Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[DrDave]

1. The best discussion of the question of the rate of false convictions of which I am aware can be found at the excellent Texas jurisprudence blog gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com. From memory, the blog's host estimated it at 1.5-3%. Each nation's mileage may vary, but 1.5% doesn't qualify as vanishingly small, IMO.

2. You should ask the person who brought it up. I surmise that it was brought up to illustrate that a guilty verdict is not certain proof of actual guilt. You seem to hold a view that is very close to this, based on your comment at 9:42 AM.

So we can be at least 97% sure that the court correctly convicted her - good enough for me.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

And my answer suggested previously with a citation is that one might be observing memory distrust syndrome, which is a type of source amnesia from what I can gather (psychology is not my field). If Amanda initially believed that she was at Raffaele's but the police kept telling her that they had evidence that she was at her flat and was repressing the memory, it seems to me that at some point she would eventually get confused.

Halides1

I can't recall did Amanda's defence team raise the possibility of “memory distrust syndrome” through any expert testimony?

 

[Mary_H]

I am familiar with Hendry's musings. He also states:

"3. Lack of physical evidence of the intruder on the ground or wall considering that it had recently rained...

It is not known how rigorous the effort was to find evidence of an intruder on the ground below Filomena’s window or climbing the wall...

What is noticeable missing from the police crime scene documentation evidence are closeup photos of the wall and grounds documenting their condition before alteration by non police persons such as Filomena Romanelli and her boyfriend Marco Zaroli who reportedly walked around under the window to perform their own inspection."

If accuracy were a major consideration for Hendry, he would have stipulated in the second sentence quoted above, "It is not known to me...", and in the third sentence he would have said, "... missing from the police crime scene documentation evidence which I have received...".

Given that Hendry wrote the report, I think it is safe for the reader to assume that it reflects his opinion, and that it is based on evidence he has examined. I don't think he talks about any evidence that he just "heard about."

If Hendry had been retained by the defense and had then raised these concerns, they would indeed be troubling. But he wasn't, so they aren't.

??? Are facts and reality troubling only when someone is paid to talk about them?

 

[Dan O.]

but the police/prosecuter never said there were 2 phone calls to her mom did they?

Not in those words. They were speaking Italian!

 

[Kestrel]

So we can be at least 97% sure that the court correctly convicted her - good enough for me.

At least 97% of all eggs are good. The egg you just cracked for breakfast smells rather bad. Would you take the risk and eat that egg?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Didn't the Italian Supreme Court rule in Guede's final appeal that he and others were responsible murdering Meredith?

No, it ruled that Guede is responsible. After all it was Guede's guilt that was under appeal in Supreme Court.

 

[DrDave]

At least 97% of all eggs are good. The egg you just cracked for breakfast smells rather bad. Would you take the risk and eat that egg?

It's 2130 over here and I'm eating curry. What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I don't need a weatherman to tell me which way the wind is blowing

Halides1

I can't recall did Amanda's defence team raise the possibility of “memory distrust syndrome” through any expert testimony?

I make no claims with respect to what was said or not said at the trial in this matter. A summary of Amanda's appeal document, covering the 5:45 statement, suggests to me that the defense may wish to explore this question further: "The statement was signed by Amanda during a period of time when she was experiencing a psychological abnormality from being exhausted, over questioned, denied food, water, bathroom, coercion, stress, and confusion."

 

[Katody Matrass]

Santa Claus may also be real. You seem to think that the extended legal proceedings is an indication of innocence.

No, you misunderstood. It's what's going on in the appeal that shows that it goes towards the acquittal. Particularly new facts about the main superwitness that discredit him and the course of the independent review of DNA evidence. One piece of which cannot be retested because DNA is no longer there and the other inexplicably destroyed in storage and useless. That the Scientific Police has mysterious troubles with coughing up the documentation of their initial tests is curious, too.

 

[Dan O.]

Halides1

I can't recall did Amanda's defence team raise the possibility of “memory distrust syndrome” through any expert testimony?

There is a major difference between court and an Internet forum. It's not possible in court to engage in a dialog with the jurors to determine if they are understanding the complex issues. Then again, for some posters on the Internet it's not so different.

 

[Katody Matrass]

At least 97% of all eggs are good. The egg you just cracked for breakfast smells rather bad. Would you take the risk and eat that egg?

Good point

 

[LondonJohn]

My point of view is that convicted murderer Amanda Knox is in prison because she was...well....convicted of murder.

PS: We also landed on the Moon.

And your point of view is wrong. Knox is not currently in prison because she was convicted of murder. She has not even been convicted of murder. She is what we in the anglo-saxon system would call remanded into custody, because the court has decided that she poses either a flight risk or re-offending risk*. She will only start serving a prison sentence for murder if her guilt is confirmed after the current appeal and the Supreme Court appeal, at which point she will stand convicted.

But, as with so many of your views on this case, I'm not surprised that you don't know the facts. As I said before, you're totally at liberty to call Knox a small cloud of ammonia if you like - it doesn't mean you're correct in your description.

