Amanda Knox Officially Signs Book Deal, but Is It a Waste of Time?

The publisher might change their mind if she is dragged back to Italy. Everyone has a right to their opinion without being personally attacked., as not one of us where there. Mine is she was involved some how.

And if you didn't see my other comment on the other article, "Im Sure"... thanks for the hair care tip. Sounds like it was one other people use.

Ummmm, Italy cannot "drag" her back. US law has this little thing called Double Jeopardy. She was found innocent. The Italian Supreme Court does not review existing or regard any new evidence. They only review how the case was conducted by the court. Did they make procedural errors? Were there technicalities in the application of Italian law?

If so, they will return to the Appeals Court and resolve -- and that only if it is deemed to potentially have made a difference on the outcome.

What kind of errors? Allowing testimony about the "spontanious" declarations from the 6th. Intentionally misleading statements contrary to testimony in summary. Failure to disclose information by the prosecution. Etc.

The Supreme Court has to first decide if they will hear testimony.

To be factual, they were not found "innocent", Italian law doesn't have that as a verdict. Here is what H-Z said:

The Corte di Assise di Appello of Perugia, pursuant to C.P.P. Article 605 , in partial modification of the ruling announced on the date of December 4-5, 2009 by the Perugia Corte di Assise of first level in the matter of Amanda Marie Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, appealed by them and [also] incidentally by the Prosecutor of the Republic of Perugia,

ACQUITS
both of the defendants of the crimes attributed to them under Charges A,B,C, and D for not having committed the act, and of the crime under Charge E because the act did not take place; rejecting the request made against them by civil party Aldalia Tattanelli;

In other words "they didn't do it". Pretty close to "innocent" but has a little more umph to it. Charge E was the "staged breakin" meaning in otherwords, the breakin was not staged.

u.s. extradition treaty w/ italy says otherwise ;)

U.S. extradition treaty says also that the last word is up to the Secretary of State:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/15mcrm.htm#9-15.700

point 4:

If the court finds the fugitive to be extraditable, it enters an order of extraditability and certifies the record to the Secretary of State, who decides whether to surrender the fugitive to the requesting government.

So increasing public support through a book is not a waste of time: extradition of a popular figure may be politically inacceptable for any Administration.

Moreover there have been a few issues concerning that treaty and "disparity of treatment": years ago Italy didn't extradite an Italian citizen to USA because he risked death penalty (which doesn't exist in Italy), while a few months ago the US didn't extradite an US citizen to Italy because of the type of imprisonment considered too severe in the US (and called isolation under article 41 bis in Italy).
So I would not be too surprised if concerning Amanda Knox the point of "disparity of treatment" between the Italian and the US judicial system were raised again: in the US after a successful appeal you cannot be tried again.

I agree with I'm Sure

Amanda is not going to be dragged back to Italy because she is not going to be re convicted,even if she were she still might not go back because during the appeals trial there was talk that if she wasn't released that her parents would try to get her transfered US prison. Amanda is innocent.

@Kent Myers - Go and look up the meaning of double jeopardy then look at Italian law then shut up that it might be a barrier to extradition. The Italian legal system doesn't convict/acquit until the third round. We're not there yet.

@Rusty - It would be a cold day in hell before I went to prison in the USA. Italy, judging by Amanda's treatment, is a holiday camp.

"It would be a cold day in hell before I went to prison in the USA. Italy, judging by Amanda's treatment, is a holiday camp"


Confined to a 13' X 13" cell 23 hours a day is a 'holiday' I can do without!

Amanda was allowed out of her cell, able to cook her own food and choose her own clothes. She was allowed to read books and write her own journals. Amanda could take part in art and drama classes, act in a movie, and attend a gig. Have a look at what Chantal McCorkle has to say about her time inside a Florida women's prison compared to the stories about Amanda's incarceration. I'll take Italy over Florida every single day and yes, compared to Chantal's treatment at the hands of the USA, Amanda was on holiday.

I forgot to say, Amanda could also move around including her trips to court without wearing wrist and leg irons. Again, given a choice between that and the Italian way, italy wins.

I'm sure it sucks either way. Nobody wants to be in any prison. Italy, US, Sweden etc.

