Amanda Knox and Double Jeopardy

The Amanda Knox trial was one of the best-known trials of the century. Knox and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were accused of the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy in 2009. She served four years of a twenty-four-year sentence after being found guilty. Both were eventually released in 2011 upon receiving a not guilty verdict after an appeals system overturned the original verdict. After her return to the United States, Knox and Sollecito stood trial once again. Knox, however, did not appear in court, choosing to remain in the United States. This time the Italian judicial system claimed the jury used to acquit the two did not take the evidence used in court into consideration. Knox was found guilty of the murder of her roommate and will be facing twenty-eight years in prison while Sollecito will serve twenty-five years. The new evidence Knox faced appeared to be the same as her last trial. With extremely small amounts of new evidence, the prosecution based the new trial on the same evidence it used the first time it accused Knox.

Luckily for Knox, it seems the United States is backing her up. The United States believes sending her back to Italy would be considered double jeopardy. As Joyner states “No country, much less a superpower, is going to turn over one of its citizens to another government to serve punishment that goes against its own principles of justice” (1). If Knox were to still live in Italy, she would certainly have to face her prison sentence simply because their justice system does not support the idea of double jeopardy, nor do many other countries. America is nearly one of the only countries supporting the idea that once acquitted of a crime, it is illegal to bring the person in question back to court on the same grounds.

The guilty verdict came to Amanda as a shock. The evidence based on the Italian court system suddenly seems consistent enough for Knox and her boyfriend to serve such sentences. It seems the court system is using more or less, evidence indirectly relating the suspects to the murder yet it is evidence nonetheless. Utilizing forensic science, evidence such as Knox’s DNA being in the house rather than in the victim’s room and her inability to account for where she was exactly the night of the murder are all being considered indications of both suspects' guilt. However inconsequential the amount of evidence to support the Italian judicial systems claims, it seems proof enough. 

An eyewitness testimony comes from Rudy Guede, who is serving sixteen years for the murder of Kercher, claimed to have been in the bathroom with headphones on while the murder took place. He emerged only to find Meredith bleeding to death. He later added to his story saying he heard the two girls arguing and came out of the bathroom to find himself being attacked by another male at the scene. Lawyers argue he is either lying or experiencing a faulty recollection of actual events.

For the prosecution, the evidence against the two suspects is surmountable, their story feeble. The evidence certainly assumes their guilt and heavily supports that the two were at the scene of the crime. However, as Poveledo states “a report from independent experts (that) was highly critical of the police’s handling and analysis of the materials” (1). This statement suggests the evidence may not have been strong enough to place the two in jail, though it still did. This seems to be because of the numerous verbal statements made by both Kercher and Sollecito. The two also seemed to participate in many written forms of guilty consent. 

The prosecution claims the three engaged in sexual activity, which led to Knox eventually killing Kercher. Unfortunately for the prosecution, no DNA of Knox nor her boyfriend was found on the scene of the crime; meaning there was no DNA on the body of the victim. However according to Simon “Sollecito's 6 ½-inch kitchen knife was used to slit her (Kercher’s) throat and then taken back to his apartment. Knox's DNA is on the handle and that of Kercher is on the blade” (1). This evidence is irrefutable. Placing at least Knox at the scene of the crime. Though the knife was found at Sollecito’s, all signs point to it having been at Kercher’s apartment the night of the murder.

Even though Knox lived with Kercher, the existence of her DNA around the house was found to be consequential. The prosecution supplied evidence with underlying stipulations. As Abrams describes “Without that sort of hard evidence it's difficult to see how any murder conviction can be upheld” (2). The lack of evidence against the two sustains they’re innocence, however, they continue to incriminate themselves by changing their stories. It is an old fact that the truth never changes so when two people convicted of murder constantly change stories, it is enough evidence to overpower the lack of visible clues.

Amanda’s boyfriend's recanting of the story is inconsistent. Time and time again he changes his story and claims he cannot remember crucial details, while Knox also takes the same storytelling route. Marijuana seemed to play a major role in the inconsistencies of both their stories. As BBC News states of their use of marijuana “which they blamed for their inability to recall their movements on the night Miss Kercher died” (1). It seems that the guilty verdict comes strictly from the convicts’ lack of truth behind their stories. The lack of DNA evidence could completely exonerate both Knox and Sollecito if they could only appear united in their claims of where they were that night.

After the police used a specific technique against Knox, claiming that Sollecito was disagreeing with what she was saying, Knox changed her story, linking her more deeply to the murder. Knox has also been charged with Slander. According to NBC News “prosecutors say is evidence of her guilt but that she says was made out of fear during a high-pressure grilling” (1). Unfortunately for Knox, this type of evidence is extremely incriminating and certainly plays a role in her most recent conviction.

Amanda Knox certainly has enough evidence against her to convince the Italian judicial system she is guilty. The only problem now lies in convincing the American judicial system of the same. Until then, Knox will remain free in America with Italy fervently waiting upon her arrival.

Works Cited

Abrams, Dan. "Amanda Knox Found Guilty Again: Why the Court Could Be (Sort of) Right."ABC News. ABC News Network, 31 Jan. 2014. Web. 8 Mar. 2014.

BBC News. "BBC Homepage." Profile: Raffaele Sollecito. BBC News Europe, 30 Jan. 2014. Web. 8 Mar. 2014.

Joyner, James. "Amanda Knox and Double Jeopardy." Outside the Beltway. OTB, 13 Jan. 2014. Web. 9 Mar. 2014.

NBC News wire. "Amanda Knox Convicted of Murder in Italian Retrial." NBC News. N.p., 30 Jan. 2014. Web. 9 Mar. 2014. 

Povoledo, Elisabetta. "Amanda Knox Freed After Appeal in Italian Court." The New York Times 3 Oct. 2011, sec. World: 1. Print.

Simon, Mallory. "Knox Trial: Both Sides Say the Truth is in the Evidence." CNN. Cable News Network, 31 Jan. 2014. Web. 8 Mar. 2014.