Amanda Knox Convicted at Retrial

By Jeralyn, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 03:51:29 PM EST
Tags: Amanda Knox (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

An Italian court has convicted Amanda Knox of murder at a retrial, sentencing her to 28 1/2 years in prison. Knox, who lives in Seattle, says she won't return to Italy.

The judge has 90 days to issue a written ruling, and the defense can appeal it.

It's unlikely she would be extradited.

It is unlikely that Knox, who lives in Seattle, Washington, will return to Italy to serve additional prison time because U.S. law dictates that a person cannot be tried twice on the same charge, a legal expert told CNN. He believes that if Italy were to ask for extradition, U.S. officials would deny the request.

Her ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito was also convicted and sentenced to 25 years. He attended portions of the trial and testified at one point. He is an Italian citizen and remains in Italy. It's likely Italy will revoke his passport but he is not expected to be arrested before the judge issues his written ruling.

< Thursday Open Thread | Amended Weakened Version of Sentencing Reform Bill Passes Judiciary Comm. >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Amanda Knox Convicted at Retrial | 30 comments (30 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

You're relying on only part of the vast amount of (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Angel on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 06:05:34 PM EST

information that's out there about this case. In my opinion, they'll never know who was responsible for the killing.

Anyone under investigation ... (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by Yman on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 06:21:01 PM EST

... for murder who is "confident" would be a fool.

: Please... (5.00 / 4) (#15)
by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 03:02:08 PM EST

...do a little research, all that was because of the language barrier.
And what does African have to do with anything ? Would be better if he was Norwegian ?

: You said more than "karma" (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Yman on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 05:47:29 PM EST

You said it was karma and said she "must have lacked confidence in her innocence and the DNA evidence", suggesting she knew she was guilty. Unless, of course, you want to clarify and state you weren't suggesting she was guilty.
BTW - We don't base murder convictions or prison sentences on "karma".

Just how many times (none / 0) (#1)
by Zorba on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 04:41:14 PM EST

do they get to retry someone in Italy? Until the authorities get the verdict they like??? Jeebus.
I certainly hope that we're not stupid enough to extradite her. But if I were her, I would not ever travel out of this country.

Reply (3.00 / 3) (#5)
by scooterdoo on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 07:28:29 PM EST

Once. There has only been one case - a trial, two appeals, and a retrial ordered by the Supreme Court. The defendant having been found guilty on the retrial will now be able to appeal this conviction to the Supreme Court. The defendant was never found "not guilty" at trial and this is not a vindictive double-jeopardy case. Jeopardy never ended in the initial case.

What really irritates me isn't the two signed statements to the police filled with complete lies, false accusations, and fabrications... it's her handwritten statement to police where she apparently is either suffering from severe schizophrenia or is defaulting to the legal principal that adult women have the mental culpability of confused three-year-olds.

Amanda Knox, in her handwritten statement writes, "I know I didn't kill Meredith. That's all I know for sure." and goes on to say, "In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer..." and she is confused and "My head is full of contrasting ideas" and she writes, "The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house... if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real."

Did I mention she is confused? She is also apparently unable to distinguish "flashbacks" or "dreams" from reality. She sees herself "cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming... and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head..."

Yes, her "dreams must be real" and she is having flashbacks and can't distinguish reality from "blurred images" in her mind. Is she suffering from severe schizophrenia? Seems more likely that she is pulling the "I'm a confused widdle girl" defense. Doesn't matter, the USA won't extradite a person with the mental culpability of a confused three-year-old by gender.


: What Language Was that Written In... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 03:06:21 PM EST

...and what is her native language ?
That is where they 'dystopia' came into the mix, aka a language barrier.

: Police abuse (none / 0) (#31)
by Alex K on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 12:38:45 AM EST

The defendant was actually found innocent (stronger than "not guilty") at the 2011 appeal trial - which included a review of all evidence, the summoning of a number of witnesses, and, critically, an independent review of DNA evidence which resulted in a damning report exposing the "scientific police" in Rome as quacks.
Knox signed two typewritten statements while interrogated at night after enduring five days of questioning. He Italian was too poor to understand the text, which was put together by the cops, not by her. She didn't fabricate anything - the cops did. It was a big event - they brought a dozen cops from Rome to break a naive, booking 19-year-old girl from Seattle.
Then she wrote the notes, which I believe show that she had been seriously traumatized by the interrogators. They told her to "imagine" things and she obliged, having been threatened with 30 years in prison, slapped, and denied access to the bathroom despite having a period.
It does look like a classical abusive interrogation. She was left with a permanent psychological trauma.
Interestingly, the cops did not record that interrogation, unlike all the others. Italy's supreme court ordered the typewritten "confessions" suppressed - protecting the cops more than Amanda. But the fact that she (read: the cops) accused someone of the murder (read: was told to imagine things) was used to convict her of slander, which in its turn is being used as evidence of her involvement in the murder. Circular Italian justice.

