Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Yes.



Come now. Supreme Court judges are highly educated, discriminating connoisseurs of Italian law (displaying considerable adeptness in the art of selecting the parts of it that are to their taste), and they know exactly what they "should" and "should not" be ruling on.

Chieffi et al were sloppy indeed, but it wasn't that kind of sloppiness. Their sin was a lack of care in avoiding a prejudiced view of the case (from media, as well as "loyalty" to their "party").

Given how blatantly they violated their ostensible mandate, their skill (or rather, Galati's, since -- as you correctly suggest -- he and Costagliola basically wrote the ruling) in constructing verbal rationalizations purporting to show the opposite is admirable, in its way.



Of course they had a choice. They could have made whatever decision they wanted, limited (at most) only by their cleverness in rationalizing it in erudite-sounding written form afterward (the principal skill of their trade). The supposed institutional constraints are completely illusory, a total fiction.

This is one of the more important lessons of this case for a skeptics' forum: institutions -- that is, machines made of humans -- do not work as designed. One of the things that worries me about this case is that, given that something like the correct result happened to be finally achieved, people will go back to thinking that "the system basically works". No it doesn't. It sometimes does, but in order to be considered a functioning system worth the name it needs to function reliably. The old proverb about broken clocks is applicable here. Amanda and Raffaele escaped by the skin of their teeth, literally by the pure luck of the draw, in the sense of their fate having been entirely determined by which particular half-dozen-member subset of the several-hundred-member Supreme Court happened to be hearing their case this time. Whereas, in a (hypothetical) functional justice system -- which no country in the world actually has! -- the outcome of the (first!) trial would be confidently predictable on the basis of the evidence. If somehow the wrong answer was arrived at, there would be a mechanism for correcting it, and that mechanism would work instead of undoing itself (and then maybe redoing itself again later if you get lucky).

I didn't use to have this view. I used to believe in institutions and systems -- courts, governments, corporations, universities,... -- in the sense that I thought they "basically worked" (as opposed to merely giving a convincing enough illusion of working to forestall any coordinated attempts at dismantling them on grounds of inefficacy). Massei was a shock, but I was still willing give the justice system a chance to operate like it was designed, and my basic belief in institutional soundness remained: sometimes things were difficult, but they would eventually sort themselves out, with high probability. Chieffi was the end of that, the death blow, the nail in the coffin, a self-sufficient definitive refutation of any fanciful notion that courts constituted a reliable information-processing system as far as factual guilt or innocence of a particular crime were concerned.

I could hardly have envisioned a better test for the epistemic reliability of courts than this case. Here we had two defendants who, at least in real life, were more or less maximally sympathetic characters, whose innocence is completely obvious to anyone with an understanding of the real-life implications of probability theory (yes, probability theory -- the Bayesian kind), who found themselves accused of a crime by the police for utterly silly reasons and suspected by the general public for reasons that were probably even sillier. If you think courts are supposed to be able to distinguish guilt from innocence independently of the prosecution and independently of public opinion, here is your paradigmatic test case.

The final, five-years-too-late positive outcome notwithstanding, I do not consider this to have been a passing result.

You simply are not going to allow that last 1% are you!!!!!

 

[komponisto]

You simply are not going to allow that last 1% are you!!!!!

1% is probably about the right number, honestly.

 

[carbonjam72]

For the record, Winterbottom's, "The Face of an Angel" has dropped to #52 in the U.K. in just 9 theatres, with about £2,000 in receipts. Anecdotal math means that it is averaging 20 patrons per viewing. (I didn't think that there were 52 films in release at any one time!!!)

I may have been the only person in the world who liked it.

Bill, your $10 ticket puts you in the company of perhaps 300 other film enthusiasts who paid for the privilege of seeing it. (Assuming your info is accurate).

Well congratulations on your purchase. Although this figure may be a net receipts, and not including those few persons who may have asked for a refund.

No doubt final convictions would have added to the controversy and had a salutary effect on ticket sales. My condolences to the producers at the BBC.

 

[carbonjam72]

Yes.



Come now. Supreme Court judges are highly educated, discriminating connoisseurs of Italian law (displaying considerable adeptness in the art of selecting the parts of it that are to their taste), and they know exactly what they "should" and "should not" be ruling on.

