Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well, to be fair, I did a BSc degree before entering the Juris Doctor program - even did a few weeks of medical school before being overcome with nausea and heading for a cleaner, easier life with very limited liability and great suits.

Ergo there was a time when I wouldn't have hesitated to call myself "scientifically literate," to borrow your phrase. Calculus, physics, organic chem, genetics, you name it. Hardcore.

Alas, law school kills the 'scientific mind' - it was a truly painful process: I spent most of the first year in a desperate attempt to find order and logic in the morass that is the common law. I used to have dreams about coming up with a systematized/ shared set of symbols that could be applied to the analysis and discussion of case law and the principles therein.

I wanted precision! Formulas, even!

So, in a way, I can relate to your (naive) wish to transform the law into something akin to a scientific discipline.

You seem to be wandering off the point here.

Are we talking about whether or not Knox and Sollecito are actually guilty? That's what I have been talking about. If so we should employ the methods of rational analysis I have been explaining to you.

If you are talking about something else, perhaps you could get us back on track by explaining the relevance of what you are talking about to Knox and Sollecito's factual guilt or innocence.

If your point is just that the adversarial criminal legal system is a mad dog's breakfast, bear in mind that you are talking to people who have been providing you with citations of the many times in the past that the system has gone off the rails. I don't think it's news to anyone here that courts are fallible.

 

[Justinian2]

To quote another poster:

Sigh. Would you please stop referring to the US legal system.

Just the opposite. Someone needs to clarify the differences between the two systems.

The two are confused enough in people's minds. I don't think people understand either the Italian System OR the American system.

The Law dictionary at law.com gives this definition for beyond a reasonable doubt

adj. part of jury instructions in all criminal trials, in which the jurors are told that they can only find the defendant guilty if they are convinced "beyond a reason- able doubt" of his or her guilt. Sometimes referred to as "to a moral certainty," the phrase is fraught with uncertainty as to meaning, but try: "you better be damned sure." By comparison it is meant to be a tougher standard than "preponderance of the evidence," used as a test to give judgment to a plaintiff in a civil (non-criminal) case.​

Does anybody have a comparible definition from the Italian Legal Dictionary (and translation)?

 

[LondonJohn]

Just the opposite. Someone needs to clarify the differences between the two systems.

The two are confused enough in people's minds. I don't think people understand either the Italian System OR the American system.

The Law dictionary at law.com gives this definition for beyond a reasonable doubt

adj. part of jury instructions in all criminal trials, in which the jurors are told that they can only find the defendant guilty if they are convinced "beyond a reason- able doubt" of his or her guilt. Sometimes referred to as "to a moral certainty," the phrase is fraught with uncertainty as to meaning, but try: "you better be damned sure." By comparison it is meant to be a tougher standard than "preponderance of the evidence," used as a test to give judgment to a plaintiff in a civil (non-criminal) case.​

Does anybody have a comparible definition from the Italian Legal Dictionary (and translation)?

Ah - my re-use of that quote was specifically in response to a quote put forward by Mr quadraginta, which was to do with the likelihood of circumstantial case convictions being overturned on appeal. I was pointing out that this quote was related to the US judicial system - where (except in death penalty cases) there's no automatic right to appeal.

Interestingly, the judicial standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has only been enshrined in Italian law since 2006. Maybe many of the esteemed judges in Italy (who - whether it's explicit or not - clearly control the judicial panels) have sometimes been a little slow in adopting the new standard.......

 

[babycondor]

..."In fact there was no tuna sandwich, there was no lunch, and no one knows where you were between noon and 1 p.m. on Dec. 3, isn't that correct?"

It's just easier, and probably more truthful, to just say "I don't remember" or "I don't know." Even if you report your honest recollection, if someone can raise a doubt about your factual accuracy it will discredit almost anything else you say.

Brilliant post. Anyone who is unclear about how Rafaelle and Amanda got where they are today needs to read this. Can you imagine being questioned in this manner while under the effects of marijuana (Rafaelle and possibly Amanda), in a language of which you are not a native speaker (Amanda), for hour after hour?

 

[Chris C]

"Mister" Sollectio is it? Well, then, there, now.