That is one thing I found odd about the Italian justice system,that when Amanda went to court she was not at least hand cuffed,or even searched for contraband.Paris Hilton was stripped searched when she entered the LA County Jail to serve her time for DUI. I do remember Rudy being handcuffed and shackled but that's because he fled to Germany.

Hi Scott The point I'm trying to make here is that there is a book coming out, the main thrust of which is "poor little me stuck in an Italian hellhole" when the reality of the situation is actually much more appealing than the marketing. Prison anywhere would suck hugely, we both agree on that. What I am saying is that HarperCollins have forked out $4m for a book which cannot possibly be what it says without outright lies (I know, Amanda? Lying? Why I cannot imagine such a thing...). If you want to read a real story about a woman who did wrong, admitted what she did then took her licks in one of the world's hardest prisons before coming out and making something of her life BEFORE cashing in and writing a book, read "forget you have a daughter" by Sandra Gregory. That is inspirational stuff, not "I sat in quite a nice cell with some nice food I cooked myself and read books for 4 years (3 of which I deserved) and acted in a movie" Not quite the same is it?

Megan I see your point. Italian prisons may be less harse than American ones. I imagine it varies by the prison itself. Some are harder than others. I've read good and bad stories about prisons in both counties. A friend that spent tome on a drug charge in the US told me it was not as bad ppl think. Maybe they are indeed less harse in Italy I don't really know for a fact. Now assuming she was reconvicted a big advantage to serving the time in a US Prison would be that her family would be close by for visits.

Megan - it doesn't matter if the Italian system recognizes the American standard for Double Jeopardy or not. It will not be about Italian law now, but US law. Besides:

1) The Supreme Court of Italy doesn't rule on the verdict in the Appeals Court, only if there were any procedural or technical errors made, then they return to the Appeal Court to resolve those errors. Don't review evidence or court testimony, except for precedural (introduction of illegal statements from the 6th would be a procedural error - with no influence on outcome).
2) By US standards, she has been found innocent, and there would be court hearings out the kazoo long before it got to the SecState. Without something new - physical evidence, video, or real witness - there is nothing by US standards to overturn verdict, hence no basis for extradiction.

Hey Maxy, it would be awesome if you could comment on the topic not on the writer. There is a saying in footie, play the ball and not the man. However, you're right, prison must be awful if you are innocent. We'll have to disagree on whether Knox is guilty or innocent. As things stand, assuming that the current verdict stands, she can only write about being held unjustly for one year as the other three were part of a sentence. That said, I'll wait until this three act show is over before saying one judge is right or wrong but my gut feeling says Knox is more likely guilty, I'm 50/50 on Sollecito and Guede's sentence has been confirmed (but most importantly, Guede's Supreme Court sentence confirmation said he had two other accomplices and it hinted heavily at those accomplices being Knox and Sollecito).

Kent - I'm confused. In your last comment it was all about double jeopardy but I proved you wrong so you have changed tack. Now its all about what the USA thinks. But I'm game and will respond. The treaty between Italy and USA is the same as the one between the USA and the UK. Basically, if there is reasonable suspicion that the suspect could have committed the crime then that is grounds for extradition. If the last appeal is thrown out by the Supreme Court, this will not trigger extradition. Knox will be given an opportunity to redefend herself in court. New evidence can be introduced on both sides. If the prosecution expert can do what he says and can prove that Knox and Kercher's DNA is on the knife then this is reasonable suspicion and proceedings can begin. If Knox chooses to return to Italy there is no problem; if she fights, Italy can apply to have her held in a US prison until the extradition hearing. Its unlikely that thay she will be held but its a risk.

No, you can't read.

It is still about Double Jeopardy under US Law. There would have to be hearings to establish that the Italian claim has no weight. And as another poster clearly stated, it would still have to clear the SecState.

What you don't understand is that despite the amount of hate you have for Amanda Knox, and it is just simple, pure hate, no matter how much you want your fantasy of malice to be true, it isn't.

