Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Amazer]

Maybe you need to reread the comments?








In a case that is clearly high profile and the jury returns with a guilty verdict it would be political suicide to overturn the jury's decision. Basicly I'm agreeing with Massei's decision not to overturn the verdict, because even judges have their own form of politics within their ranks. If he would have overturned the verdict he would have disassociated himself from the rest of his peers.
So instead of overturning the verdict, Massei has to make the evidence fit as best he can in his report. I'm pretty sure every judge in Massei's position has to do this, and every judge has this exact dilemma. In their report they have to make the evidence fit the decision of the jury. Massei's task of trying to make sense of all the crap the prosecution fed the jury wasn't an easy task. You can see that by reading the Massei report and then looking at the appeals of Sollecito and Knox and see where they are attacking it at.

Or to answer your question.

He could have just committed political suicide within the judicial ranks and said not guilty. Losing his job would have been a possibility however most likely he would have lost the confidence and respect of his peers. Or do you think there would have been no repercussions if he said, "not guilty?"

Yes, there wouldn't have been any repercussions if he had said not guilty.

As for losing his job.... who would fire him and on what grounds?

As for losing the confidence and respect of his peers (those being other professional judges, not the lay judges); they more then anyone else are aware of the problems he would have faced, I'd expect that the loss of confidence and respect would be a good deal greater if it did turn out that Massei gave in to those kind pressures and returned a bad judgement.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yes, there wouldn't have been any repercussions if he had said not guilty.

As for losing his job.... who would fire him and on what grounds?

As for losing the confidence and respect of his peers (those being other professional judges, not the lay judges); they more then anyone else are aware of the problems he would have faced, I'd expect that the loss of confidence and respect would be a good deal greater if it did turn out that Massei gave in to those kind pressures and returned a bad judgement.

Without in any way trying to minimise the need for Chris to back up his claims with something resembling actual evidence, can you back up any of these claims with actual evidence?

 

[Chris C]

I think that both sides in this subtopic are making all sorts of claims and suppositions, but neither side has presented any evidence at all, merely attempted to foist the burden of proof on the other.

As such this seems unproductive to me unless someone on either side has some evidence regarding the pressure Massei may or may not have been under to justify a guilty verdict.

My statements where purely opinion. However, all you had to do was look at the European Media if you wanted to see pressure on Massei and the Jury.

 

[Chris C]

Something yall might find interesting. I dont know how accurate it is but it might give you a basis of all the stuff that will be brought up in the coming appeals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure

 

[Amazer]

Without in any way trying to minimise the need for Chris to back up his claims with something resembling actual evidence, can you back up any of these claims with actual evidence?

Those were my opinions, loosely based on the assumption that it's typically difficult to fire judges for any reason. And typically those reasons need to a little more grave then just one unpopular decision.

 

[Withnail1969]

I don't know. To me, this doesn't matter at all.

Hmm. So we are expected to believe that Nara heard a blood-curdling scream, one that she was certain was the sound of someone being murdered close by - and it doesn't matter that she decided not to call the police, thus allowing the murderer time to complete his work and escape.

 

[colonelhall]

You guys crack me up!
ChrisC comes up with one of the most ridiculous statements I have seen so far:

"He could have just committed political suicide within the judicial ranks and said not guilty. Losing his job would have been a possibility however most likely he would have lost the confidence and respect of his peers. Or do you think there would have been no repercussions if he said, "not guilty?"

He then gets a reasonable response from Amazer - who is then asked to back up his claims.

To suggest that a judge would lose his job over an unpopular verdict is ludicrous. It has no basis in fact whatsoever. You just make stuff up, and then ask people to provide proof that your rantings are untrue.

What planet are you on ChrisC?

 

[Amazer]

Hmm. So we are expected to believe that Nara heard a blood-curdling scream, one that she was certain was the sound of someone being murdered close by - and it doesn't matter that she decided not to call the police, thus allowing the murderer time to complete his work and escape.

