Should the United States extradite Amanda Knox if the Italian government requests it?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	6 (18%)
	No
	28 (82%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Fred Sanders]

1. For those that would care to look at the Treaty before rendering an international law legal opinion:

https://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/italy.pdf

Please note sections 6 to 9, mandatory and discretionary grounds to refuse extradition.

Exemptions to extradition are limited - and public opinion, firmly held blief, and double jeopardy are not among them.


"The idea that double jeopardy could prevent Knox’s extradition, first popularized in the U.S. media after her retrial was announced in 2013, is also suspect. The current extradition treaty between Italy and the U.S. does not list double jeopardy within the country requesting extradition—i.e., Italy in this case—as a grounds for denying extradition."


http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116451/amanda-knox-extradition-should-be-granted

......................

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/31/22524338-why-us-might-send-amanda-knox-back-to-italy-if-she-loses-appeal?lite

AP, January 31, 2014

By Pete Williams, Erin McClam and Tracy Connor, NBC News

If Italy asks the United States to extradite Amanda Knox, the decision will probably come down to Secretary of State John Kerry — and legal experts say it would be difficult for him to refuse the request.

"Knox, who was convicted for a second time by an Italian court on Thursday in the 2007 murder of her roommate, vowed to “fight this until the very end.” And Italy would probably wait until the appeals process plays out before asking the U.S. to expel her.

But Italy and the United States have an extradition treaty, and unless American authorities find clear evidence of a miscarriage of justice, legal experts say, it would be difficult for the U.S. to say no.

“She wasn’t clearly shafted,” said Alan Dershowitz, a professor of law at Harvard University. “There are many people in American prisons on less evidence.”

[pnwmom]

24. Italy passed legislation AFTER the treaty was signed that had a huge impact on the fairness of the

trials. So I think the treaty, at least with respect to double jeopardy cases like this one, should be null and void.

Dershowitz is, as usual, a blowhard, opining on the case without a minimal awareness of the facts. The new legislation had created a fast track trial that allowed Guede, the third, unrelated defendant, to essentially make a no-contest plea. In order to do that and get his sentenced reduced, he agreed to a set of prosecution stipulations that falsely put Amanda and Raffaele at the scene and made them the killers. When his verdict was confirmed, his stipulations gained the weight of Judicial Truth.

What makes this situation entirely different than a US no-contest plea was that those stipulations and Guede's statement were entered into the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. And they were not allowed to have their attorneys question him (though being able to confront your accusers is a fundamental principle of justice.) Then, after the two students were found not guilty the prosecution appealed. The high court ruled that the Hellman court had erred in not being guided by the Judicial Truths Guede had stipulated to.

When the US signed the treaty, it could never have guessed that Italy would pass legislation that would subsequently be interpreted in a way that would let unchallenged testimony be entered into a trial, without any opportunity to dispute it. That treaty should be null and void.

[elleng]

29. Thanks, pnwmom.

A real expert on the subject said this:

“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,” the treaty states.

According to M. Cherif Bassiouni, a former U.N. lawyer and international extradition law expert, “Whatever the interpretation of article VI may be … Amanda Knox would not be extraditable to Italy should Italy seek her extradition because she was retried for the same acts, the same facts, and the same conduct,” Bassiouni wrote in an Oxford University Press blog post. “Her case was reviewed three times with different outcomes even though she was not actually tried three times.”

[pnwmom]

30. Thank you! nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

58. Someone can't read

"by the Requested Party". The "Requested Party" in this case is the USA. The Requesting Party is Italy. Amanda Knox has not been convicted, acquitted, pardoned, or served any sentence in the USA.

[elleng]

60. 'Someone' is an attorney,

and in case you don't know this, we read, we write, we interpret, and we argue: It's what we do.

[Spider Jerusalem]

62. So? Doesn't make him any less wrong.

Seriously, how fucking stupid does one have to be to not be able to grasp the meaning of "Requested Party" in the treaty?

[Fred Sanders]

67. Some folks are not reading the actual Treaty or understanding it, or why there can NEVER be another trial by

the Requested Party....would defeat the whole meaning and purpose of the Treaty.

And the Court of Popular Opinion may be popular, but it is just an opinion.

[Fred Sanders]

31. Evidentiary rules of admission of recorded out of Court statements in criminal trial procedures do not meet any of the treaty exemptions.

He governing principles are relevancy and reliability, with each term having specific legal meaning thrashed out through many legal precedents.

That Italy has their own legal interpretation and legal statute law regarding evidentiary admissibility with a result slightly different than America is interesting and nothing more.