Chieffi et al were sloppy indeed, but it wasn't that kind of sloppiness. Their sin was a lack of care in avoiding a prejudiced view of the case (from media, as well as "loyalty" to their "party").

Given how blatantly they violated their ostensible mandate, their skill (or rather, Galati's, since -- as you correctly suggest -- he and Costagliola basically wrote the ruling) in constructing verbal rationalizations purporting to show the opposite is admirable, in its way.



Of course they had a choice. They could have made whatever decision they wanted, limited (at most) only by their cleverness in rationalizing it in erudite-sounding written form afterward (the principal skill of their trade). The supposed institutional constraints are completely illusory, a total fiction.

This is one of the more important lessons of this case for a skeptics' forum: institutions -- that is, machines made of humans -- do not work as designed. One of the things that worries me about this case is that, given that something like the correct result happened to be finally achieved, people will go back to thinking that "the system basically works". No it doesn't. It sometimes does, but in order to be considered a functioning system worth the name it needs to function reliably. The old proverb about broken clocks is applicable here. Amanda and Raffaele escaped by the skin of their teeth, literally by the pure luck of the draw, in the sense of their fate having been entirely determined by which particular half-dozen-member subset of the several-hundred-member Supreme Court happened to be hearing their case this time. Whereas, in a (hypothetical) functional justice system -- which no country in the world actually has! -- the outcome of the (first!) trial would be confidently predictable on the basis of the evidence. If somehow the wrong answer was arrived at, there would be a mechanism for correcting it, and that mechanism would work instead of undoing itself (and then maybe redoing itself again later if you get lucky).

I didn't use to have this view. I used to believe in institutions and systems -- courts, governments, corporations, universities,... -- in the sense that I thought they "basically worked" (as opposed to merely giving a convincing enough illusion of working to forestall any coordinated attempts at dismantling them on grounds of inefficacy). Massei was a shock, but I was still willing give the justice system a chance to operate like it was designed, and my basic belief in institutional soundness remained: sometimes things were difficult, but they would eventually sort themselves out, with high probability. Chieffi was the end of that, the death blow, the nail in the coffin, a self-sufficient definitive refutation of any fanciful notion that courts constituted a reliable information-processing system as far as factual guilt or innocence of a particular crime were concerned.

I could hardly have envisioned a better test for the epistemic reliability of courts than this case. Here we had two defendants who, at least in real life, were more or less maximally sympathetic characters, whose innocence is completely obvious to anyone with an understanding of the real-life implications of probability theory (yes, probability theory -- the Bayesian kind), who found themselves accused of a crime by the police for utterly silly reasons and suspected by the general public for reasons that were probably even sillier. If you think courts are supposed to be able to distinguish guilt from innocence independently of the prosecution and independently of public opinion, here is your paradigmatic test case.

The final, five-years-too-late positive outcome notwithstanding, I do not consider this to have been a passing result.

Hey Kompo,

I've been peddling an alternative theory, wondering if you'd entertain.

Basically, Hellman said (after the Nencini convictions) that he knew the acquittals would be overturned, once the case became political (referring in the CBS article to Girlanda's effort to launch an investigation of the judiciary, using the Kercher case as a club to beat back the judiciary's efforts to imprison Burlesconi).

Underneath this context, was MIgnini who by clinging to his prosecutor's office, had the power to keep filing his crazy satanic sect cases per the Narducci trail, and that the Italian judiciary and law enforcement community had been trying to squelch Mignini since he and Giuttari were indicted and convicted for abuse of office, after they had had Mario Spezi arrested, drawing international condemnation and ridicule, leading to Spezi's release after only 3 weeks.

My theory is, that Galati's appeal was part of a deal with Mignini, to get him to accept a promotion and give up his powers of prosecution. This allowed the judiciary to sidestep a politically motivated investigation by Burlesconi's forces, until they could bury the hatchet, which they did this year. And it allowed Mignini to bank what he thought was an unassailable cassation verdict from Chieffi in 2013, and accept his promotion with its accompanyin loss of any powers to investigate or try cases - in essence, accepting a largely ceremonial role, absent further advancement.

(i.e. - Mignini was in reality betrayed by Galati - keeping his friends close, etc, etc).

