To extradite her you need a verdict. Only when the SCC rules do you have a verdict. All the previous verdicts are actually provisional verdicts.

I wasn't sure how it would apply to Raffaele bot Knox won't have an issue until the SCC rules. Even when the next trial ends and she is found guilty the Italians still can't extradite her. The SCC will have to review the motivations from that trial and only when they endorse them will extradition be possible.

As to what happens next.

Within 90 days the SCC will release the reasons for why Hellmann was voided.

We are now back to as if Hellmann never happened and Massei just ended so both sides will prepare paper work for a new stage two trial. They have 45 days to do that and you'd expect the defence to take the maximum.

So within 135 days (134 now) we will have the documents for the repeat of the second stage trial. A date will be set by a court in Florence. This could be as early as this summer but because most of Italy shuts down for six weeks in the summer for holidays the earliest realistic date is September 2013. People seem to think the trial will not be scheduled until early 2014.

How long the trial will take depends on what the SCC's motivations say and what the judges in Florence agree to hear. I would expect the trial to be very short. A provisional verdict will be given. Within 90 days of that motivations for the verdict will be made public.

Once the motivations are made public both sides have 45 days to file their documents for a repeat visit to the SCC. A date will be scheduled. A repeat of what happened Monday with a very short argument before the SCC will happen. The SCC will issue a decision the same day (or the next day). If they endorse the provisional verdict then it is over. If they reject it then everything is reset again to where we are today and everything I just typed out is repeated again.

Once the SCC endorses a provisional verdict it becomes an actual verdict. 90 days later the motivations are released and the extradition can begin.

thanks henry

What do people think of the top comment on this reddit thread?

http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/co...uittal_orders/

This comment

It is incorrect. The United States recently sent someone to Mexico despite Mexico also having a system of law that allows for something identical to the situation here. If I wanted to put in some additional work I could find more examples. What is happening in Italy is not unusual.

There is absolutely no legal grounds on which the United States can refuse extradition. They can choose to damage relations and get their big US #1 fingers out but I don't expect that they will. Knox doesn't matter and she is obviously guilty so why would anyone damage international relations over a guilty person?

Legal cases are never absolute.

WTF are you talking about?

You keep coming in here making idiotic comments that have absolutely no foundation. You think you know what you are talking about which makes me think law student but unless you attend the Florida Coastal School of Law your stupidity just can't be explained.

The issue at hand is this bull**** about the incorrect belief that double jeopardy applies to the case at hand. Fortunately we don't have to figure out if this is actually double jeopardy or not because we can look to what the United States has done in the past when faced with an extradition request that involves a case that looks like double jeopardy.

In previous cases where the United States has faced a situation identical to the Knox situation the United States has complied with the request. They have done this multiple times. As such people who claim that the United States will not return her to Italy because of a double jeopardy argument are 100% wrong.

Lol, how many logical fallacies can you pack into one post?

You still haven't explained your misuse of the word "collaborate," which brings your credibility into question.

loading the comments related to that one is fun, OP seems ******ed

List them.

Picking the wrong word from a spell check popup menu. Do you really think picking on a typo is a good distraction from your idiotic posting?

I'm sorry but screaming and shouting and stamping your feet does not an argument make. Someone who posts over 2000 times on this one topic on an obscure internet forum, thinking it is important or will make one bit of difference to anyone, is clearly a psychopath. You have zero credibility.

So why are you here posting ******ed ****?

You came out of nowhere. Made four idiotic posts. Now that you've made a fool of yourself you're claiming this is stupid anyway.

The US is sending this guy back to Scotland for attempted murder. Between America and Britain, the US says: "there have been 130 extradition requests from Washington under the treaty. Of these, 73 have gone ahead, 50 are pending and seven have been refused. Britain has made 54 requests, and 38 have gone ahead so far."

This American was extradited to Peru. And Canada just claimed an American protester, as mentioned a few days ago.

The US ships its citizens all over the place.


If her own lawyer and a professor from her university agree, and if the US entered into the treaty advisedly, knowing how Italy operates (the jeopardy is ongoing), then the only reason to refuse is to decide she's a special exception for some reason.

There's lots to say they probably will extradite her, if it comes to that. I guess it's possible they wouldn't extradite, but there's nothing that you can point to as the reason they definitely can't or won't, or what about this case distinguishes it from any other.

this thread is some sort of strange mecca for ego-inflated morons who think six months of graduate school makes them smart, or something

DON'T DO IT DONT DONT DONT DONT. ITS A TARP

now that's just uncanny...

Also, quick question. Is one side of the debate being systematically suppressed still or are people who think she's probably innocent allowed to contribute again? I realize that because I am making this post and asking this single question it means one of two things: 1) I am a shill sent to twoplustwo by Amanda Knox (through a time machine so I could register back in 2005) or 2) since I disagree with a certain poster or posters that automatically means I must be obsessed with them. The infallible nature of the logic that leads to these conclusions escapes me at the moment, but I'm aware that's where the accusations will go.

Just curious while I'm here warning Obzenkyoiyoi to stay far far away.

Who went to graduate school for 6 months and thinks they're smart because of it? Or is this just something you made up because that's what happens in here?

So I take it personal attacks are back on the table? Or is it only ok for one side still?

Matt R's panties seem to be bunched up still.

And yes, I am aware moderators are being PM'd at the moment by certain posters requesting that I be banned. Can the guy who is not insulting anyone at the moment (that would be me) please not get temp-banned yet? I would like to contribute kind sirs, if I may be so obliged. Unless there is another person in the thread with experience in genetics I think my input could potentially be valuable. I am aware those that want me banned do not want anyone with genetics experience posting in here, however, and I'm hoping the moderators can see through this. As a side note, I do find it strange that the guilty side would want to suppress the posting of someone with genetics experience given there is crucial DNA evidence in this case. Weird how that works.

This thread is so amazing.

Yup totally furious. GRRR SOMEONE SAID I THOUGHT I WAS SMART BC I WENT TO GRADUATE SCHOOL FOR 6 MONTHS GRR.

Phew glad I got that out of my system. Back to my peaceful place.

No seriously, I was just curious if only one side was allowed to post insults. I'm obviously refraining at the moment. I don't feel the need to call people idiots shills or ego-maniacs cause I'm a nice guy like that.

So, how about that Amanda Knox chick?

Would anyone know on what page is Henry's amazing breakdown of the evidence against Knox? It's become increasingly difficult to find.

I swear 239 and Pfunk post so much just to prevent anyone else from learning the facts. The truth becomes obfuscated in a torrent of meaningless drivel.

Definitely a situation in which free speech = noise

Time, place, and manner restrictions need heeding.

LOL

Hilarious

This is kind of interesting.

The president of the Italian supreme court thinks 9/11 was an inside job and wants a criminal investigation of the U.S government regarding 9/11

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/09/...eme-court.html

I mean, he thinks it was controlled explosions and everything...the whole shebang.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/r...ato-letter.pdf