Countries pass all kinds of laws after treaties are signed...if the consenting nations think the treaty needs to be changed then they can change it or one can opt out.

[pnwmom]

34. The US could never have anticipated the need to have such an exemption in the treaty,

since the law wasn't in existence then.

But in a 1957 military-related case, Reid vs. Covert, the Supreme Court ruled that the US cannot by treaty agree to abrogate basic constitutional rights. The right to confront one's accuser is one of the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

[Fred Sanders]

41. All of what you say may be true, but the rule of law remains. The current treaty is what governs.

Evidentiary changes are not violations of treaty, never have been.....many nations with treaties with America have made changes to the laws of evidence, rules of evidence and admissibility are very fluid and evolving, and quite different in different nations and legal systems.

A clear violation of the present terms of the present in force Treaty would have to be demonstrated on a legal burden or standard of "preponderance of evidence" that such a violation had taken place....just not there.

Rule of law must govern and under rule of law Knox should be extradited.

[pnwmom]

45. Except this particular "evidentiary change" removed the presumption of innocence, which is a basic

constitutional right and a fundamental principle of justice. Changing the application of the law in a way that eliminates the presumption of innocence is grounds for rendering a previous treaty null and void.

[Fred Sanders]

48. I disagree with your opinion of the result being so drastic...no one would bring that argument up

before an extradition Judge or Tribunal.

In America the judge is the State Department.

No one else. There is a reason for that....extradition is absolute, you do not get another trial in your own country...there might be...bias...

[pnwmom]

50. Ultimately the State Department will decide, not a judge. All a judge will do

is clear a path to the eventual decision by the State Department.

And the State Department said in 2011, after Amanda was found innocent, that the case was closed, which indicates that they would probably view the subsequent retrial as double jeopardy.

[Fred Sanders]

55. A re-trial is not double jeopardy. Happens all the time, right in America...appeals are not trials.

[pnwmom]

59. The Italian system is not comparable to ours. Our "appeals" only look at the

application of the law, not at the facts of the case. Their "appeals," including the one that found Amanda innocent, reconsider all the facts and the motives of the case. Both the 2nd and 3rd appeals even introduced new evidence, besides reconsidering all the old evidence. This would never happen in the US in an "appeals" court.

In the US, once a trial court -- a court that tries facts -- has rendered a not-guilty verdict, the prosecution is not allowed an appeal. This is what happened in Italy, however, after the Hellman verdict.

[Fred Sanders]

66. All I can say is your comparisons between these two legal systems is erroneous on several points.

[pnwmom]

73. In what respect? You obviously aren't familiar enough with the Italian system to say. n/t

[Fred Sanders]

76. Ditto to you on the American criminal law system.

[pnwmom]

77. You're the one making the claim. Demonstrate it. What errors have I made?

I told you already how the two systems differ. What is wrong with what I said?

[KamaAina]

64. Or at the very least should be renegotiated.

Does the Italian legislation violate the terms of the treaty in any way? If so, null and void it is.

[MADem]

89. Fuck Alan Dershowitz and his half baked opinions.

Just because people got screwed in USA doesn't make it "OK" for them to be screwed overseas, and that seems to be his justification, that her "shafting" wasn't definitive enough for him. Ass.

[kcr]

111. Indeed

He is an ass and hardly the best resource for backing up an opinion.

[MADem]

112. And given that Miss Knox's case has been overturned, with no future redress available to that

nutcase Italian prosecutor, he's opining to no gain or purpose.

[LuvNewcastle]

2. No.

It looks to me like the Italian government is determined to keep trying her until she's convicted of murder. Our government shouldn't allow Americans to be tried indefinitely for any crimes. They had their chance to convict her and they failed, so I think the matter should be closed as long as she stays out of Europe.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. You would think our diplomats and their diplomats can come to a mutually face saving solution./NT

[LuvNewcastle]

5. I agree.

Nations get together and work out issues that are a lot bigger than this one. This should be a relatively easy one, as long as everyone is ready to end it. I think someone is being very pig-headed about it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. I was reading when Hillary Clinton was SOS

I was reading when Hillary Clinton was SOS she received a letter from a frantic Saudi mother that her eight year old daughter was about to be forced into an arranged marriage. Hillary notified the Saudi gov't to put a stop to this and the issue would remain private. A stop was put to it.

[dumbcat]

10. And our diplimats, negotiators and representatives

should not sign and ratify treaties that allow this.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Hard cases make bad laws./NT

[former9thward]

15. Its not just Europe. Italy has extradition treaties all over the world.

If she went anywhere she could be taken.