In this context, Chieffi's opinion, and Nencini's follow-up are part of a deliberate ruse to move Mignini out of the picture, and diffuse the political conflict at the national level between Burlesconi and the "party of the prosecutor".

Nenicni's opinion is so bad, that it certainly lends itself to the inference that he deliberately loaded it with enough errors so that it could be easily overturned. The judges handle their own affairs internally, so what do they have to fear from criticism at Chieffi and Nencini?

The alternative, is that they really are as crazy, incompetent and corrupt as you imagine. Which in all fairness, I don't think quite does them justice. I reject the cynicism it requires.

Bill W says I'm nuts, but his overall track record has been spotty.

 

[sept79]

Yes.



Come now. Supreme Court judges are highly educated, discriminating connoisseurs of Italian law (displaying considerable adeptness in the art of selecting the parts of it that are to their taste), and they know exactly what they "should" and "should not" be ruling on.

Chieffi et al were sloppy indeed, but it wasn't that kind of sloppiness. Their sin was a lack of care in avoiding a prejudiced view of the case (from media, as well as "loyalty" to their "party").

Given how blatantly they violated their ostensible mandate, their skill (or rather, Galati's, since -- as you correctly suggest -- he and Costagliola basically wrote the ruling) in constructing verbal rationalizations purporting to show the opposite is admirable, in its way.



Of course they had a choice. They could have made whatever decision they wanted, limited (at most) only by their cleverness in rationalizing it in erudite-sounding written form afterward (the principal skill of their trade). The supposed institutional constraints are completely illusory, a total fiction.

This is one of the more important lessons of this case for a skeptics' forum: institutions -- that is, machines made of humans -- do not work as designed. One of the things that worries me about this case is that, given that something like the correct result happened to be finally achieved, people will go back to thinking that "the system basically works". No it doesn't. It sometimes does, but in order to be considered a functioning system worth the name it needs to function reliably. The old proverb about broken clocks is applicable here. Amanda and Raffaele escaped by the skin of their teeth, literally by the pure luck of the draw, in the sense of their fate having been entirely determined by which particular half-dozen-member subset of the several-hundred-member Supreme Court happened to be hearing their case this time. Whereas, in a (hypothetical) functional justice system -- which no country in the world actually has! -- the outcome of the (first!) trial would be confidently predictable on the basis of the evidence. If somehow the wrong answer was arrived at, there would be a mechanism for correcting it, and that mechanism would work instead of undoing itself (and then maybe redoing itself again later if you get lucky).

I didn't use to have this view. I used to believe in institutions and systems -- courts, governments, corporations, universities,... -- in the sense that I thought they "basically worked" (as opposed to merely giving a convincing enough illusion of working to forestall any coordinated attempts at dismantling them on grounds of inefficacy). Massei was a shock, but I was still willing give the justice system a chance to operate like it was designed, and my basic belief in institutional soundness remained: sometimes things were difficult, but they would eventually sort themselves out, with high probability. Chieffi was the end of that, the death blow, the nail in the coffin, a self-sufficient definitive refutation of any fanciful notion that courts constituted a reliable information-processing system as far as factual guilt or innocence of a particular crime were concerned.

I could hardly have envisioned a better test for the epistemic reliability of courts than this case. Here we had two defendants who, at least in real life, were more or less maximally sympathetic characters, whose innocence is completely obvious to anyone with an understanding of the real-life implications of probability theory (yes, probability theory -- the Bayesian kind), who found themselves accused of a crime by the police for utterly silly reasons and suspected by the general public for reasons that were probably even sillier. If you think courts are supposed to be able to distinguish guilt from innocence independently of the prosecution and independently of public opinion, here is your paradigmatic test case.

The final, five-years-too-late positive outcome notwithstanding, I do not consider this to have been a passing result.

In essence, the application of justice by Italian judges is secondary . . .

 

[whoanellie]

Dear Dog it's about the stupid youtube where the guy whines that people should leave Britney (Spears) alone.

As for the other comment about the sniper - clearly he is saying Americans that kill people overseas lose defamation cases even when they are thought of as an hero by many Americans. Therefore Britney Amanda won't win.

But he has the defamer and the defamed all turned around inside out.

 

[Diocletus]

Chris how much did the "sample" from the knife blade weigh?