Legal experts disagree (none / 0) (#6)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 07:22:41 AM EST

on whether she may or may not be extradited.

Even though Knox was convicted this time around, it is unclear if she will return to Italy. CNN's legal analyst Sonny Hostin said that U.S. law dictates that a person cannot be tried twice on the same charge. "Because of this tension between Italian and U.S. law it is unlikely that U.S. law will extradite her. When the fight begins those are the grounds that U.S. attorneys will be arguing."
However, another legal expert disagreed. "They always forget she was convicted first," Julian Ku, who teaches transnational law at Hofstra University in New York, told Agence-France Presse.
If Italy does file an extradition request with the U.S. State Department, Knox will have the right to challenge her transfer to Italy in a U.S. court. "The chances of her winning that are not high because there has to be some very strong claim she'd have to make to block her extradition," Ku added.
"I followed the trial, it was slow but I never got the sense that it was unfair," he said.
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz added: "As popular as she is here and as pretty as she is here -- because that's what this is all about, if she was not an attractive woman we wouldn't have the group love-in -- she will be extradited if it's upheld.
"The Italian legal system, though I don't love it, is a legitimate legal system and we have a treaty with Italy so I don't see how we would resist," he told AFP.
"We're trying to get (fugitive NSA leaker Edward) Snowden back -- how does it look if we want Snowden back and we won't return someone for murder?" he asked.

What an incredibly (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by jondee on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 10:51:00 AM EST

tacky, inaccurate, and inappropriate remark for Dershowitz to make.

How many times is he going to make Harvard look bad with his sleaze ball hijinks before they send his sorry ace down the road once and for all?


Yes, it was tacky (none / 0) (#8)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 11:00:45 AM EST

But do you honestly think he's wrong? Do you think the media would have covered this case as it did if she were not an attractive young female?


I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by jondee on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 11:15:24 AM EST

Maybe if she were less attractive they would've given her a makeover first..

I know there are still plenty of people in this country with a passionate interest and commitment to decency and justice -- and one or two of them may even work in the major media..

He's Right Except... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 01:02:46 PM EST

...this past year has not been good to her. Like the president, she's aged from the stress. She was in an interview and almost started crying today, I can't imagine the stress level she is at. She might be physically free, but mentally, she is in a cage.

Anyways, my entire point is what Dershowitz said doesn't apply today in regards to her looks.

And IMO, being pretty in a situation where they want to lay the blame on someone isn't an advantage, and might have actually worked against her at the trial(s).

She's getting extricated IMO, the US extradites way too many people to take a stand on someone that more or less has had several fair trials. And the arrest of Sollecito was immediate, so I think they aren't going to waste a minute with the paperwork. Again, my opinion.

But beyond that, it is so hard for me to wrap my head around a student with a new boyfriend doing this in a foreign land, together. That just seems so unfathomable on like 10 different levels to me. Not saying she didn't do it, just that it's hard for me to understand.


If Amanda looked like (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by jondee on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 03:21:30 PM EST

a certain well-heeled, albeit homocidal, retired football player, Dershowitz would probably have Italian citizenship by now.


: Which One ? (none / 0) (#18)
by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 03:32:49 PM EST

Just Kidding, only one wears Bruno Maglis, which coincidentally are made in...

Not so hard to imagine (none / 0) (#25)
by jbindc on Sat Feb 01, 2014 at 07:26:04 AM EST

Mix in alcohol and drugs, with a potential love triangle, and anything could be possible in that type of situation.

Who knows?


More or less unfair (none / 0) (#32)
by Alex K on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 12:52:21 AM EST

"someone that more or less has had several fair trials"

You must be kidding. Her 2009 trial was anything but fair given the media coverage and the non-existent standards of evidence. Her 2010-11 trial was better because the judge allowed an independent review of key DNA evidence. It showed the police lab was criminally incompetent. She was acquitted then and the motivations report left no doubt about her innocence.

The Italian supreme court quashed the well-reasoned acquittal in a totally absurd ruling and this retrial - in which no inculpatory evidence was introduced - seems a farce. You really have to dig deeper into the Italian system to realize that the protections taken for granted by Americans just don't exist there. Prosecutors are allowed to say whatever they want to the panel (two judges and six lay judges). Any lie is OK. No evidence is ever suppressed. There is no standard of evidence. Nothing like Fry or Daubert. Bungled forensic tests don't get thrown out - instead, prosecutors are allowed to present them as valid.

And there are two major legal issues about her trials. First is that her "confession" was suppressed by Italy's supreme court (rightly) but only for the murder trial. It was allowed as evidence in the concurrent slander trial; at the retrial, the slander conviction was used as evidence in the murder case. Another issue is that a ruling in another, fast-track trial (that of the real killer, Rudy Guede) is being used against her as evidence.