[Chan790]

4. No, though I believe she is factually guilty.

They've had how many bites at the apple on this crime? 4? 5, now?

The US State Dept. should make it very clear that they will consider any such request to be harassment of a US citizen on US soil by a foreign state. Continued harassment will be viewed as hostility diplomatically and treated as an international incident.

[FourScore]

11. I don't know how anyone who has looked at the evidence can say that.

ALL of the evidence points to Guede. I don't know why people aren't talking about the other break-in he did around the same time, whereby he held a woman a knife-point. The footprint turned out to be his. The handprint was his. The crime scene was contaminated. The knife in Sollecito's apartment doesn't even remotely match Kircher's wounds. Knox's behavior during the investigation was reportedly odd, but she was young and probably in shock and scared and not totally fluent in Italian. Also, the prosecutor, who has been charged with framing people in other cases, seems to have "solved" an exorbitant number of "demonic sex crimes". The prosecutor focused on Knox, then framed and tried Knox and Sollecito by leaking false info to the press long before the trial. It's terrible.

[Chan790]

18. All of that not-withstanding...

it would have been very difficult or impossible for Guede to commit the crime in question alone.

Yes, there is a lot of questionable conduct on the part of the prosecution and courts and police...throw it all out of the consideration. Forget about sex-games, demonic rituals, and the weird shit prosecution alleges.

Occam's Razor still applies.

The only version of the crime that makes sense is the one where Guede and at-least one other person killed Meredith Kercher. I'm yet to hear anybody put forth a possible co-conspirator other than Sollecito and Knox...and there is enough evidence left even after all the misconduct against Knox and Sollecito to make a very-compelling argument.

But...it doesn't matter. The formal response of the US State Dept. should be... "drop it or we're going to treat your continued dogging of our multiply-acquitted citizen as a hostile act."

[pnwmom]

25. It would not be hard for a strong man armed with a knife to rape and murder a smaller woman.

It happens every day. You are probably one of the people who have been deceived by the false idea that she had 40 knife wounds. There were 9 wounds and cuts, and the rest were bruises and scratches. Not unusual, even in a case with a single attacker.

[dolphinsandtuna]

68. Chan doesn't seem to know much about male female physical interactions.

A strong man would not even need a knife to rape and murder a smaller woman, unless she was a karate expert or something. Even if physical size is the same, on average men are just physically stronger than women in terms of brute strength (women on average are better at endurance). Also, most women have no idea about how to conduct themselves effectively in a fight.

[pnwmom]

72. Her parents said that this petite woman had taken some kind of self-defense lessons,

so they were sure a single man with a knife couldn't have killed her.

I guess they had to think that or otherwise they'd be mad at themselves for allowing her to go. Of course it's not their fault, but parents can feel guilty about almost anything.

[DanTex]

19. The biggest factor is not the evidence, but where a person lives.

If you live in Europe, you probably think she's guilty. If you live in the US, you probably think she's innocent. That's mainly because the evidence has been presented in the media entirely differently in both places, combined with "home team" prejudices.

[HuckleB]

6. Bottom Line: As bad as the US court system is, Italy's is absolutely horrific by comparison. -eom-

[Adrahil]

7. I don;t know if she did it...

But that justice system, and in particular that case is SOOOO fucked up, that any conviction is suspect.

I can't respect any justice system that let's the prosecution have unlimited appeals so they can just keep "the same case" going until they get the politically desired verdict.

[NCTraveler]

8. No.

I also think both states should be working out what is going on. Plans for outcomes should be put in place. Some form of agreement where Knox is able to move on and Italy can save face. I think that is possible.

[treestar]

13. Do whatever they would normally do under the law

Notoriety should not create legal exceptions.

[Fred Sanders]

36. Rule of law. Believe in it or not. This is an actual white hat/black hat question.

[dissentient]

14. Yes, in the interest of Justice

[former9thward]

16. If the U.S. is not going to honor a treaty they should not have signed it.

And Italy would no longer send criminals back to the U.S. if we asked for them.

[pnwmom]

33. After the US signed the treaty, Italy passed fast track trial legislation that effectively removed

the presumption of innocence for other defendants in separate full trials. The US could never have anticipated that.

The new legislation created a fast track trial that allowed Guede, the third, unrelated defendant, to essentially make a no-contest plea. In order to do that and get his sentenced reduced, he agreed to a set of prosecution stipulations that falsely put Amanda and Raffaele at the scene and made them the killers. When his verdict was confirmed, his stipulations gained the weight of Judicial Truth.

