Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[treehorn]

... but you have to know the answer before you do so? Sorry, that seems idiotic.

"Idiotic"?!

In addition to being rude to "Capealadin", you're also disrespecting my brilliant, Harvard-educated Trial Advocacy instructor who (repeatedly) implored my classmates and I to:

"Never - EVER - ask a question you don't already know the answer to."

 

[TomM43]

capealadin,

I would be interested in hearing a single coherent version of events that takes into account all of the evidence, from the pro-guilt perspective. That would be far more novel than rehashing old stuff.

You ask capealadin to do far more than a common law jury would be asked to do. A jury in the US is asked to consider all of the evidence; they are not told that they all have to agree on a single, coherent version of the events that takes into account all of the evidence. In fact they are not told that individually they should form single, coherent version of the events that takes into account all of the evidence.

Ultimately, the American jury only has to agree beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. It is theoretically possible that each juror could base a guilty verdict on something that was rejected or thought to be irrelevant to their theory of the crime, by all eleven of the other jurors.

For example, in the case of AK, one juror might believe that AK's alibi was contradicted by the facts, and believe that she was guilty because her reason for lying was that she knew she had done it, and was just trying to avoid punishment. Another might draw the inference that she lied, and connected with the dna evidence at the scene, conclude she was present during the murder.

Another juror might believe the double dna knife is conclusive, and not require much beyond that.

Another might buy the "too low defense", but be convinced by the mixed dna in Filomena's room and elsewhere.

Another might have no interest or understanding of the dna evidence, and believe the burglary was staged.

Another might be convinced by her knowing things that only a killer would know, and regard everything else as "mere surplusage".

And so on.

The case is not a scientific case. It is a legal case. Science is a relatively small part of it. AK and RS have a huge legal problem. Part of the problem is that they are being judged by human beings. The other part of their problem is that they have too many things to explain away. I tell you this as an attorney who has tried cases to juries for roughly three decades. Rough rule of thumb: If you have one bad fact to explain away, the case is defensible. Two? It's still possible. Three? You need the opposition to make some mistakes. Four? Big mistakes from the opposition. Five or more? Huge blunders are needed for any hope of defense. AK, in particular, has too many problems.

 

[treehorn]

Have you absolutely closed your mind to the reality that people can be forced into making false statements?

You know, based on "Kevin_Lowe's" posts, I did some reading about "internalized false confessions."

Apparently, there are 2 categories of people that are subject to this phenomenon:

1) the mentally deficient (eg. an IQ under 70); &

2) "extreme" introverts.

Which category does Amanda fit into?

 

[Mary_H]

You know, based on "Kevin_Lowe's" posts, I did some reading about "internalized false confessions."

Apparently, there are 2 categories of people that are subject to this phenomenon:

1) the mentally deficient (eg. an IQ under 70); &

2) "extreme" introverts.

Which category does Amanda fit into?

I would be interested in seeing the citation for your source. Here is some more information about false confessions:

Why do innocent people confess?

A variety of factors can contribute to a false confession during a police interrogation. Many cases have included a combination of several of these causes. They include:

•duress
•coercion
•intoxication
•diminished capacity
•mental impairment
•ignorance of the law
•fear of violence
•the actual infliction of harm
•the threat of a harsh sentence
•Misunderstanding the situation

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php

There is so much information available on the internet about false confessions, we don't need to rely on just a few sources. Even such a common source as Wikipedia has a page about it, with over ten examples of coerced false confessions. One suspect was mentally retarded, but the rest sound normal. It looks like the fault of the coercion is being attributed to the interrogators or the circumstances, not to the personalities of the suspects.

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

 

[treehorn]

The case is not a scientific case. It is a legal case. Science is a relatively small part of it. AK and RS have a huge legal problem. Part of the problem is that they are being judged by human beings. The other part of their problem is that they have too many things to explain away. I tell you this as an attorney who has tried cases to juries for roughly three decades. Rough rule of thumb: If you have one bad fact to explain away, the case is defensible. Two? It's still possible. Three? You need the opposition to make some mistakes. Four? Big mistakes from the opposition. Five or more? Huge blunders are needed for any hope of defense. AK, in particular, has too many problems.

You're a breath of fresh air, sir. I'm glad you've joined the discussion.