You need to start reading the Court's judgment at page 61:

"...Taciturn, shy, introverted…watched many films…SEX WITH ANIMALS…ACTIVATED A MONITORING ON THE BOY…HABIT OF CARRYING IN HIS POCKET A PEN-KNIFE…FOUND IN POSSESSSION OF 2.67 GRAMS…"

And check out A. Vogt on the Closing Arument:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/412504_knox20.html

"Mignini …also mentioned Sollecito's alleged past use of cocaine and LSD..."


(You can't mention it in your closing if it wasn't adduced at trial - I'm looking forward to learning the details in this regard.)


PS Had you read the Court's judgment [p 61-62] you'd also see that he had, in October 2007 (right before he met Amanda), a "brief affair with a girl from Brindisi" that was of "very short duration, few days."

So what we've got here is a 24 year old virgin/ quiet loner who's collecting - and wearing - knives, watching animal porn & using a range of street drugs.

He's so "normal" that his college residence had to actively "monitor" him and his dad had to pitch in by calling him several times a day despite the fact he's a 24 year old man.

Yeah. Zero defects there. "Mister" Sollecito is fit as a fiddle.

PPS Did any of the "Norfolk Four" come even CLOSE to Sollecito's illustrious record of extracurricular activities?

So what actual crimes did he commit out of this list? Ones that are not hearsay? He has 2.67 grams of what? 2.67 grams of pot is a dime bag.

Would you say three years in jail is enough punishment for those 'crimes?'

Actually what would be the sentence for those crimes? I mean prosecutors can break nearly every rule and only get 18 months suspended sentence.
What would Raf's be, 30 days suspended?

 

[Justinian2]

Ah - my re-use of that quote was specifically in response to a quote put forward by Mr quadraginta, which was to do with the likelihood of circumstantial case convictions being overturned on appeal. I was pointing out that this quote was related to the US judicial system - where (except in death penalty cases) there's no automatic right to appeal.

Interestingly, the judicial standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has only been enshrined in Italian law since 2006. Maybe many of the esteemed judges in Italy (who - whether it's explicit or not - clearly control the judicial panels) have sometimes been a little slow in adopting the new standard.......

Beyond a reasonable doubt means many things to many people. For example: To me, being safe to beyond a reasonable doubt of not falling off Machu Picchu means not going there. To my wife, safe beyond a reasonable doubt means standing a foot away from a precipice of 3000 feet.

 

[LondonJohn]

Just as an aside: Intent is one of the the essential elements which must be proven by the prosecution and accepted by the court, if a person is to be found guilty of a criminal offence. Intent is very different from motive, and it's also entirely different from pre-meditation. Intent is narrowly defined as the immediate mental desire to perform a criminal act (or sometimes the failure to perform an act - the failure of which constitutes a criminal offence).

The concept of intent is closely related to "mens rea" ("guilty mind" in Latin), which means that the person knew that they were about to commit an act which any right-thinking person would know was illegal. In other words, in order to convict someone of (for example) murder by gunshot, the court must accept that the defendant deliberately aimed and fired the gun towards the victim, with the intent of causing serious injury or death, and with the knowledge that death might be the outcome. In other words, the defendant had the "mens rea" at the moment of firing the gun, and therefore the defendant had intent.

Thus, all people who are convicted of criminal offences - with the exception of those who are found guilty under diminished circumstances or adjudged insane - are by definition guilty of intent to commit the crime for which they are found guilty. All criminal defence attorneys would, of course, know this - since it's a central plank of criminal law.

 

[Amazer]

Just as an aside: Intent is one of the the essential elements which must be proven by the prosecution and accepted by the court, if a person is to be found guilty of a criminal offence. Intent is very different from motive, and it's also entirely different from pre-meditation. Intent is narrowly defined as the immediate mental desire to perform a criminal act (or sometimes the failure to perform an act - the failure of which constitutes a criminal offence).

The concept of intent is closely related to "mens rea" ("guilty mind" in Latin), which means that the person knew that they were about to commit an act which any right-thinking person would know was illegal. In other words, in order to convict someone of (for example) murder by gunshot, the court must accept that the defendant deliberately aimed and fired the gun towards the victim, with the intent of causing serious injury or death, and with the knowledge that death might be the outcome. In other words, the defendant had the "mens rea" at the moment of firing the gun, and therefore the defendant had intent.