What makes this situation entirely different than a US no-contest plea was that those stipulations and Guede's statement were entered into the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. And they were not allowed to have their attorneys question him (though being able to confront your accusers is a fundamental principle of justice.) Then, after the two students were found not guilty the prosecution appealed. The high court ruled that the Hellman court had erred in not being guided by the Judicial Truths Guede had stipulated to.

When the US signed the treaty, it could never have guessed that Italy would pass legislation that would subsequently be interpreted in a way that would let unchallenged testimony be entered into a trial, without any opportunity to dispute it. That treaty should be null and void.

[Fred Sanders]

37. Was the treaty changed? How do in-trial evidentiary law amendments fall within the exemptions in the treaty?

[pnwmom]

42. They don't. The justice system was changed. The treaty was signed

after the State Department determined that their justice system had adequate protections for defendants. Subsequently, the Italians eliminated critical protections, at least with respect to a defendant involved in a case being decided on separate tracks.

Your argument would also apply if Italy changed its system to not allow defendants to have a lawyer, or took any other action that eliminated fundamental civil protections. And my point would remain. Since Italy took unilateral action to substantially change its justice system after we signed the treaty, our treaty should be null and void.

[Fred Sanders]

44. It is an evidentiary and criminal procedure change, not a question of fundamental rights.

[pnwmom]

47. The right to confront your accuser IS a fundamental right

that is protected under our Constitution and should be in every justice system.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

91. The right to confront your accuser is not a fundamental right?

So, if your neighbor kills his wife and while pleading "no contest" stipulates that you were involved in the murder, and that then became "Judicial Truth" or "fact" in your separate trial, would you believe that you had a fair trial?

No, you wouldn't. Not even remotely. It is justice turned on its head. Such a trial becomes "Guilty, until proven innocent" regardless of what you say. And to not have the right to question your neighbor in your trial to prove your innocence? Just another absurdity added to this so-called preposterous justice.

Think carefully about calling this just a simple procedural change. It is not just a little mole hill. It's a huge freaking, insurmountable mountain to climb.

[Xithras]

65. Actually, it's Italy, and not the U.S., who is attempting to circumvent the treaty.

The actual English text of the extradition treaty can be read here: https://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/italy.pdf

Of particular interest to this case is the double jeopardy clause on Page 6, section VI. The clause states that neither nation is required to extradite a person who has already been acquitted of a crime.

While Italy claims that she was not acquitted because her acquittal was reversed, and while their claim may actually be legally true IN ITALY, the treaty doesn't actually give the Italian's the ability to make that decision in regards to convicted criminals residing in the United States. The treaty says that, once acquitted, the United States is not bound to extradite. Even if an acquittal is reversed, it doesn't change the fact that an acquittal was issued, which meets the technical requirements of the treaty exemption. America's requirement to extradite ENDS the moment a court acquits them of the crime. Anything a nation does AFTER that is irrelevant.

Setting any precedent to the contrary would be very dangerous for the United States. We have double jeopardy clauses in our treaties to prevent other nations from trying Americans over and over again until they can secure a conviction. If other nations merely need to vacate a non-conviction to do an end-run on those clauses, then double-jeopardy statements in treaties are essentially useless.

If Italy wanted the right to reverse an acquittal and have it stick, they should have required that Section VI give them that power. They didn't do so, and the wording of that section is clear. The court issued an acquittal in 2011. Kerry simply needs to point that out, and invite Italy to revisit the treaty if they think it's unfair. The Italians, just like the Americans, are bound to follow the terms of the treaties they signed.

[Fred Sanders]

70. "An acquittal was issued" is not the same as your phrase "was aquitted". The words are different....

words are important...much more so in an international legal document than in comment boards.

[Spider Jerusalem]

75. More "people can't read"

"by the Requested Party". Who is the "Requested Party"? (Hint: it's not Italy.)

[Xithras]

87. You know what. You're right. I read that wrong.

Mea culpa.

[KamaAina]

97. Thank you, Counselor!

[alcibiades_mystery]

95. That's fine...we would just kidnap them off the streets of Milan

A van drives up slowly, the door slides open...

[RedCappedBandit]

17. What evidence is there that she even might have done it?

Her acting "weird" doesn't mean shit.

[DanTex]

20. For example, a knife with her DNA on the handle and the victim's on the blade.

It's contested by the defense, of course, as are Amanda's footprints in the victim's blood that were revealed by luminol, and the DNA on the victim's blood clasp that belonged to her boyfriend, and the eyewitness that saw them on the night of the murder, and so on.

The acting weird is what the US media has seized on. There is actually evidence. Is it conclusive? I can't say. But it's not just that she acted weird and they threw her in jail like they say here.