*sighs* Oh Kent, it all comes down to NO U in your world doesn't it? If you cannot work out the definition of double jeopardy when applied to Italian law then we're in trouble aren't we. Double jeopardy is two separate trials for the same crime. Sollecito and Knox are currently not guilty, appeal pending. After the first trial, they were convicted, appeal pending. Nothing is signed or sealed until the Supreme takes one of two courses of action - throws out the prosecutors requests and confirms the sentence OR agrees there is an irregularity which makes the second trial a mistrial and therefore not valid. What we have then is a replay of round 2, not a second trial because that is double jeopardy and I believe that is actually illegal in Italy. If you stop trying to apply adversarial rules to an inquisitorial system, you’ll understand what a complete berk you have made of yourself in your comments. Now please, be a good boy and scamper back the library and let the grownups keep talking.

Megan - Oh, and the reading comprehension that you failed? My point, which must have been way to plain and logical for you, was that, in the end, it will never come to the question of extradiction at all.

Your failure to understand Italian law and what the Italian Supreme Court is being asked to do only highlights further that your targetless malice and loathing is destined to end up unfulfilled and pointless.

Megan,you are wrong again,Amanda's time in Italy was no holiday,the way the prison staff and some of the inmates treated her.

Perhaps there is some formatting problem with my post above, so I repost it here:

US extradition treaty also says that the last word is up to the Secretary of State:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/15mcrm.htm#9-15.700

point 4:

"If the court finds the fugitive to be extraditable, it enters an order of extraditability and certifies the record to the Secretary of State, who decides whether to surrender the fugitive to the requesting government."

So increasing public support through a book is not a waste of time: the extradition of a popular figure can be unacceptable for any administration.

Moreover there have been a few issues concerning that treaty and "disparity of treatment": years ago Italy didn't extradite an Italian citizen to USA because he risked death penalty (which doesn't exist in Italy), while a few months ago the US didn't extradite an US citizen to Italy because of the type of imprisonment considered too severe in the US (and called isolation under article 41 bis in Italy).
So I would not be too surprised if concerning Amanda Knox the point of "disparity of treatment" between the Italian and the US judicial system were raised again: in the US after a successful appeal you cannot be tried again.

Finally, in Italy (I'm Italian) extradition of Knox from the US is perceived as a critical issue, potential source of diplomatic rifts (Italy had recently troubles with Brazil, which didn't extradite on political grounds , treaty notwithstanding, an ITALIAN (not Brazilian) citizen convicted of multiple murders), so my (and not only mine) guess is that in high places there isn't much desire of testing Italy-US extradition treaty with Amanda Knox as subject.
Consider also that should there ever be a new trial, with the times of Italian justice, and presuming a Supreme Court ruling by October this year, it would not start before mid 2013 and probably end about spring 2014, then the Supreme Court should rule again, this time around let's say February 2015, that is 3 years from now.
In three years Amanda Knox and her supporters through books, movies, campaigning and so on could put up something at the level of the Dreyfus case and at that point extradition would be something extremely difficult to obtain (and Italy could even decide not to ask for it, since on the Italian side of the treaty there is a political filter too).

Luca,

You hit the nail right on the head on this. This is a political timebomb. Who the hell would want to set it off?

As important this seems to some people, in the scheme of International relations, this is insignificant, so I agree with your post 100%.

Well done.

Amanda's mother said that her cell had no air conditioning,she would have that here in a US jail unless she was placed in segragation for disaplanary reasons,but she was a model prisoner while she was in Capanie.

Another in favor of US prisons is smoking. Since this banned in many if not all US prisons but permitted in Italian ones it would better for her in a US one since she is a non-smoker.

People frequently forget, the extradition treaty is a political treaty, not a judicial treaty.

Our courts, in theory have nothing to say on the issue. But, since it is a political decision, the State department could just tell Italy no and there is little Italy could do or likely would do in the matter.

This is one of the reasons (not the only one) why I don't think their Supreme Court is going to rule against Amanda Knox. There is no way that anyone wants to put this to a test.

The potential ramifications, that the Secretary of State would allow an innocent woman to be sent back to Italy after she had already endured two trials and 4 years in prison, to face a 3rd trial would not be good politically for him.

The Secretary of State could easily just tell them that the United States considers this double jeopardy and our laws won't allow it. The treaty is vague enough for him to do this. But the problem is, this situation has never come up before. (If it has, please correct me..I've been searching for a similar situation.)

Italy must be aware that if they do rule against Amanda, there is a good chance that the State Department will turn down the extradition request and because I don't think that would be good politically for leaders in Italy, I think they will want to just move on.

Of course I could be wrong.. It has happened once or twice in my life.