Thus, all people who are convicted of criminal offences - with the exception of those who are found guilty under diminished circumstances or adjudged insane - are by definition guilty of intent to commit the crime for which they are found guilty. All criminal defence attorneys would, of course, know this - since it's a central plank of criminal law.

I have my doubts about your claim. But by all means provide a citation, preferably one rooted in Italian law, that proves this.

 

[LondonJohn]

I have my doubts about your claim. But by all means provide a citation, preferably one rooted in Italian law, that proves this.

What is it that you want me to prove?

 

[Amazer]

Just as an aside: Intent is one of the the essential elements which must be proven by the prosecution and accepted by the court, if a person is to be found guilty of a criminal offence.

What is it that you want me to prove?

The highlighted bit

 

[LondonJohn]

The highlighted bit

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Mens-rea-intention.php

http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Mens_rea

http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/mens-rea

(the last link states that mens rea has been required in Italian law since the 13th century.....).

This really is criminal law 101 - I'm surprised you're doubting it, to be honest.

EDIT: Ahhh - Matey! The much-missed kids' bubble bath in the bottle that looked like a sailor. Makes me want to sing! "Ohhhhh....Your Matey's a bottle of fun; You put me in your bath; I'm loved by everyone; and always good for a laugh!" It's right up there with Freeman Hardy Willis, Rumbelows, Spud-u-like and Spangles as dearly departed British icons........

PS: Nothing a judicious edit won't erase from history eh?! G&Ts all round!

 

[daydreamer]

Well the new year is almost here and after about 50,000 posts on the three (or four?) Amanda Knox threads I think it's time for us all to post the top three most ridiculous and/or stupid theories posted here (on JREF only) about this case in 2010.

As I have over 600 posts in these threads myself I'm sure I'm not immune. Ok, here's my top three....

3. Kevin....believing that human interaction on a computer gives an alibi to two people.

2. Dan....believing that the DNA on the bra clasp came from Amanda and Meredith sharing bras.

...and Number 1 most ridiculous AND stupid Amanda Knox theory goes to.....

1. Justianian...believing that he knows for certain that Amanda is innocent because he's white too! (I think this one ended up in AAH)

My #1 vote for the most ridiculous and/or stupid theory goes to the Massei Report itself which has been posted here in bits and pieces.

 

[quadraginta]

Just as an aside: Intent is one of the the essential elements which must be proven by the prosecution and accepted by the court, if a person is to be found guilty of a criminal offence. Intent is very different from motive, and it's also entirely different from pre-meditation. Intent is narrowly defined as the immediate mental desire to perform a criminal act (or sometimes the failure to perform an act - the failure of which constitutes a criminal offence).

The concept of intent is closely related to "mens rea" ("guilty mind" in Latin), which means that the person knew that they were about to commit an act which any right-thinking person would know was illegal. In other words, in order to convict someone of (for example) murder by gunshot, the court must accept that the defendant deliberately aimed and fired the gun towards the victim, with the intent of causing serious injury or death, and with the knowledge that death might be the outcome. In other words, the defendant had the "mens rea" at the moment of firing the gun, and therefore the defendant had intent.

Thus, all people who are convicted of criminal offences - with the exception of those who are found guilty under diminished circumstances or adjudged insane - are by definition guilty of intent to commit the crime for which they are found guilty. All criminal defence attorneys would, of course, know this - since it's a central plank of criminal law.

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Mens-rea-intention.php

http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Mens_rea

http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/mens-rea

(the last link states that mens rea has been required in Italian law since the 13th century.....).

This really is criminal law 101 - I'm surprised you're doubting it, to be honest.

How does this work with involuntary manslaughter?

 

[LondonJohn]

How does this work with involuntary manslaughter?

It works just fine. You might be confusing malice aforethought with mens rea. They're totally different things. The mens rea necessary for involuntary manslaughter is usually one of negligence or failure to perform certain acts - and it's necessary to show that there was "intent" in this broader sense even to get a conviction for involuntary manslaughter.

For example, if one overtook another car on a bend, and crashed into a car coming the other way, killing its driver, this would be considered involuntary manslaughter (not withstanding the fact that in the UK there's a special crime of "death by dangerous driving" to deal with motoring offences of this kind). The mens rea for this offence would be the decision to overtake on a dangerous and inappropriate part of the road - the court would have to agree that this reckless decision should not (and would not) have been taken by a "right-thinking" person. To put it another way, the "intent" to be shown in this case would be the intent to drive recklessly and dangerously, coupled with the intent to disregard the highway code.

