Amanda Knox Double Jeopardy

[juiio]

Amanda's injuries:

Amanda had a scratch on her neck the day after the murder. Multiple people testified that it had not been seen the day before. Her lower earring had also been ripped out.

 

[juiio]

There you have it. A brief overview of the case against them. I'm probably forgetting some stuff, but you get the idea. If you are genuinely curious still, you should read the Massei report and come to your own informed conclusion.

 

[RampantAndroid]

At 12:47 pm, Knox called her mother in Seattle, who told her to contact the police. Sollecito telephoned his sister, a police officer, for advice, then made two calls to the emergency number 112, at 12:51 and 12:54 pm. He reported a break-in, blood, a locked door, and a missing person.[31] Before the carabinieri arrived in response to these calls, two officers from the Polizia Postale (Post and Communications Police) drove up to the house. They were investigating a report from a local woman who had found two mobile phones in her garden, later believed to have been discarded there by the killer, which the police had traced to Via della Pergola 7.[32]

That seems to disagree. Additionally, can you either edit your posts in future or just make one big post instead of 10 all in sequence?

Also, your times are wrong:

When a friend of Sollecito's went there briefly around 8:40 pm, Knox was there and opened the door.[76] Police computer analysts, who destroyed Sollecito's computer while examining it,[77] said the film ended at 9:10 pm and there was no trace of human interaction on his computer between then and 5:32 am

 

[juiio]

That seems to disagree. Additionally, can you either edit your posts in future or just make one big post instead of 10 all in sequence?

There is no contradiction. The Wikipedia article is just poorly edited. Postal police inspector Battistelli stated that they arrived at the cottage shortly after 12:30. This is corroborated by security footage that shows their car shortly before 12:30.

One area of the case per post, rather than one gigantic wall of text.

Also, your times are wrong:

That doesn't contradict my times. To what are you referring? If you are talking about the time that the movie stopped, then that is irrelevant, since the movie would stop on its own once it was over. The times in my post are not in dispute. They're all from testimony presented in stage one, and can be found in the report. You should read the report, which was written by the presiding judge, rather than reading Wikipedia, which can be edited by anyone.

 

[jingramm]

I think she was definitely part of the murder. Here's what I think happened:

There were 3 people involved. Amanda Knox, her bf, and that black guy. There are some credible motives for the murder that are floating around but I won't talk about that. They were into marijuana so I think some or all were on it at the time. They tried to play a sex game with Kercher for the black guy. Kercher obviously refused, but the three held her down and even had a knife on her. Then it accidentally turned badly and they staged the entire break-in story.

Sorry if I'm being Captain Obvious but I hope she serves her time in jail because the amount of evidence supporting a conviction is too strong.

 

[Carfax83]

It is all in the Massei report, which is the report put out by the presiding judge for stage one. The report summarizes the entire case and the reasoning for the verdict in stage one.

The Massei report is basically void so why are you using old and discounted evidence?

In the appeal, they went over this stuff already with independent experts, particularly the supposed witnesses, DNA, and footprint evidence and came to the conclusion that they were either unreliable or contaminated..

The entire investigation was sloppy and amateur from the very beginning..

You also never answered my question about the motive.

 

[Carfax83]

I think she was definitely part of the murder. Here's what I think happened:

There were 3 people involved. Amanda Knox, her bf, and that black guy. There are some credible motives for the murder that are floating around but I won't talk about that.

By all means, tell us about these motives that are so credible..

They were into marijuana so I think some or all were on it at the time.

So? Does smoking marijuana make you volatile?

They tried to play a sex game with Kercher for the black guy. Kercher obviously refused, but the three held her down and even had a knife on her. Then it accidentally turned badly and they staged the entire break-in story.

You're just as crazy as that corrupt prosecutor Mignini coming up with nonsensical scenarios to explain why Knox, Sollecito and Guede all had a hand in killing Kercher..

They tried to play a sex game with Kercher, she refused so they killed her

Never mind the fact that neither Knox or Sollecito have any criminal or behavioral history indicating that they would be capable of such a crime.

Never mind that to all appearances, Knox had a friendly relationship with Kercher.

Never mind that there is no conclusive evidence suggesting that Kercher's murder was committed by more than one person.

Sorry if I'm being Captain Obvious but I hope she serves her time in jail because the amount of evidence supporting a conviction is too strong.

Sorry, but you have no sense..

 

[juiio]

The Massei report is basically void so why are you using old and discounted evidence?

The Massei report contains a summary of everything from stage one. To say that is void is not only wrong, but doesn't even make sense. The only thing that has been invalidated is stage two, due to misconduct from Hellman, the presiding judge in stage two. Nothing that happened in the invalidated stage two is relevant any more. Stage one still stands and will continue to stand.

 

[Fern]

Interesting, thanks.

My question is what is the next step in Italy?

If they're going back to 'square one' I think it may be found to be double jeopardy. I think it's important to note that here the lower court is the finder of fact. Here, once that has been done it can't be revisited without some exceptional finding (if at all). We, like Italy, have three levels, but if I understand correctly, the appeals and SCOTUS do not find fact, but rule on question of law.

If the next step in Italy goes back to square one where the facts are retried I suspect that would be seen as double jeopardy here. I don't care what Italy thinks, that would be a whole 'nother bite at the apple.

Fern

A re-do of stage two. It probably won't begin until next year, I'd guess.

Might be quite a bit different, or more complicated that just a redo of stage two.

Heard an attorney on TV last night. He read the Italian Supreme Court ruling and was explaining it. First, to be fair, he claimed the ruling was rather vague. But he said that the appeal court trial was about three pieces of evidence not tossed out by the lower court. This is the evidence use to convict Amanda Knox. The appeals court used an independent expert who found those 3 pieces of evidence defect and not worthy of consideration. So, the appeals court threw out those 3 pieces of evidence and overturned the conviction.

Now the Italian Supreme Court ruled that the appeals court needs to go back and look at all the original evidence that was dismissed by the lower court. (The 3 pieces that were rejected by the appeals are not included.)

INAL, but suspect that going back to square one to now consider all original evidence is another pass at fact finding and is, thus, essentially a whole new retrial.

I.e., double jeopardy.

Fern

 

[Carfax83]

The Massei report contains a summary of everything from stage one. To say that is void is not only wrong, but doesn't even make sense. The only thing that has been invalidated is stage two, due to misconduct from Hellman, the presiding judge in stage two. Nothing that happened in the invalidated stage two is relevant any more. Stage one still stands and will continue to stand.

Are you telling me that the faulty evidence used to convict both Knox and Sollecito should be used again in the subsequent retrial, despite the fact that it was found to be flawed and or contaminated by numerous experts?