*DSK's current situation at the Rikers Island Grand Hyatt is analogous in this respect. Although I see he's just got out on bail. Something denied to Knox and Sollecito.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

And your point of view is wrong. Knox is not currently in prison because she was convicted of murder. She has not even been convicted of murder. She is what we in the anglo-saxon system would call remanded into custody, because the court has decided that she poses either a flight risk or re-offending risk*. She will only start serving a prison sentence for murder if her guilt is confirmed after the current appeal and the Supreme Court appeal, at which point she will stand convicted.

But, as with so many of your views on this case, I'm not surprised that you don't know the facts. As I said before, you're totally at liberty to call Knox a small cloud of ammonia if you like - it doesn't mean you're correct in your description.

*DSK's current situation at the Rikers Island Grand Hyatt is analogous in this respect. Although I see he's just got out on bail. Something denied to Knox and Sollecito.

No, DSK's case is not analogous to that of convicted murderer Amanda Knox. He has not stood trial yet. It looks like you don't know the facts of either case.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's also possible that convicted murderer Amanda Knox actually committed the crime for which she was convicted. The CT loonies keep forgetting that.

What does this response have to do with the topic of this thread?

Of course it's possible that Knox committed this murder (you seem not to care too much about Sollecito, by the way). But it's beholden upon the prosecution to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. It is my view (and the view of many others who probably don't appreciate being offensively labelled as "CT loonies") that there's simply not enough evidence in this case to prove the guilt of Knox or Sollecito beyond a reasonable doubt. And if that's the case, they should be found not guilty and acquitted.

Aside from that, your comment seems to suggest that there's a corollary to your point: that there's also a possibility that Knox didn't participate in the murder. And if that's the case, then that is the very definition of reasonable doubt in a legal sense. A jury (or judicial panel in this case) can only vote for guilt if they are certain - beyond any doubt that a reasonable person might hold - that Knox committed the murder. Maybe you didn't know this though...?

 

[spartacus]

spartacus,

Ms. Dempsey translated a portion of the document: “CD film, photos, search reports on methods of checking evidence into custody, preservation, and transport to the police laboratory.”

The original document reads, “CD filmato, foto, verbale di sequestro, modalita di repertazione, conservazione e trasporto presso il laboratori della Pollzia” I hope this fragment is enough to make my point. I cannot be of help with respect to Drew Griffin.

Where did that original come from? I didn't see it on the blog post you linked.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, DSK's case is not analogous to that of convicted murderer Amanda Knox. He has not stood trial yet. It looks like you don't know the facts of either case.

You don't really know what you're talking about. Both cases involve a judicial process. DSK was today indicted by a Grand Jury, and committed to trial. This means that the Grand Jury (before which both DSK and his alleged victim appeared and testified if they wished) found there was a sufficient case to answer. DSK's judicial process will now take the form of a single criminal trial, at the end of which he will be either convicted or acquitted, and if convicted he will then be sentenced.

Knox's judicial process is still ongoing. What you think the term "appeal" means is not what it means in the anglo-saxon system. The appeal is actually essentially a second trial. So, in effect, Knox is still mid-trial. She's been found guilty in "phase one", but she also needs to be found guilty in "phase 2" and "phase 3" if she's to be convicted and to carry out her sentence.

I repeat - since you don't seem to understand: Knox is currently being held on remand. She's not being held as a convicted criminal. Do you not understand that? And in that regard, both she and DSK (up until about 10 minutes ago) were in exactly the same boat: they are (were) being held purely to prevent them from fleeing (and/or re-offending) until a court can ultimately decide whether they should be convicted of the crimes of which they are accused.

 

[spartacus]

There actually is quite a large scientific literature on this which you can generically call "false memory" and if they haven't brought in an expert they certainly could.

Hyman & Billings, (1998). Individual Differences and the Creation of False childhood Memories. Memory, 6, 1-20. Read the abstract here.

I could cite a few hundred more studies if you want, all of it has been brought in as evidence in the US for legal cases.

It would be called "falsi ricordi" in Italy and they have their own literature on it you can read here.

So yes, there is a scientific literature to support the proposition that the statements of AK could have been produced and created by the police in an innocent person. To use this as the basis of a guilt conviction would be a gross miscarriage of justice. In any case the original false confession is not admissible in court, as it should not be.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I cannot help further

Where did that original come from? I didn't see it on the blog post you linked.

I must cite confidentiality here.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Of course it's possible that Knox committed this murder (you seem not to care too much about Sollecito, by the way).

Sollecito's parents are not named in the title of the thread, so no, I don't care too much about him or them.

But it's beholden upon the prosecution to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. It is my view (and the view of many others who probably don't appreciate being offensively labelled as "CT loonies") that there's simply not enough evidence in this case to prove the guilt of Knox or Sollecito beyond a reasonable doubt. And if that's the case, they should be found not guilty and acquitted.

LOL! There isn't? Then how did the court manage to do that very thing? Are you really that out of touch with reality?

 

[spartacus]

i think that's clutching at straws tbh but your entitled to your opinion.

Wrong, see above.