[RedCappedBandit]

23. From what I recall that was largely debunked.

Minor amount of DNA on a utensil in the kitchen that didn't match the victim's wounds. I'd be surprised if her DNA wasn't all over her own kitchen. And the amount of DNA on the blade itself questionable as well.

And that was only one of like two pieces of evidence, the other being a clasp that sat around for nearly 2 months after the investigation? They didn't find any of her DNA at the actual crime scene?

Frankly it just blows my mind that there was no DNA evidence that Knox was in the room, while Guede's (?) DNA was everywhere. Well, unless one draws the obvious conclusion that she just wasn't there.

Really seems like they were grasping at straws to save face.

The statement in the OP that there are people in American prisons on less evidence is nothing more than an indictment of our own so called justice system.

[DanTex]

28. That depends who you ask.

People in the US think it's debunked because that's what the media says. People in Europe don't because that's what the media there says.

As far as the blade, yes, it was a small amount of DNA, but DNA is DNA, and it does match, so the amount doesn't really matter in terms of guilt, because small amounts of DNA that perfectly match somebody don't just appear on knives. But, it might matter as a matter of admissibility of evidence. The knife matches some of the victim's wounds but not others, but from the beginning the police believed there were multiple attackers.

There's more evidence, but there's none that places her in the room where the murder occurs. The bra clasp places her boyfriend there, not her. It did sit around for 2 months after the investigation. But (there's always a but...) it sat around in a sealed crime scene, so there really isn't any plausible way that would cause contamination unless the boyfriend snuck in and rubbed his hand on it. Unless, of course, it was somehow contaminated second-hand, although even then the duration of time isn't really the issue.

Rudy's DNA was all over the room, and he was found guilty because of that, but in his trial, it was found that he was only one of the attackers. So it's not an either-or thing.


On any of these points, you could go on the internet and find 50 pages of people arguing vociferously for one side or the other. Everything I've said has be rebutted 10 times over, and those rebuttals have been rebutted 10 times over, and so on. So I'm not trying to claim one side is right or the other. Just that there is a debate to be had.

[pnwmom]

43. Reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt. What is the point of your continuing

to say that people can argue either side?

All it does is prove that there was enough reasonable doubt to fly a 747 through, and Amanda and Raffaele should have been found not guilty.

[DanTex]

49. I was responding to a question about the DNA knife.

On that particular issue, there are most certainly arguments that can be had on either side. You can argue that it's "debunked," or you can argue that it's scientific evidence that places Amanda at the scene of the crime with the murder weapon in her hand. There is a common believe that there's "no evidence," which simply isn't true. How many US news reports mention the fact that there's a knife the two DNA samples on it?

As far as reasonable doubt, I think that's another thing that can be debated. But to really determine that, you have to look at all the evidence in it's totality, something that few people have actually done.

[pnwmom]

53. Please read the Hellman report section by the two Court-appointed independent forensic

specialists, both faculty at the University of Rome in the department of forensics.

Every "expert" in the media isn't equal, but these two were appointed specifically to render neutral, professional opinions. They are not defense experts or supporters. They were appointed by Judge Hellman to give him accurate information.

And they explain quite clearly why the bra clasp and knife cannot be used to implicate the students.

[DanTex]

57. OK, or I could tell you to read the Nencini report, which refutes the Hellman report...

It explains quite clearly why the refutations of the DNA evidence cited in the Hellman report cannot be used to disqualify the forensic evidence.

And so on.

[pnwmom]

63. I have read the Nencini report and if you have, you must realize that it is nonsense. n/t

[RedCappedBandit]

56. Yes I suppose you could find countless pages one way or the other

Seems to me that in its totality there is just not enough proof and they really are grasping at straws. The lack of DNA at the crime scene simply speaks volumes. Is it feasible that her boyfriend would only leave one little trace of his presence in the room?

Anyway - I was asking because I admittedly do not know much about the case. Just that the gist of it seems way too loose to actually extradite her in my humble opinion.

[DanTex]

61. Your opinion is a fair and defensible one.

The question of how could the boyfriend have just left one trace of DNA in the bedroom, and how could Amanda have left no trace in the bedroom is one that I can't answer. But then again, I know very little about how DNA traces work. Are people constantly shedding DNA everywhere they go? Or do you need to bleed or spit on something? Somewhere in between?

I also can't answer the question of how could his DNA have gotten there if it wasn't in the room. Maybe he shook hands with her boyfriend once? Does it work like that? Did the lab mess up? Twice? Etc.