20 picograms +/- 20 picograms

Not that I'm Chris, but thought I would jump in.

 

[whoanellie]

Dear Dog it's about the stupid youtube where the guy whines that people should leave Britney (Spears) alone.

As for the other comment about the sniper - clearly he is saying Americans that kill people overseas lose defamation cases even when they are thought of as an hero by many Americans. Therefore Britney Amanda won't win.

Has anyone verified that Grinder and Platonov are 2 different people?

 

[Antony]

Hey Kompo,

I've been peddling an alternative theory, wondering if you'd entertain.

Basically, Hellman said (after the Nencini convictions) that he knew the acquittals would be overturned, once the case became political (referring in the CBS article to Girlanda's effort to launch an investigation of the judiciary, using the Kercher case as a club to beat back the judiciary's efforts to imprison Burlesconi).

Underneath this context, was MIgnini who by clinging to his prosecutor's office, had the power to keep filing his crazy satanic sect cases per the Narducci trail, and that the Italian judiciary and law enforcement community had been trying to squelch Mignini since he and Giuttari were indicted and convicted for abuse of office, after they had had Mario Spezi arrested, drawing international condemnation and ridicule, leading to Spezi's release after only 3 weeks.

My theory is, that Galati's appeal was part of a deal with Mignini, to get him to accept a promotion and give up his powers of prosecution. This allowed the judiciary to sidestep a politically motivated investigation by Burlesconi's forces, until they could bury the hatchet, which they did this year. And it allowed Mignini to bank what he thought was an unassailable cassation verdict from Chieffi in 2013, and accept his promotion with its accompanyin loss of any powers to investigate or try cases - in essence, accepting a largely ceremonial role, absent further advancement.

(i.e. - Mignini was in reality betrayed by Galati - keeping his friends close, etc, etc).

In this context, Chieffi's opinion, and Nencini's follow-up are part of a deliberate ruse to move Mignini out of the picture, and diffuse the political conflict at the national level between Burlesconi and the "party of the prosecutor".

Nenicni's opinion is so bad, that it certainly lends itself to the inference that he deliberately loaded it with enough errors so that it could be easily overturned. The judges handle their own affairs internally, so what do they have to fear from criticism at Chieffi and Nencini?

The alternative, is that they really are as crazy, incompetent and corrupt as you imagine. Which in all fairness, I don't think quite does them justice. I reject the cynicism it requires.

Bill W says I'm nuts, but his overall track record has been spotty.

All of this sounds too far-fetched to be real - except that you said the same before the latest verdict, and it was the basis for your completely accurate prediction (at a time when others were deeply pessimistic).

 

[komponisto]

Hey Kompo,

I've been peddling an alternative theory, wondering if you'd entertain.

Basically, Hellman said (after the Nencini convictions) that he knew the acquittals would be overturned, once the case became political (referring in the CBS article to Girlanda's effort to launch an investigation of the judiciary, using the Kercher case as a club to beat back the judiciary's efforts to imprison Burlesconi).

Underneath this context, was MIgnini who by clinging to his prosecutor's office, had the power to keep filing his crazy satanic sect cases per the Narducci trail, and that the Italian judiciary and law enforcement community had been trying to squelch Mignini since he and Giuttari were indicted and convicted for abuse of office, after they had had Mario Spezi arrested, drawing international condemnation and ridicule, leading to Spezi's release after only 3 weeks.

My theory is, that Galati's appeal was part of a deal with Mignini, to get him to accept a promotion and give up his powers of prosecution. This allowed the judiciary to sidestep a politically motivated investigation by Burlesconi's forces, until they could bury the hatchet, which they did this year. And it allowed Mignini to bank what he thought was an unassailable cassation verdict from Chieffi in 2013, and accept his promotion with its accompanyin loss of any powers to investigate or try cases - in essence, accepting a largely ceremonial role, absent further advancement.

(i.e. - Mignini was in reality betrayed by Galati - keeping his friends close, etc, etc).

In this context, Chieffi's opinion, and Nencini's follow-up are part of a deliberate ruse to move Mignini out of the picture, and diffuse the political conflict at the national level between Burlesconi and the "party of the prosecutor".

Nenicni's opinion is so bad, that it certainly lends itself to the inference that he deliberately loaded it with enough errors so that it could be easily overturned. The judges handle their own affairs internally, so what do they have to fear from criticism at Chieffi and Nencini?