If the court couldn't agree to this mens rea, then the death would merely be deemed an accident, with no criminal culpability whatsoever.

* Cricket MATCHES (or, specifically in this instance, cricket test matches)

 

[Bob001]

It works just fine. You might be confusing malice aforethought with mens rea. They're totally different things. The mens rea necessary for involuntary manslaughter is usually one of negligence or failure to perform certain acts - and it's necessary to show that there was "intent" in this broader sense even to get a conviction for involuntary manslaughter.

Possibly helpful (see case example 2):

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-32637-2.html

 

[LondonJohn]

Possibly helpful (see case example 2):

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-32637-2.html

Yes - interesting article, which illustrates the point well. Incidentally, it's a little worrying to read a California attorney (or lawyer, if you prefer) refer to 2nd degree murder as one committed in the absence of malice aforethought. That's not the definition of "Murder 2" in the state of California (or, indeed, in most of the states of the US). Both first and second degree murder convictions require the presence of malice aforethought in his state and most others (together, of course, with intent to cause injury which one should reasonably have assumed might lead to the death of the victim). Only third degree murder (which we'd call manslaughter) requires no malice or intent to cause potentially-fatal wounds.

 

[quadraginta]

It works just fine. You might be confusing malice aforethought with mens rea.

<snip>

Nope. I'm not confusing anything. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to clarify and expand on the terms you chose to introduce so randomly to the discussion.

Since the post was so carefully crafted I'm assuming you chose to do so for a reason. Maybe you'll share it with us?

 

[Amazer]

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Mens-rea-intention.php

http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Mens_rea

http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/mens-rea

(the last link states that mens rea has been required in Italian law since the 13th century.....).

This really is criminal law 101 - I'm surprised you're doubting it, to be honest.

I was indeed thinking of something along the lines of involuntary manslaughter when I said that I doubted your claim.
Your explanation later to Quadratinga did much to clear those doubts.

 

[billyryan]

As pointed out in Amanda's appeal pg 53/54 Stefanoni was quoted as saying the knife blade "DNA" tested positive for quantification and it was on the order of a few hundred picograms. This was false testimony and it references the hearing transcripts from 2008. It was not until she was forced to turn over some of her notes in July 2009 that the truth was determined. The appeal points out that this false information was also included in the written technical report from 2008.

Add to this the luminol footprints blood tests


I have been trying to find out,without any success,if Stefanoni when she was carrying out all the forensic tests in relation to this case if it crossed her mind that her work could have been opened up to an independent analysis by the court.In what percent of Italian murder cases is an independent forensic analysis carried out

when Stefanoni said there was a few hundred picograms of dna on the knife blade,she was deliberate lying or she is completely incompetent,such is the importance of this piece of evidence

Her testimony that the luminol footprints were not tested for blood,when she knew well they were and they came back negative,she then went further and tried to convince the court that the luminol footprints were made from blood seems to be very little short of professional misconduct.the kind of conduct that gets people debarred from their profession

She also claimed that the amount of Raffaele's dna on the bra clip was much larger than it was according to Frank Sfarzo,Her forensic sample collection techniques leave a lot to be desired.

I think that Patrizia Stefanoni has to be very concerned about how this independent forensic analysis could very seriously damage her reputation

 

[treehorn]

You seem to be wandering off the point here.

Are we talking about whether or not Knox and Sollecito are actually guilty? That's what I have been talking about. If so we should employ the methods of rational analysis I have been explaining to you.

If you are talking about something else, perhaps you could get us back on track by explaining the relevance of what you are talking about to Knox and Sollecito's factual guilt or innocence.

My point is that your penchant for descriptive statistics, probability theory and the formulaic precision of scientific inquiry appear to be preventing you from understanding the RD standard and its application to the totality of the evidence.

Indeed, despite evidence that you are a reasonably intelligent fellow, you appear to be struggling mightily with the notion of corroboration.

Could it be that you've become 'emotionally invested' in your position?

If so, how does that behoove an 'expert thinker'?