on the knife---and it seems that the request for msanthrope Sep 2013 #82

It isn't the obligation of the defense to prove how and when contamination occurred, pnwmom Sep 2013 #83

Um, yeah--it is in Italy. And here, in America, if one is going to assert contamination, msanthrope Sep 2013 #84

Any American jury would be impressed by the video showing police wearing pnwmom Sep 2013 #86

If the evidence reveals what you say it does, then I have no doubt the judge will be just. msanthrope Sep 2013 #87

Defense expert testimony is part of the evidence, as any criminal defense attorney would know. pnwmom Sep 2013 #88

Um, no. First, you are conflating 'testimony' with 'evidence.' Second, you are msanthrope Sep 2013 #93

The system in Italy is what we're talking about, so Rule 702 doesn't apply. pnwmom Sep 2013 #95

Which is why I noted that there's a difference between the two countries. We will see what gets msanthrope Sep 2013 #96

The result is pre-ordained. The High Court has already basically ordered the appeals pnwmom Sep 2013 #98

You know--you keep citing the Hellmann report. So I have a question for you--Hellmann msanthrope Sep 2013 #99

Ethically, he was wrong. Without the tape that was supposed to have been recorded pnwmom Sep 2013 #101

So Hellmann's reliance on the fact that Knox implicated Patrick when she was a mere witness was msanthrope Sep 2013 #103

She wasn't a mere witness. The police don't hit witnesses in the head. pnwmom Sep 2013 #107

I think you are mistaken. The Hellmann report indicates that during her initial questioning, msanthrope Sep 2013 #108

That link proves nothing. The police brought up Patrick's name because they found him in the texts. pnwmom Sep 2013 #110

I don't believe a convicted liar. And even your Judge Hellmann doesn't, either. nt msanthrope Oct 2013 #111

I don't care about any of the smoke and mirrors the prosecution put forward. pnwmom Oct 2013 #112

Unless I missed something, there was only one murderer. Bonx Sep 2013 #51

He's the only one who left evidence all over the murder room pnwmom Sep 2013 #60

No, she didn't. The police already knew he was innocent when they put him in jail, pnwmom Sep 2013 #24

She wrote two statements indicating his guilt. Her appeal of her felony conviction for implicating msanthrope Sep 2013 #28

She said that she could "imagine" being in the kitchen with her hands over her ears pnwmom Sep 2013 #30

She could imagine the boss who fired her killing her roommate? That's some imagination. No wonder msanthrope Sep 2013 #48

She was ordered by the policewoman who was striking her to do so. pnwmom Sep 2013 #52

Sure she was. She was ordered by the police to accuse the boss who fired her the week before. msanthrope Sep 2013 #54

He didn't fire her. She was still working for him the day of the murder, pnwmom Sep 2013 #56

Yes--he did. He fired her from the bar on October 30th, and she kept coming around, hoping to msanthrope Sep 2013 #70

No, he didn't. That was a lie he made up to help the police, pnwmom Sep 2013 #73

Okay--so the police decide, after finding a black wool fiber, that the assailant must have been a msanthrope Sep 2013 #78

No, she didn't. The police forced her into making that statement, for reasons pnwmom Sep 2013 #33

right. They forced her into naming the boss that fired her. nt msanthrope Sep 2013 #44

He didn't fire her. And they conveniently lost the recording of their interrogation pnwmom Sep 2013 #47

She was fired on October 30th, according to her boss. As she is a convicted liar, I tend to believe msanthrope Sep 2013 #53

He was lying then, which is obvious from their texts about him not needing her that night, pnwmom Sep 2013 #58

No--he fired her from the bar, and she continued to hang out there, hoping he would change his mind msanthrope Sep 2013 #69

She's a convicted liar? Convicted by who - the Italian courts? Sheldon Cooper Oct 2013 #113

Can he explain why the sperm on the pillow underneath Meredith's body shouldn't be tested for DNA? pnwmom Sep 2013 #21