The alternative, is that they really are as crazy, incompetent and corrupt as you imagine. Which in all fairness, I don't think quite does them justice. I reject the cynicism it requires.

Hold on -- your theory is the one that alleges corruption! And it might be true; it certainly doesn't contradict what I said. But I also allow for mere incompetence; I'm agnostic (at least in that post) on the specific causes of the judicial system's failure.

The point I wanted to make is that whatever the causes of Mignini's/Galati's/Chieffi's/Nencini's mistakes -- whether they were honest errors or corrupt rigging -- the system wasn't able to prevent them. This should come as a shock to anyone who assumes -- as I once did -- that the justice system is able, through structural constraints, to produce more accurate results than the individual humans operating in it, or public opinion.

 

[Grinder]

20 picograms +/- 20 picograms

Not that I'm Chris, but thought I would jump in.

Thank you. So if there are 58,500,000 picograms in a grain of salt 2.9 million samples of that size are in a grain of salt. Somehow that info should convince people of how easy LCN dna is to transfer.

 

[sept79]

Hold on -- your theory is the one that alleges corruption! And it might be true; it certainly doesn't contradict what I said. But I also allow for mere incompetence; I'm agnostic (at least in that post) on the specific causes of the judicial system's failure.

The point I wanted to make is that whatever the causes of Mignini's/Galati's/Chieffi's/Nencini's mistakes -- whether they were honest errors or corrupt rigging -- the system wasn't able to prevent them. This should come as a shock to anyone who assumes -- as I once did -- that the justice system is able, through structural constraints, to produce more accurate results than the individual humans operating in it, or public opinion.

How can belief of the victim's DNA on the knife be anything but corruption?

 

[Desert Fox]

How can belief of the victim's DNA on the knife be anything but corruption?

I think it can be explained by really poor handling of evidence as well.

 

[komponisto]

How can belief of the victim's DNA on the knife be anything but corruption?

The DNA results are the most sensible guilter beliefs. They're the strongest pro-guilt evidence, and the main driver of the opinions of the most sensible colpevolisti. People who think that "the system works" assume that the police know what they're doing.

Hellmann understood this, which is why (as he stated) the Conti-Vecchiotti review was such a turning point.

 

[sept79]

The DNA results are the most sensible guilter beliefs. They're the strongest pro-guilt evidence, and the main driver of the opinions of the most sensible colpevolisti. People who think that "the system works" assume that the police know what they're doing.

Hellmann understood this, which is why (as he stated) the Conti-Vecchiotti review was such a turning point.

How can the pro-guilt belief in the DNA results be sensible when C-V trashed these results, Stefanoni lied about the sample size and withheld information and is still withholding the EDFs. And for the Italian judges to go along with this is, in my opinion, corruption.

 

[komponisto]

I think it can be explained by really poor handling of evidence as well.

Laboratory contamination and selective reporting of data (still) seems to me like the best bet on the knife. If they were going to do something deliberate, they ought to have done something that would have produced a stronger result.

(By "selective reporting of data", I'm referring to the lack of negative controls or other data on the background noise.)

 

[komponisto]

How can the pro-guilt belief in the DNA results be sensible when C-V trashed these results,

It isn't. It's just more sensible than any of the other pro-guilt beliefs.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, your $10 ticket puts you in the company of perhaps 300 other film enthusiasts who paid for the privilege of seeing it. (Assuming your info is accurate).

Well congratulations on your purchase. Although this figure may be a net receipts, and not including those few persons who may have asked for a refund.

No doubt final convictions would have added to the controversy and had a salutary effect on ticket sales. My condolences to the producers at the BBC.

$10!? Try 4x!

 

[Bill Williams]

Hey Kompo,

I've been peddling an alternative theory, wondering if you'd entertain.

Basically, Hellman said (after the Nencini convictions) that he knew the acquittals would be overturned, once the case became political (referring in the CBS article to Girlanda's effort to launch an investigation of the judiciary, using the Kercher case as a club to beat back the judiciary's efforts to imprison Burlesconi).