So, yeah, I don't know. But, at the very least, there are things to think about, and the rough impression that people get from reading about the case in the media isn't enough IMO to say the whole thing is a sham and we should violate our treaties because of it.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

94. If you really watched the handling of the bra clasp

by the Italian Barney Fifes, you would have no question how the bra clasp could have been contaminated.

Gloves and shoe covers are not worn to protect the investigator. They are worn to protect the evidence. They are not supposed to pick up evidence, pass it around from one person to another, drop it on the floor, pick it up, and so on. Gloves should have been changed repeatedly. Small tweezer type instruments should have been used to pick up the objects. They should have been placed in paper bags - not plastic bags. There are good, solid reasons why forensic science requires this careful behavior: contamination!

They walked into the house, opened the door on which Rafaelle's DNA was undoubtedly found since he tried to open the door, and proceeded to make one giant freaking mess inside that room looking for DNA. All those mistakes in a room that had been entered at least a few times by day 46, when the bra clasp was found.

WATCH THE VIDEO. Find all the mistakes made. Even as serious as this case is, I laugh when I watch the video of the evidence collection. It is that damning.

By the way, you can find a person's DNA in dust. It's that small. And we are discussing DNA, and not blood.

ETA - there is no rhyme or reason why the bolding came out the way it did. Suffice it to say, it was not my intention to bold half of what I wrote.

[DanTex]

96. A lot of people have watched the video and come to a different conclusion.

To really know, of course, you have to understand exactly how easy or how hard it is for DNA evidence to become contaminated. This is not something I know personally, but what what I've read, it's unlikely in this situation, and that's what the court found also. And the question isn't how small DNA is, it's how easy it is to leave traces of it.

More to the point, the question of contamination is completely unaffected by the two month delay, which is the usual complaint against the bra clasp evidence. The argument you are making is that all of the DNA evidence should be considered suspect because of the collection methods.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

102. Just How Easily DNA Transfer Can Take Place

An Interview with Professor Gill, probably the top expert in the world on DNA profiling:


Q. What other cases have you had experience with elsewhere in the world, which would help us to put his Italian case into context?

A. There is one case I can allude to, which is the case of Adam Scott, which is quite a notorious case here in the UK. A man was accused of a rape, because his DNA profile was obtained from the swabs – the vaginal swabs, and it matched a man who was some hundreds of kilometres away from the crime scene. And he denied ever having been in the place in his life. The evidence was the DNA profile. He was arrested and incarcerated for about six months, and all the time he was protesting his innocence. Luckily for him it came to light that there had been a contamination event in the actual laboratory. His DNA profile had actually been submitted to the same laboratory a couple of weeks previously, and his DNA profile from that particular event from saliva, was transmitted into the casework analysis for the second system. So of course he came up positive for this particular case, but his DNA had actually been transferred from a previous event. So this is a very good illustration of DNA actually moving within the laboratory, and not only that, it can move from one case to another case. Fortunately for him there was sufficient evidence to show that contamination had actually occurred, and he was eventually released, although he was in prison for about six months before he was set free. So the fact that this kind of event can happen should make us all very concerned, and it should make us all very very aware that this is probably not a one off example. The problem is that if you observe a contamination event, and you prove a contamination event has occurred, then there are probably a large number of cases where (it has) occurred and you have not verified that a contamination event has actually happened; and therefore it is missed, and that is my biggest concern I think. For every mistake that you find, there are many which go undiscovered, and that means that there are probably innocent people in prison.

Q. Professor Gill, before taking our leave, could you give a final message to the Italian Public and its justice system on this complicated and poorly understood theme, with a view to pointing the way to how things might be improved in the future.

A. The first thing to do is to forget everything that you think you know about forensic science that you have gathered from TV shows. This is completely wrong, and really we have to start again. Forensic science is the same as any other science. That means that we need to make sure that we have very good evidence, and critically we always need to explore all possibilities, not just one or two obvious ones, but particularly how did the DNA get there, when did it get there? Is there evidence for contamination? And even when there isn’t evidence for contamination, are we sure that we are looking for it? Are laboratories themselves actually in a fit position to carry out this kind of profiling? Do they carry out laboratory controls to look for evidence of contamination within the laboratory, for example? How often do they clean the laboratory? Are they changing their latex gloves in between handling evidence for example? There are many, many important things to consider. The problem is that once a DNA profile is obtained, then the (DNA) evidence seems to counter evidence that points away from the suspect. And I call this the ‘swamping effect’. Everyone is so blinded by the huge power of DNA profiling that the obvious falls by the wayside. So DNA always has to be considered in the context of the other evidence, and should never be considered by itself.