It clearly didn't stop the judges from believing it. And I see no reason why the next set of judges won't believe it either, unless a more compelling reason can be found to disbelieve Nara.

 

[Antony]

You dont think judges have their own politics?

I'm on the opposite side of this debate from Amazer - it's clear to me that Massei was not impartial - but I think it's worth enlarging on your comment that it would have been "political suicide" for Massei to return a "not guilty" verdict. In high-profile cases like these, court action seems dictated by public opinion to a disturbingly degree**, but I don't quite see how this is affected by judicial "politics".

(** In the UK, I think of the Guildford and Birmingham pub bombings, the Broadwater Farm murder of a policeman, and the more recent Jill Dando murder case. Public outrage was at such a level that a "not guilty" verdict was almost unimaginable.)

 

[Withnail1969]

It clearly didn't stop the judges from believing it. And I see no reason why the next set of judges won't believe it either, unless a more compelling reason can be found to disbelieve Nara.

In some jurisdictions, I'm not sure about Italy, Nara herself would be prosecuted for failing to report a serious crime.

Also, may I say that you aren't adding anything by stating that the judges 'believed it' - that's a circular argument from authority. The question is whether they should have believed it.

 

[Mary_H]

You guys crack me up!
ChrisC comes up with one of the most ridiculous statements I have seen so far:

"He could have just committed political suicide within the judicial ranks and said not guilty. Losing his job would have been a possibility however most likely he would have lost the confidence and respect of his peers. Or do you think there would have been no repercussions if he said, "not guilty?"

He then gets a reasonable response from Amazer - who is then asked to back up his claims.

To suggest that a judge would lose his job over an unpopular verdict is ludicrous. It has no basis in fact whatsoever. You just make stuff up, and then ask people to provide proof that your rantings are untrue.

What planet are you on ChrisC?

I was looking at Chris's suggestion not in terms of the judge losing his job or even the respect of his peers. I see it more as something that is simply unthinkable, something that would never even cross a judge's mind. It would be like a loyal political party member changing to the other party. I don't know how often they do that in Britain, but if a politician does it in the United State, it's huge news.

Someone who switches parties or otherwise turns his back on his colleagues had better have a plan in place for how it is going to benefit him in the long run. For example, if one of the judges in Perugia were to differ with the prosecutor or the other judges, it might indicate he had been offered a job in Rome, or was planning to retire for good, or something like that.

There must be a few occasions when judges disagree with the prosecution's case in first trials, but to do so in the public eye, for as famous a trial as this one, would be seen as a betrayal, because of the shame and distress that would result in the media.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

More on the subject of t(lag) and the scientific literature:

Fiona, bless her little cotton socks, has found the article "Relationships between gastric emptying of solid and caloric liquid meals and alcohol absorption", by Horowitz et. al. of the Departments of Medicine and Nuclear Medicine, Royal Adelaide Hospital and Division of Clinical Chemistry, Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science, Adelaide 5000, South Australia, published in 1989.

Linky.

The article is behind a paywall, unfortunately. Not an obstacle for me, of course.

This article is the result of a study into the effects of alcohol on the time it takes food to be digested. An excellent source of information, except for the testimony indicating that Meredith did not drink any alcohol with her meal, which you might think would make it somewhat less relevant than would be ideal.

Group A in this study ate a moderate meal (300g of cooked mince) and drank 400mL of orange juice with alcohol in it equivalent to three shots of vodka (assuming a 64kg subject which was the mean - the dose was proportional to body weight). We know that alcohol can sometimes slow digestion, but there's still no joy for the guilers in Group A's results: mean t(lag) was a mere 74 (+/-11) minutes. So even if Meredith had drunk a triple-shot screwdriver with her pizza, which we know she didn't, pushing the time of death back past 21:10 is still hilariously improbable.

Group C, who ate the meal and then drank the alcohol-laced orange juice ninety minutes later, were even less help to the guilters. Their mean t(lag) was a measly 35(+/-6) minutes, although ingestion of the booze at the ninety-minute mark did delay the ongoing digestion of the meal for about an hour. Still, it's no help in pushing back t(lag) to 300 minutes, which is what Massei needs.