Underneath this context, was MIgnini who by clinging to his prosecutor's office, had the power to keep filing his crazy satanic sect cases per the Narducci trail, and that the Italian judiciary and law enforcement community had been trying to squelch Mignini since he and Giuttari were indicted and convicted for abuse of office, after they had had Mario Spezi arrested, drawing international condemnation and ridicule, leading to Spezi's release after only 3 weeks.

My theory is, that Galati's appeal was part of a deal with Mignini, to get him to accept a promotion and give up his powers of prosecution. This allowed the judiciary to sidestep a politically motivated investigation by Burlesconi's forces, until they could bury the hatchet, which they did this year. And it allowed Mignini to bank what he thought was an unassailable cassation verdict from Chieffi in 2013, and accept his promotion with its accompanyin loss of any powers to investigate or try cases - in essence, accepting a largely ceremonial role, absent further advancement.

(i.e. - Mignini was in reality betrayed by Galati - keeping his friends close, etc, etc).

In this context, Chieffi's opinion, and Nencini's follow-up are part of a deliberate ruse to move Mignini out of the picture, and diffuse the political conflict at the national level between Burlesconi and the "party of the prosecutor".

Nenicni's opinion is so bad, that it certainly lends itself to the inference that he deliberately loaded it with enough errors so that it could be easily overturned. The judges handle their own affairs internally, so what do they have to fear from criticism at Chieffi and Nencini?

The alternative, is that they really are as crazy, incompetent and corrupt as you imagine. Which in all fairness, I don't think quite does them justice. I reject the cynicism it requires.

Bill W says I'm nuts, but his overall track record has been spotty.

I'm standing right here y'know!

I'm headed to the hate site - before it closes. At least I get some respect there!

 

[carbonjam72]

Honest mistakes, corruption, or mass delusion promulgated by a madman(BigMig)?

Hold on -- your theory is the one that alleges corruption! And it might be true; it certainly doesn't contradict what I said. But I also allow for mere incompetence; I'm agnostic (at least in that post) on the specific causes of the judicial system's failure.

The point I wanted to make is that whatever the causes of Mignini's/Galati's/Chieffi's/Nencini's mistakes -- whether they were honest errors or corrupt rigging -- the system wasn't able to prevent them. This should come as a shock to anyone who assumes -- as I once did -- that the justice system is able, through structural constraints, to produce more accurate results than the individual humans operating in it, or public opinion.

Well I'm forced to think its a mixture of corruption and stupidity.

Hellman said recently (after current acquittals) that he got the cold shoulder from other judges around town. It seemed like people really wanted the charges to stick. So what is that?

Mignini invents lies from the outset, slanders the defendants - especially Amanda - in the media, in Italy and the UK, and that impression takes root and stays. Even today among some low info types.

Mignini's lies, are they honest mistakes? Are they intentional falsehood to "deflect the investigation" away from his own failure to control Rudy Guede prior to killing Meredith - by prosecuting guede for burglaries in Perugia, or simply concealing or not having a phone call to Milan police resulting in Rudy's release and return to Perugia 5 days before he killed Meredith.

If Mignini is a legitimate bi-polar fantasizing maniac (my honest best guess), then is that "dishonest", "honest", or AC - alternating consciousness - first inventing a lie, then believing his own lies that he needs to tell (a very rare high functioning head case!).

Have they all fallen into a 'witch hunting mode'? It happens all the time, we've had several of these incidents in the US, every one of which seems completely bizarre upon objective reflection, but maybe not so easy to discern when you're in the middle of it and everyone is yelling 'burn the witch'.

So, Kompo, I think you have to take a position, and I can't accept "agnostic", I think that's a cop out. The Italian judiciary isn't a mystical being, they are real people who did, said, acted, and thought things. I'm perfectly comfortable with being wrong, but not with not trying on a theory - any theory. I think you have to take a position, if we want to have an opinion. Otherwise we're just floundering in the dark.

I think the high level (Burlesconi v judiciary), mid-level (judiciary vs Mignini/Giuttari), and low level (Mignini/Guede/Kerchers vs Knox/Sollecito), all show synchrony in timing, movement, direction and logic. Doesn't mean its right, but it is logically consistent. The extraordinary rarity of a complete reversal from a previous guilty verdict to a cassation exoneration (IIUC), shows that this case simply was not business as usual.

It may be hard to know, but it can't be that it is 'unknowable'.