No argument there Doc. Where humans are involved emotions tend to reign instead of common sense. Nature of the beast.

Not saying the US gov't interfered in the legals of the case.  I am saying, however, that the US government WILL make it exceedingly difficult for the Italians IF guilt is established. 

According to a State Department official being interviewed on TV regarding another matter. last year as I recall. "the US does not extradite its citizens". Given that statement, Knox will not face the music if and when the prosecution appeal is successful.

Doc, what you are reading is written by a one-eyed and biased US media putting its own slant on things, and obviously that would be nationalistic, in support of Knox. Take a look, however, at the news and opinions outside the US and you'll get a different perspective... and that isn't one of Knox or her boyfriend being railroaded.

So why exactly does that not apply to the DNA experts brought in to dispute the original test results; to the judges who upheld Knox's appeal; to the US press in its biased reporting on the matter?  Why are the US experts undoubtedly right and everyone else involved with the case is wrong?

You might have heard that in connection with one of the countries mentioned below

From the Wikipedia (using that only because I don't know other legal reference texts):

"The consensus in international law is that a state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state as one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders. Such absence of international obligation and the desire of the right to demand such criminals of other countries have caused a web of extradition treaties or agreements to evolve; most countries in the world have signed bilateral extradition treaties with most other countries. No country in the world has an extradition treaty with all other countries; for example, the United States lacks extradition treaties with several nations, including the People's Republic of China, Namibia, the United Arab Emirates, North Korea, and Bahrain. Extradition is the delivery of an accused or a convicted individual by one state to another state on whose territory he/she is alleged to have committed or to have been convicted of a crime.

Failure to fulfill dual criminality - generally the act for which extradition is sought must constitute a crime punishable by some minimum penalty in both the requesting and the requested parties.
Political nature of the alleged crime - most countries refuse to extradite suspects of political crimes.
Possibility of certain forms of punishment - some countries refuse extradition on grounds that the person, if extradited, may receive capital punishment or face torture. A few go as far as to cover all punishments that they themselves would not administer.
Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction over a crime can be invoked to refuse extradition. In particular, the fact that the person in question is a nation's own citizen causes that country to have jurisdiction.
Citizenship of the person in question - some nations refuse to extradite their own citizens, holding trials for the persons themselves (see e.g. trial of Xiao Zhen). In some cases, such as that of Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the suspect will not face criminal charges at all. 

-  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition

Such as the British Tabloid media? Naah. The British Tabloids were screaming for blood. The Italian ones too. That's part and parcel of the rush to judgment which seems by your account to be only in the US.

The Italian Appeals Court sought the opinion of whom they wished. There must have been some criteria for that. Why not ask them? Obviously they had some reasons for asking. Fact: The criteria and methods used by the Italian Police/Lab was way out of accepted criteria. They manipulated the test to yield "results" see my comment about Verdi and The Rolling Stones. The test was distorted way beyond what yields reliable results.

If we were using say, fingerprints as the criteria, 12 point comparison yields certain results. If you were to decrease the number of points to say, 6 or 4, you would generate a list of matches thousands long... if the suspect's name is among the thousands or tens of thousands on that list, it would not be correct to say, "Aha! Your fingerprints match! You're the guilty party." OK? 

No, the matter I recall was regarding Australia and a US citizen accused of crimes committed while here on holiday.  At the time an Australian TV journalist based in the US sought answers regarding the suspect's extradition, and the short sharp response was: "The US does NOT extradite its citizens."  The official refused to comment beyond that.

Again, no.   For mine, the British tabloid media is a disgrace, and the recent publicity regarding phone tapping and gutter tactics highlight the fact that they cannot be trusted. So no, it's not just the US press/media.  My point was that if you only see/hear one view, from a US perspective, you're unlikely to get an impartial, more balanced view.  Do I think the British, Italian press has handled it any better?  They too have a biased view, which is why I've paid them no heed, either. 

No, I have gleaned information regarding the Knox case from the ABC [Australian Broadcasting Commission] News, a no frills news service with no nationalistic, emotional ties to the case, and therefore less likely to be biased or agenda driven.  My conclusion?  Well I don't know if she's guilty or innocent, but I do believe she should have remained in Italy until the prosecution appeal/case is 100% resolved, one way or the other.  Why, because she would get away with murder if guilt is established and the US gov't refuses to send her back to face the consequences.

Again, this is the opinion of so-called experts, those paid to support the Know appeal... and like assholes, everyone has an opinion... including experts.  And what makes these experts any more qualified and/or correct than the ones who conducted the original tests?  What if a third/fourth/fifth set of independent experts agreed with the original conclusion, that Knox and her then boyfriend were implicated?  Would the US press report fairly if that eventuated, or would it hammer them also?

Sounds to me like they all want to be right even if they're not. Lets not forget that newspapers, reporters, are supposed to be impartial. In what world do you live? They're as biased as everyone else is.

Arguing about this is pointless. She's free and I'm happy about it because the process of her trial was so faulty. 

You cite anecdotes, but no details. You don't accept the expert testimony... what can I say?

Uvah, I stated the media was biased. It's biased everywhere. It caters to various interests in order to sell advertising.

It used to be rather different, but those days are long gone and unlikely to return. 

Totally agree

What can you say? Dunno!

What can I say?  Pay enough and you will find experts to deliver the desired result

As for justice, actual and otherwise, well that can be paid for, too.

Anyhow......