A guilter brainwave emerged, however, to save the day. Suppose we first assume that Meredith had a triple-shot screwdriver with her meal, although we know that's false, so a base t(lag) of 74 minutes is plausible. Then suppose we assume that Meredith's digestion is twice as slow as normal, to get her home before any pizza gets into her duodenum, so you double that and say that t(lag) can be 148 minutes. Then assume that she had another triple shot screwdriver as soon as she got in the door of her house. If Meredith's digestion was super slow to start with, it stands to reason (apparently) that it will be super slow again after a second drink, so instead of adding 60 minutes for the second screwdriver we'll add 148. Why not? That gets you to just under 300 minutes! Ta-dah!

So there you have it folks: The Massei narrative is saved. All you have to do is ignore the fact that digestion is a stochastic process whose degree of variation can be mathematically established, assume she put away six standard drinks or more even though we know that didn't actually happen, arbitrarily double or triple the strength of the delaying effect of the drinks she didn't have, and it all makes perfect sense!

Isn't it great that you don't need to be a pathologist to understand this stuff? It turns out you don't even need a basic knowledge of statistics, science or logic.

Of course some people would look at that same study and conclude that it's telling us exactly the same thing that the other studies we have cited told us: That Meredith was almost certainly attacked very shortly after she arrived home at 21:05. But you have to remember, those people aren't pathologists.

 

[RoseMontague]

In fact, she didn't mistake several things. She didn't make any mistake, but she didn't remember date and time. Which is normal, because dates and times are not objects for the memory, people often don't know what date is today (they may ask it) and often don't take note of the time.
But she remembered very well the scream. It is not reasonable to assume she had mistaken the scream. Sorry, but this is really not reasonable. You have infinite occasions to be uncertain about the date, but you won't make a mistake on hearing the desperate scream of a woman. I'm not talking of a "mistake" on time like Amanda's, who says "the only thing I am certain about is that we had dinner late". Nara a is really uncertain on the date number (1..2..), and about things happened in days around, but not on the day: that scream was on the night of the murder.
I wonder how you could even figure out this "mistake" of hearing a terrifying scream that dosn't happen.
Moreover, I wonder why you forget to put weight on Antonella Monacchia's testimony who speaks about the same night, to draw your conclusions.

That is another lady who was brought forward by a journalist and admitted she would not even have gone to the police if she had not been dragged in. She heard a couple arguing in Italian followed by a scream. I don't think this was Amanda, Raffaele, or Meredith she was hearing, do you? Nara also gets things wrong about the next morning that have nothing to do with dates.

 

[LondonJohn]

More on the subject of t(lag) and the scientific literature:

Fiona, bless her little cotton socks, has found the article "Relationships between gastric emptying of solid and caloric liquid meals and alcohol absorption", by Horowitz et. al. of the Departments of Medicine and Nuclear Medicine, Royal Adelaide Hospital and Division of Clinical Chemistry, Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science, Adelaide 5000, South Australia, published in 1989.

Linky.

The article is behind a paywall, unfortunately. Not an obstacle for me, of course.

This article is the result of a study into the effects of alcohol on the time it takes food to be digested. An excellent source of information, except for the testimony indicating that Meredith did not drink any alcohol with her meal, which you might think would make it somewhat less relevant than would be ideal.

Group A in this study ate a moderate meal (300g of cooked mince) and drank 400mL of orange juice with alcohol in it equivalent to three shots of vodka (assuming a 64kg subject which was the mean - the dose was proportional to body weight). We know that alcohol can sometimes slow digestion, but there's still no joy for the guilers in Group A's results: mean t(lag) was a mere 74 (+/-11) minutes. So even if Meredith had drunk a triple-shot screwdriver with her pizza, which we know she didn't, pushing the time of death back past 21:10 is still hilariously improbable.