Amanda Knox: What's in a face? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 01:41:00 PM EST

In the days and weeks following the discovery of Meredith Kercher's body, Italian police found no physical evidence linking Amanda Knox to the murder. But then, they didn't need it: they could tell Knox was guilty just by looking at her. "We were able to establish guilt," said Edgardo Giobbi, the lead investigator, "by closely observing the suspect's psychological and behavioural reaction during the interrogation. We don't need to rely on other kinds of investigation." Giobbi said that his suspicions were first raised just hours after the murder, at the crime scene, when he watched Knox execute a provocative swivel of her hips as she put on a pair of shoe covers.

Well, there we go, I guess (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by Zorba on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 02:33:04 PM EST

They found no physical evidence, but could tell "just by looking at her" that she was guilty.
Jeez Louise. Some really impressive police work, right there.
</snark>


Maybe it's a good thing (5.00 / 4) (#19)
by Zorba on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 05:25:12 PM EST

that you were not around to help write the Bill of Rights.
I hope to Goddess that you are not a District Attorney or United States Attorney anywhere.


Let's not be so hoity toity... (none / 0) (#21)
by NYShooter on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 08:28:31 PM EST

not looking "right" is proof of guilt in quite a few American States, like.....Florida?


Given his statements ... (none / 0) (#23)
by Yman on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 09:39:10 PM EST

... about how to establish guilt, I don't think that's anything you need to worry about. :)


Heh, heh (none / 0) (#27)
by Zorba on Sat Feb 01, 2014 at 03:38:58 PM EST

Except, given the behavior of some of the prosecuting attorneys in this country (local and federal), I wouldn't necessarily be all that sure...........unfortunately.


Does that include the jury? (none / 0) (#28)
by oculus on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 11:32:28 AM EST

: Attorneys are (none / 0) (#29)
by Zorba on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 11:46:39 AM EST

Officers of the court. And should be held to a different, and much higher, standard than jurors, who are (theoretically) random citizens, untrained in the law.
Not quite the same thing. (Although there have certainly been juries that have made some loopy decisions.)

Ah, yes ... (none / 0) (#22)
by Yman on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 09:37:56 PM EST

... the "something fishy" standard of guilt.

Heh.


Provocative swivel? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by unitron on Sat Feb 01, 2014 at 01:16:29 PM EST

Great band name, maybe, but if you're putting on shoes or putting something on your shoes, you're either sitting down or you've got only one foot on the ground and the other in the air and you're trying to keep your balance.

Any attempt at a provocative swivel under those circumstances is liable to land you most awkwardly on your hips.


If they put Raffaele Sollecito in jail, (none / 0) (#24)
by EL seattle on Sat Feb 01, 2014 at 03:22:18 AM EST

I'd expect them to at least try to extradite Knox.

Of course, if they put Sollecito in prison, and Knox avoids/escapes that penalty, she'll provide pop culture with a fresh twist on the stock "black widow" character. So I think that her freedom probably wouldn't come without a certain sort of cost to her.

If extradited (none / 0) (#30)
by Mikado Cat on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 08:37:54 PM EST

She would face a number of years in prison, sentence was something like 27 I recall, but what would that be in actual years?

US wants Snowden who would get what, life at best?

What would be the grounds to fight the extradition?

Some background on the case from a Knox supporter (none / 0) (#33)
by Alex K on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 01:11:24 AM EST

There is a lot of information out there, but considering that there's been a vicious anti-Knox campaign on the net for years, it's sometimes hard to tell the wheat from the chaff. There are at least three anti-Knox hate sites on the net.

I am a supporter of Knox - I believe she was rightly acquitted in 2011 but that was a welcome spell of fairness in a deranged Prozess.

The support sites to start with are Injustice in Perugia, Injustice Anywhere, and the pro-innocence Wiki.

The books to read include The Monster of Florence by Preston and Spezi (a prequel - not about Knox but about her prosecutor); The Fatal Gift of Beauty by Nina Burleigh, Murder in Italy by Candace Dempsey; Law and Disorder (one chapter) by Douglas and Olshaker; The Monster of Perugia by Mark Waterbury; Single Attacker Theory Of The Murder Of Meredith Kercher by Ron Hendry; Injustice in Perugia by Bruce Fischer. A great pro-innocence primer would be The Forgotten Killer: Rudy Guede and the Murder of Meredith Kercher by Douglas, Preston, judge Heavey, Steve Moore et al.

On the pro-guilt side, there are three books: Angel Face by Barbie Latza Nadeau; Meredith by John Kercher (the victim's father who also happens to be semi-retired tabloid journalist; the book is an attack on Knox); and A Death in Perugia by Sunday Times reporter John Follain.

This last book is sometimes claimed to be definitive but Follain is much like Peter Fallow from The Bonfire of the Vanities. Follain's news reports on Knox include headlines such as:

"Amanda Knox snared by her lust and her lies"
"Foxy Knoxy the `she-devil' waits serene"
"Diary reveals Foxy Knoxy's sex secrets"
"Amanda Knox, `Foxy Knoxy', reveals her lesbian trauma."