Halides (a chemistry professor/ peptide researcher) is obviously an intelligent fellow, but something (his being accustomed to focusing on a single hypothesis/ question/ minute detail for long periods of time?) seems to be interfering with his willingness/ ability to consider ONE piece of evidence in relation to ALL of the OTHER pieces of evidence. It's as if the notion of corroboration escapes him.

If you suspected you had to deal with a juror like that, what approach would you take? What would you say to get them to see/ consider the larger context?

 

[treehorn]

I would be interested in seeing the citation for your source.

I gave it to you (or someone else calling themselves "Mary H").

In the comment section after a Knox article.

It was a link to an article that summarized research results in the area of internalized false confessions.

Mentally challenged and "extreme" introverts.

Knox strikes me as a bad fit for either category.

Next!

PS If you've ignored it in the past, it's easy to find using Google, but you do have to actually read well into the article...

 

[Matthew Best]

"Idiotic"?!

In addition to being rude to "Capealadin", you're also disrespecting my brilliant, Harvard-educated Trial Advocacy instructor who (repeatedly) implored my classmates and I to:

"Never - EVER - ask a question you don't already know the answer to."

I don't know if you've noticed, but this isn't a trial. It's an internet message board. Just FYI.

 

[Mary_H]

I gave it to you (or someone else calling themselves "Mary H").

In the comment section after a Knox article.

It was a link to an article that summarized the finding in the area of internalized false confessions.

Mentally challenged and "extreme" introverts.

Knox strikes me as a bad fit for either category.

Next!

PS If you've ignored it in the past, it's easy to find using Google, but you do have to actually read well into the article...

It always kills me when somebody thinks I am going to search for evidence to support their argument. Why would I want to do that? As long as you don't provide the citation, it doesn't exist.

You have made this same (undocumented) claim previously here on JREF, but I don't remember meeting you on any other discussion boards. What were you calling yourself at the time?

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
The case is not a scientific case. It is a legal case. Science is a relatively small part of it. AK and RS have a huge legal problem. Part of the problem is that they are being judged by human beings. The other part of their problem is that they have too many things to explain away. I tell you this as an attorney who has tried cases to juries for roughly three decades. Rough rule of thumb: If you have one bad fact to explain away, the case is defensible. Two? It's still possible. Three? You need the opposition to make some mistakes. Four? Big mistakes from the opposition. Five or more? Huge blunders are needed for any hope of defense. AK, in particular, has too many problems.

How do you think an American lawyer would defend Amanda and Raffaele?

 

[moodstream]

truethat,

I found that argument about RG to be irrelevant also. About the knife, Barbie Nadeau wrote in the article you cited, "According to multiple witnesses for the defense, the knife is compatible with at least one of the three wounds on Kercher's neck, but it was likely too large for the other two." Barbie leaves out the fact that any sharp knife (large or small) could have produced one of the three wounds. She also neglects to mention that the blade of the knife was tested for blood and found to be negative. This is one of two facts that point to contamination as a likely source of Meredith's DNA, the other being the fact that the sample is in the low copy number range in terms of how much DNA was present.

I was startled to learn from the Massei report that the large wound on the left side of the neck formed a sort of pocket shape roughly 8cm in length at the surface and 8cm deep. The entrance was wide and the tissue mangled, as from a rough butcher cut. Professors Introna and Torre pointed out it appeared a few knife strokes cut in a line were responsible for the internal shape of the wound.

Knowing this, who still can claim the kitchen knife made the wound? In the situation of the crime no one wielding a 17.5 cm knife could stab repeatedly leaving the same 8cm depth of cut. The depths of the cuts would have to be varied. Not to mention that the surface line is as long as the cut is deep, which makes sense if someone put the length of an 8 cm blade against the neck, and then plunged it into the neck unto its full length.

Can someone on the pro guilt side explain it to me?

I was expecting Massei to deny the size of the wound. Instead Massei says The … incisions noted by Dr. Lalli and the butchering mentioned by Professor Torre cannot have derived from the repeated action of a person extracting the weapon and striking again; it seems much more logical to consider, therefore, that what was observed in the depths of the wound in question was the result of the victim's reaction who, in desperate defensive movements, tried to draw back the part of the body that had been struck, succeeding, however, in making only small and limited displacements, so that the knife, which, lodged in her neck, created a kind of butchering in the affected tissues, and at the same time, a small withdrawal from the weapon (defensive action) coincided with an opposite action of approach by the person who was attacking her and holding her, causing the additional incision.