Group C, who ate the meal and then drank the alcohol-laced orange juice ninety minutes later, were even less help to the guilters. Their mean t(lag) was a measly 35(+/-6) minutes, although ingestion of the booze at the ninety-minute mark did delay the ongoing digestion of the meal for about an hour. Still, it's no help in pushing back t(lag) to 300 minutes, which is what Massei needs.

A guilter brainwave emerged, however, to save the day. Suppose we first assume that Meredith had a triple-shot screwdriver with her meal, although we know that's false, so a base t(lag) of 74 minutes is plausible. Then suppose we assume that Meredith's digestion is twice as slow as normal, to get her home before any pizza gets into her duodenum, so you double that and say that t(lag) can be 148 minutes. Then assume that she had another triple shot screwdriver as soon as she got in the door of her house. If Meredith's digestion was super slow to start with, it stands to reason (apparently) that it will be super slow again after a second drink, so instead of adding 60 minutes for the second screwdriver we'll add 148. Why not? That gets you to just under 300 minutes! Ta-dah!

So there you have it folks: The Massei narrative is saved. All you have to do is ignore the fact that digestion is a stochastic process whose degree of variation can be mathematically established, assume she put away six standard drinks or more even though we know that didn't actually happen, arbitrarily double or triple the strength of the delaying effect of the drinks she didn't have, and it all makes perfect sense!

Isn't it great that you don't need to be a pathologist to understand this stuff? It turns out you don't even need a basic knowledge of statistics, science or logic.

Of course some people would look at that same study and conclude that it's telling us exactly the same thing that the other studies we have cited told us: That Meredith was almost certainly attacked very shortly after she arrived home at 21:05. But you have to remember, those people aren't pathologists.

Strangely reminiscent of her attempt to show that a negative presumptive test for blood means no blood-originated DNA, by citing a study which specifically dealt with the effect of extreme fire/heat damage on crime scenes.....

 

[colonelhall]

MaryH "there must be a few occasions when judges disagree with the prosecution's case in first trials, but to do so in the public eye, for as famous a trial as this one, would be seen as a betrayal, because of the shame and distress that would result in the media."

Mary,you probably believe that the justice system in the USA operates this way, but this is Italy.

Unless I am wrong, you are saying that in all trials, it is unthinkable that judges sit in judgement and that they merely operate in accordance with public opinion. Not to do so would result in them being sacked.

With all due respect, this is utter nonsense.

 

[LondonJohn]

The police actually had no possible reason to suspect Patrick until Amanda brought him up in her accusation "He's bad...he's bad..."

I just couldn't let this little gem pass.....

The police had no possible reason to suspect Lumumba, eh? So they weren't aware of an exchange of text messages between Knox's cellphone and a cellphone registered to Lumumba on the evening of the 1st November?

And they weren't aware in the early part of the interrogation of Knox on the evening of the 5th November that Knox's text to Lumumba sent at around 8.45pm had included the clumsily-translated phrase "see you later", which the police (by their own admission) took to mean that Knox and Lumumba had agreed to meet up later on that same evening?

And they weren't of the opinion early on during that interrogation that Knox was lying, since she'd maintained that she was at Sollecito's apartment all night, and that by extension they reasoned (falsely) that she had something to hide by denying that she had arranged to meet with Lumumba?

And they hadn't come to the conclusion some time before Knox started her "confession/accusation" that Lumumba and Knox were somehow involved together in the murder of Meredith Kercher?

Remember the words of Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice? I'll remind you: he stated that Knox crumbled and made "an admission of facts which we knew to be true". Does this not heavily imply that the police "knew" Lumumba was involved in the murder before Knox broke down and "admitted" it?

 

[LondonJohn]

MaryH "there must be a few occasions when judges disagree with the prosecution's case in first trials, but to do so in the public eye, for as famous a trial as this one, would be seen as a betrayal, because of the shame and distress that would result in the media."

Mary,you probably believe that the justice system in the USA operates this way, but this is Italy.

Unless I am wrong, you are saying that in all trials, it is unthinkable that judges sit in judgement and that they merely operate in accordance with public opinion. Not to do so would result in them being sacked.