You can read more at http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/peter-gill-interview/

And if you don't like that source, you can find many other sources. He is world-reknowned in his field.

[DanTex]

105. Yes, that's really just a generic argument that contamination can occur.

That's pretty far from a clear argument that contamination occurred. He thinks the burden of proving non-contamination should lie with the prosecution in general, rather than the defense having to prove contamination. Which is fine. In the context of this specific trial, of course, the people charged with making the decision are the judges and jurors, who decided, quite reasonably, that the testimony they heard from forensic experts was convincing that the risks of contamination, particularly the risks of two independent contamination incidents, were very low.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

106. They investigators made every single mistake

in the book when they collected evidence.

And if you say they didn't, you haven't watched the video, you're lying....I'm trying to think of something else.

You really think you can "slide" a q-tip across a piece of furniture and not get any contamination?

You really think multiple persons can pick up multiple pieces of evidence all the time each wearing the same pair of gloves, and then pass the evidence (the bra clasp) around from one dirty glove to another without contamination? And let's not forget one of them dropped the the evidence on the floor. My eight year old granddaughter could have collected evidence with less contamination with some simple instructions.

And by the way, the reason this case interests me is because I worked in a hospital lab where protocols weren't as tight as for forensic evidence collectors, but I can see every damn mistake these idiots made just with my meager knowledge.

[DanTex]

107. Well, maybe they should let Rudy Guede go then.

But I'd say he's still guilty, despite flaws in the evidence collection. As for Amanda and Raffaele, the question is whether the mistakes are sufficient to have caused the multiple contaminations that would be required to explain the evidence. The court that that they weren't. And Amanda's DNA wasn't found anywhere in the victim's room, so the idea of widespread contamination is questionable.

Again, I get that experts disagree about how likely contamination was. That's a far cry from saying there's "no evidence" though.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

108. Well, his print was clearly on her pillow

Actually, if you can find a REAL expert who doesn't think there was cause for serious contamination, I'd like to know who that is - besides the bought-and-paid for "experts."

Top DNA experts watch that video and laugh.

[Fred Sanders]

38. But it is still "any evidence"...since you asked.

[RedCappedBandit]

51. Yes, I did ask. Thanks

[Bonx]

21. Thanks for the poll ! The results are quite illuminating.

[Javaman]

22. extraditing someone to a kangaroo court is in no ones best interests. nt

[Gothmog]

26. There is no way that Amanda Knox should extradicted

There are way too many flaws in the process used in Italy

[elleng]

27. No, because:

“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,” the treaty states.

According to M. Cherif Bassiouni, a former U.N. lawyer and international extradition law expert, “Whatever the interpretation of article VI may be … Amanda Knox would not be extraditable to Italy should Italy seek her extradition because she was retried for the same acts, the same facts, and the same conduct,” Bassiouni wrote in an Oxford University Press blog post. “Her case was reviewed three times with different outcomes even though she was not actually tried three times.”

[Johonny]

35. pretty much

I have no idea if she will actually be convicted again, if they will request extradition or if it wil be granted. I do know that some lawyers seemed confident that such a request would not be granted.

[Fred Sanders]

39. Appeals do not count as "trials".

No "celebrity exemptions" in the treaty or for ANY celebrity claiming the non-existent exemption.

Rule of law. Equal justice for all. It is not complex. Read the treaty and the history.

[CanonRay]

32. I wouldn't turn over anyone to that insane court system

[Fred Sanders]

40. Italy seems fine with it - and around another one hundred countries with Italian Extradition Treaties.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

104. Italy and the Ukraine have the worst track record with the European Supreme Court

And there is no wonder about that!

[DanTex]

46. Should we abide by any of our foreign treaties? Or just when we feel like it.

Here's the problem. If we're going to be violating treaties like this, there needs to at least be a process for it. For example, there needs to be some kind of court in the US that has a hearing to decide whether or not to extradite people. And, in order for it to be done justly, and not just be a matter of how much money the fugitive spends on PR and political pressure, everyone is going to have to have access to this process. In fact, not doing that would violate the equal protection clause.

And of course, if that happens, it will have to be built into the treaty -- requests of extradition will only be granted if the US extradition court decides to. In that case, the other countries are going to put in the same provision.

So the result will be, people who are international fugitives will get two trials, one in the country where the crime is committed, and the other in the country where they are hiding. Maybe that's the system we want.