Lumumba's attorney? It would be easier if you used names, not pronouns. nt msanthrope Sep 2013 #42

Yes, Lumumba's attorney, since he's inserting himself in the continuing case. n/t pnwmom Sep 2013 #45

Lumumba's attorney didn't speak as to the DNA testing. The defense and Crini did. nt msanthrope Sep 2013 #49

You're right. Lumumba is just there because he's hoping for a bigger payoff. pnwmom Sep 2013 #59

Why shouldn't a crime victim seek redress from the criminal? nt msanthrope Sep 2013 #68

He alleged police brutality. He should be suing the police. pnwmom Sep 2013 #92

Or, maybe, since he knows Amanda personally, he knows precisely where the blame should lie msanthrope Sep 2013 #94

How do you know whether I know her personally? pnwmom Sep 2013 #97

You know--you keep citing the Hellmann report. So I have a question for you--Hellmann msanthrope Sep 2013 #100

this trial isnt about justice. italy botched the case and now that amanda is gone theyll retry leftyohiolib Sep 2013 #4

I feel sorry for Raffaele, who spent four years in prison and is still at risk for a life sentence pnwmom Sep 2013 #6

Except JustAnotherGen Sep 2013 #8

It's not a show trial for the defendants -- especially Sollecito. n/t pnwmom Sep 2013 #10

But it's good for business JustAnotherGen Sep 2013 #15

Actually, there are many American students in Perugia. pnwmom Sep 2013 #20

Students JustAnotherGen Sep 2013 #25

We aren't very popular there, that's for sure. And that is why Amanda pnwmom Sep 2013 #26

Each year about 35 million Americans travel abroad, excluding Mexico and Canada, overseas Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #85

Why are there even any lawyers there for her? snooper2 Sep 2013 #23

Here's one possible reason Donald Ian Rankin Sep 2013 #31

Looks like article 6 and article 7 would prevent her extradition snooper2 Sep 2013 #35

I think jeopardy refers to acquittal, not a vacated conviction. Donald Ian Rankin Sep 2013 #38

No one really knows whether this would be considered double jeopardy or not, pnwmom Sep 2013 #40

Meredith's parents have sued her for millions of dollars pnwmom Sep 2013 #39

What is the likelihood she'd be extradited if convicted this second time around? Avalux Sep 2013 #41

Different lawyers here have given different opinions. No one really knows for sure. n/t pnwmom Sep 2013 #43

The whole of it is nonsense Wash. state Desk Jet Sep 2013 #66

I don't know if she did it or not.... Adrahil Sep 2013 #61

Here's what it boiled down to me. pnwmom Sep 2013 #67

I certainly do have more than reasonable doubt. Adrahil Oct 2013 #115

She didn't do it. They got the killer. The prosecutor is totally demented. duffyduff Sep 2013 #90

I guess she'll be knocking Italy off of her list of future places to visit. Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #62

And all of Europe, and anywhere else with an extradition agreement. pnwmom Sep 2013 #63

She should find some way to launch a civil law suit Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #64

There is some kind of European court of appeals. But I don't think you can go there to pnwmom Sep 2013 #65

what am I missing here? mnmoderatedem Sep 2013 #75

In Italy, about half of the people convicted at the first trial end up having pnwmom Sep 2013 #77

It's all a damned joke. I wouldn't believe anything that court system there says. duffyduff Sep 2013 #89

But Raffaele, her former boyfriend could. He already spent four years in prison pnwmom Sep 2013 #91

It's not a 100% sure thing that we wouldnt extradite her back davidn3600 Sep 2013 #105

it's pretty obvious they've made up their mind on her the evidence be damned. Bill USA Sep 2013 #102

Why are the British so convinced she did it? alarimer Sep 2013 #104

Pretty much. The media in Europe for the most part completely tore her apart davidn3600 Sep 2013 #106

That is an interesting question Wash. state Desk Jet Sep 2013 #109