With all due respect, this is utter nonsense.

With all due respect, this point of view is utterly naive.

 

[Chris C]

You guys crack me up!
ChrisC comes up with one of the most ridiculous statements I have seen so far:

"He could have just committed political suicide within the judicial ranks and said not guilty. Losing his job would have been a possibility however most likely he would have lost the confidence and respect of his peers. Or do you think there would have been no repercussions if he said, "not guilty?"

He then gets a reasonable response from Amazer - who is then asked to back up his claims.

To suggest that a judge would lose his job over an unpopular verdict is ludicrous. It has no basis in fact whatsoever. You just make stuff up, and then ask people to provide proof that your rantings are untrue.

What planet are you on ChrisC?

Maybe English is a Second Language for you or you failed to read the entire exchange.
So I'll give this to you in Captain Dummy Talk.
Prosecution dumps a bunch of questionable evidence and theories on the jury.
The Jury finds them Guilty.
Massei accepts the Guilty Verdict. He could agree with the verdict or not agree. To do anything other than accept the guilty verdict would be political suicide within the judical ranks, especially on such a high profile case. The media would tear him apart and he would lose the respect of his peers(other judges). Mignini would put him on that black list. I would have accepted the guilty verdict if I was in Massei shoes, wrote my report and let the appeals process take care of it.
However Massei does have to explain the reason for accepting the guilty verdict. Thus everyone has that nice long translated copy over at PMF.

Now why do you find my statement ridiculous?
Maybe you have heard about this case.
http://romaniantimes.at/news/Genera...Romanian_sentenced_to_life_in_prison_in_Italy

There was a public outcry when the judge in the first trial sentenced him to 29 years. They wanted the judge fired because the Romanian didn't get a life sentence.

 

[Mary_H]

MaryH "there must be a few occasions when judges disagree with the prosecution's case in first trials, but to do so in the public eye, for as famous a trial as this one, would be seen as a betrayal, because of the shame and distress that would result in the media."

Mary,you probably believe that the justice system in the USA operates this way, but this is Italy.

Unless I am wrong, you are saying that in all trials, it is unthinkable that judges sit in judgement and that they merely operate in accordance with public opinion. Not to do so would result in them being sacked.

With all due respect, this is utter nonsense.

colonelhall, in criminal trials in the United States, the judge doesn't make the decision, the jury does. Since the members of the jury are not affiliated with the judge, the prosecutors or the defense attorneys, they are free to reach any conclusion they decide. Also in the United States, attorneys' reputations and careers hang in the balance even for initial trials. They aren't entitled to two automatic appeals in which the results of the first trial can be thrown out.

As you know, it's completely different in Italy. I'm not talking about the judges bowing to public opinion, but rather to one another's mutual understanding. The judges and the prosecutors are drawn from the same pool of magistrates, and often travel in the same social circles. The jury panel comprises two professional judges from the same group of magistrates and, as we all know, six lay judges. Which of these lay judges is brave enough to defy the tendencies of the professional judges when deliberating?

Given what we have heard about one-half of Italian courtroom verdicts being overturned and two-thirds being modified on appeal, we can conclude that the result of an initial trial in Italy doesn't have anywhere near the urgency a verdict in the United States has.

In Perugia, there very well may be a tacit assumption among the judges that, in important or newsworthy cases, it behooves everyone to agree with the prosecutor at first. That approach ensures an appeal will take place (because no one is going to bother appealing an innocent verdict), and everyone involved will remain employed and in the news for at least one more trial, if not two.

 

[Machiavelli]

I don't think this was Amanda, Raffaele, or Meredith she was hearing, do you? Nara also gets things wrong about the next morning that have nothing to do with dates.

Where can you see reasons to dismiss Antonella Monacchia and Nara Capezzali as witnesses? I can't see even the slightest.
I haven't understood what is the "mistake" you are thinking about. I don't understand your idea of how they mistook a scream of something else.
I don't understand your reasons at all.