[Fred Sanders]

52. Seems like celebrity status, either guilty or innocent, brings with it a complete disregard for rule of law...

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

109. You know,Canada will refuse to extradite if the death sentence will apply.

Now what in the world would make you believe the United States cannot or will not fashion reasoning politically and sense worthy
from a global stand point as to why it is or may be reasoning for refusing extradition under the current conditions as per. the treaty agreement ? Such a thing would be a highly fashionable diplomatic response to the ongoing political prostitution coming out of Italy as it is at this time. You see the real question is who is the whore for real ? And I think the answer to that question is the prosecutor who is drunk with power. The problem over there in Italy in fact is ,hanging what that is out to dry is a most difficult thing to do,as is here
as well. They the powers that be would or will have to turn against one of their own. And that is no easy road to go down in law and politics.

This field in thought is in connection to the saving face issue which has been brought up in discussion. A diplomatic solution has to do with bargaining, trades, tit for tat and all that.

[DanTex]

113. Some countries have death penalty exemptions in the treaty.

So there is a legal basis for that. Anyway, she was found innocent, so it doesn't matter anymore.

Keep pounding the pedals!

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

114. I've been thinking about that !

And always remember there is nothing between you and those cars so ride smart and safe !

[Manifestor_of_Light]

54. Means, motive and opportunity.

The three precedent elements of a crime.

Who had the means, motive and opportunity? That's what I learned in criminal law class.

[wyldwolf]

69. No President or SOS will consent to extradition. Political suicide.

Regardless of how legal experts read the treaty with Italy...

Think "Elián González."

Mute point anyway. I predict Italy won't request extradition.

[Fred Sanders]

71. Different issue. "Should the United States...."

[wyldwolf]

82. not in the public's mind.

The image of Federal agents seizing someone and handing her over - especially an American citizen - isn't something anyone would want to happen on their watch.

Some said that helped Al Gore lose voters in Florida.

[tammywammy]

74. Moot, not mute. n/t

[Spider Jerusalem]

78. And it doesn't mean "Irrelevant", it means "debatable" (see: "moot court" in law school).

[Fred Sanders]

80. Yes. In MOOT Court....in which debate is the entire purpose. But the result is moot.

[wyldwolf]

83. definition:

An issue regarded as potentially debatable, but no longer practically applicable. Although the idea may still be worth debating and exploring academically, and such discussion may be useful for addressing similar issues in the future, the idea has been rendered irrelevant for the present issue.

[Spider Jerusalem]

85. But "a moot point" is one that is subject to debate.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/moot

[wyldwolf]

88. that may not come to any satisfactory conclusion or whose conclusion may be meaningless.

English Language and Usage

Some examples from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

The court ruled that the issue is now moot because the people involved in the dispute have died.
I think they were wrong, but the point is moot. Their decision has been made and it can't be changed now.

"The adjective moot is originally a legal term going back to the mid-16th century. It derives from the noun moot, in its sense of a hypothetical case argued as an exercise by law students. Consequently, a moot question is one that is arguable or open to debate.

But in the mid-19th century people also began to look at the hypothetical side of moot as its essential meaning, and they started to use the word to mean "of no significance or relevance." Thus, a moot point, however debatable, is one that has no practical value.

Sort of like this discussion.

[Fred Sanders]

79. The poll results are moot. I have to go now, so I will be mute for a while.

[wyldwolf]

81. No. moo point.

it's like a cow's opinion. It just doesn't matter. It's moo.

(posting from a smartphone is often difficult. Misspelling will occur. Pointing out those is lame.)

[tammywammy]

84. Didn't think it was a spelling error.

A lot of people say mute point instead of moot. Sometimes pointing things out helps a person in the future to just a phrase correctly. Like people using intensive purposes instead of intents and purposes.

[wyldwolf]

86. auto correct is a best... boost... BEAST

[tammywammy]

92. My favorite was when I was telling a friend

"I'm gonna" and it came out "mama gonna".

Like I was calling myself mama. LOL.

[Fred Sanders]

93. Auto-check your own words, is second best.

[alcibiades_mystery]

99. haha beat me to it

[alcibiades_mystery]

98. You're both wrong. It's a "Moo Point," like a cow's opinion

[Kalidurga]

90. No

And if the Italian Government wanted to raise a stink about it I would let them know that I would never extradite anyone to their country. They can keep anyone who commits a crime here and somehow gets there as well. I really don't care if some of our criminals roam their streets.

[alcibiades_mystery]

100. My prediction: within the next 10 years, Ms. Knox will find herself before another court

Just not on the Kercher homicide.

[DanTex]

101. How's the peeping?

Sorry for the total non-sequitur. I love that movie. RIP PSH.

[alcibiades_mystery]

103. RIP PSH: That's one of the best lines of his long and storied career

[Gothmog]

110. This issue is now moot

Amanda Knox's ordeal is over