Lodged in her neck!? The knife lodged in her neck, but cuts through her muscle tissue from mere motion of the victim, like butter?

His explanation a small withdrawal from the weapon (defensive action) coincided with an opposite action of approach by the person who was attacking her and holding her, causing the additional incision seems entirely inadequate.Why wouldn't the blade simply come out? How could that end up with cuts all equally 8cm deep from a 17.5 cm blade? Even in a lab or workshop with a static piece of material that would bevery hard to do, it would take a lot of skill.

Does anyone think that’s possible? I am flabbergasted.

 

[moodstream]

You ask capealadin to do far more than a common law jury would be asked to do. A jury in the US is asked to consider all of the evidence; they are not told that they all have to agree on a single, coherent version of the events that takes into account all of the evidence. In fact they are not told that individually they should form single, coherent version of the events that takes into account all of the evidence.

Ultimately, the American jury only has to agree beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. It is theoretically possible that each juror could base a guilty verdict on something that was rejected or thought to be irrelevant to their theory of the crime, by all eleven of the other jurors.

For example, in the case of AK, one juror might believe that AK's alibi was contradicted by the facts, and believe that she was guilty because her reason for lying was that she knew she had done it, and was just trying to avoid punishment. Another might draw the inference that she lied, and connected with the dna evidence at the scene, conclude she was present during the murder.

Another juror might believe the double dna knife is conclusive, and not require much beyond that.

Another might buy the "too low defense", but be convinced by the mixed dna in Filomena's room and elsewhere.

Another might have no interest or understanding of the dna evidence, and believe the burglary was staged.

Another might be convinced by her knowing things that only a killer would know, and regard everything else as "mere surplusage".

And so on.

The case is not a scientific case. It is a legal case. Science is a relatively small part of it. AK and RS have a huge legal problem. Part of the problem is that they are being judged by human beings. The other part of their problem is that they have too many things to explain away. I tell you this as an attorney who has tried cases to juries for roughly three decades. Rough rule of thumb: If you have one bad fact to explain away, the case is defensible. Two? It's still possible. Three? You need the opposition to make some mistakes. Four? Big mistakes from the opposition. Five or more? Huge blunders are needed for any hope of defense. AK, in particular, has too many problems.

I agree with you. The evidence was, scientifically speaking, crap. But you'd have to really pay attention to realize how faulty it was. Sweep enough of it together and it's easy to create the impression that some of it must be right. But, the prosecution could not get away with it if the defendant were Mother Teresa or the Pope. The prosecution needed the jury to see an evil suspicious person as the defendant right from the start, and that is also a strategy they pursued.

Let's just hope that justice, by which I mean the truth, prevails on appeal.

 

[TomM43]

How do you think an American lawyer would defend Amanda and Raffaele?

Plea bargain.

 

[moodstream]

Plea bargain.

Why do you think they are guilty? Could you be wrong?

 

[treehorn]

I don't know if you've noticed, but this isn't a trial. It's an internet message board. Just FYI.

FYI: It's still a court.

The court of public opinion.

 

[treehorn]

Plea bargain.

I second that.

Big time.

 

[treehorn]

I agree with you. The evidence was, scientifically speaking, crap. But you'd have to really pay attention to realize how faulty it was.

"Crap"?

Is that 'scientific term' Latin or Greek?

 

[treehorn]

It always kills me when somebody thinks I am going to search for evidence to support their argument. Why would I want to do that? As long as you don't provide the citation, it doesn't exist.

Then stop asking everybody for citations only to turn round and ignore them.

 

[Kaosium]

The prosecutor CANNOT appeal a verdict in a fast track trial. Get it?

Do you have a citation for this? I've wondered about the details of all this myself.

 

[Mary_H]

Then stop asking everybody for citations only to turn round and ignore them.

Huh? When have I ignored a citation? Telling other people to look for your citation is not the same as providing a citation. If you were in court and you wanted to prove something to the judge, would you show him the evidence, or tell him it's out there -- he just has to go looking for it? How far do you think that would get you?

 

[Kaosium]

FYI: It's still a court.

The court of public opinion.

How much effect do you suppose what is written here will have on the trial or public opinion?