Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

Er, what did Pilot just say?

'You suck, I was right, deal with it.'

'P.S. I like the hookah-smoking caterpillar.'

 

[spartacus]

Must admit, I'd prefer it if the original were posted as well (not a scan necessarily, since I don't doubt the document's genuine, but at least the original Italian). I'm sure the translation's accurate, it's just that there's always an element of interpretation* going on in any translation so it would be good to have the original to read too.

*I don't mean bias, just that even choosing one word rather than another similar word gives a slightly different meaning.

There also have been a few deliberate mistranslations/tilting for the home team here and on other threads.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's inaccurate. She was found guilty but will not be convicted until/unless both of her appeals similarly find her guilty. I assume that whoever wrote the English language Wikipedia article is not familiar enough with the Italian criminal justice system to understand the difference, and is making false comparisons with the US/UK system.

And I have no interest in editing the Wikipedia article. I know that some people on both sides of the debate are intensely interested (sometimes to the point of near-obsession) with what appears about this case on Wikipedia. I am not one of those people. I couldn't care less (or, if you're American, "I could care less" - which makes no sense whatsoever logically) what Wikipedia says right now.If Knox is ultimately convicted, the article will reflect that, and if she's acquitted, the article will reflect the updated situation very quickly.

I have no idea what analogy you're trying to make with the Neil Armstrong stuff. But the answer is yes, that is the time and date when he set foot on the surface of the Moon.

Perhaps you could write a separate wikipedia article on this special Italian justice system where people who are convicted aren't really convicted, they're just sent to prison to rest. I would laugh at read it, I like to learn new things.

 

[LondonJohn]

Perhaps you could write a separate wikipedia article on this special Italian justice system where people who are convicted aren't really convicted, they're just sent to prison to rest. I would laugh at read it, I like to learn new things.

I'll try again, one last time.

People on trial for serious criminal offences in Italy are not convicted until they have been found guilty in all three distinct phases: the first trial, the first appeal trial, and the Supreme Court hearing. Even if they are found guilty in the first trial and the first appeal, they are still considered legally innocent unless and until the Supreme Court affirms their guilt. And only after this will they start to serve any prison (or other) sentence related to the conviction.

In Italy, it's not uncommon for people on trial for murder to remain free while all of the various trials are ongoing, even if they are found guilty in the first trial and first appeal. They only go to prison if and when the Supreme Court affirms the guilty verdict and applies the conviction and sentence. Some people, however, are incarcerated from the moment of their arrest - usually because they are considered a flight risk and/or potential re-offender, and usually only for serious charges. Knox and Sollecito are two such people.

I hope you might understand how things work in Italy now. But somehow I doubt that.

 

[stilicho]

I didn't ask whether you (or we) will ever know if Knox would have been a serial killer. I asked whether you thought that she would have become one if she hadn't been "stopped".

And is "stupidity" (as opposed to legal insanity) a valid defence for breaking the law in Canada? Because I'm certain that it's not a valid defence in the UK. Or Italy.

We could test it out empirically and send in Seal Team 6 to get her out and let her loose on society. Mind you, with the advance knowledge that she has been known to sexually assault and stab people in the throat, any prospective victims would be on their guards and probably keep their cutting utensils under lock and key.

What I meant by pleading stupidity, of course, was to claim the tone of the articles and attempts to verify the claims were simply beyond the control of these two rubes from their Washington State home. They could provide a Powerpoint of themselves and their neighbours engaging in frivolous pasttimes against contrasting slides of ambitious journalists frantically trying to meet deadlines. Perhaps some baby pictures of Amanda next to a guitar might help.

Show that they were hicks caught up in international melodrama and with no better sense than to wear their clamdiggers and tank tops to a court session. Show the journalists who reprinted their comments in presentable costume and let the judge figure out who was taking advantage of whom. Curt and Edda could reinforce these images by wearing frayed straw hats and coveralls to court this time.

 

[stilicho]

....

In Italy, it's not uncommon for people on trial for murder to remain free while all of the various trials are ongoing....

Cite?

Show me the statistics on how many brutal sex killers are allowed to hoof it during this three-stage process.

 

[LondonJohn]

We could test it out empirically and send in Seal Team 6 to get her out and let her loose on society. Mind you, with the advance knowledge that she has been known to sexually assault and stab people in the throat, any prospective victims would be on their guards and probably keep their cutting utensils under lock and key.

What I meant by pleading stupidity, of course, was to claim the tone of the articles and attempts to verify the claims were simply beyond the control of these two rubes from their Washington State home. They could provide a Powerpoint of themselves and their neighbours engaging in frivolous pasttimes against contrasting slides of ambitious journalists frantically trying to meet deadlines. Perhaps some baby pictures of Amanda next to a guitar might help.

Show that they were hicks caught up in international melodrama and with no better sense than to wear their clamdiggers and tank tops to a court session. Show the journalists who reprinted their comments in presentable costume and let the judge figure out who was taking advantage of whom. Curt and Edda could reinforce these images by wearing frayed straw hats and coveralls to court this time.

Wow, you really are running out of decent arguments, aren't you?

(PS: Was that a question I just asked, or just a statement? )

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Perugia-Shock

Cite?

Show me the statistics on how many brutal sex killers are allowed to hoof it during this three-stage process.

What about Stasi? Frank Sfarzo gave some examples in his blog. You can read about it there...Oh well, maybe not.

 

[stilicho]

Wow, you really are running out of decent arguments, aren't you?

(PS: Was that a question I just asked, or just a statement? )

Mark my words. Those will be the claims their lawyers make in their defence. It should work, too.

(PS: I am kidding about the Powerpoint presentation but, in this day and age, I sure wouldn't rule it out.)

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'll try again, one last time.

People on trial for serious criminal offences in Italy are not convicted until they have been found guilty in all three distinct phases: the first trial, the first appeal trial, and the Supreme Court hearing. Even if they are found guilty in the first trial and the first appeal, they are still considered legally innocent unless and until the Supreme Court affirms their guilt. And only after this will they start to serve any prison (or other) sentence related to the conviction.

In Italy, it's not uncommon for people on trial for murder to remain free while all of the various trials are ongoing, even if they are found guilty in the first trial and first appeal. They only go to prison if and when the Supreme Court affirms the guilty verdict and applies the conviction and sentence. Some people, however, are incarcerated from the moment of their arrest - usually because they are considered a flight risk and/or potential re-offender, and usually only for serious charges. Knox and Sollecito are two such people.

I hope you might understand how things work in Italy now. But somehow I doubt that.

So if all these extra courts don't hear the case, is she unconvicted? Does she stay in prison just to rest? Does she walk? Does she turn a cartwheel?

 

[stilicho]

What about Stasi? Frank Sfarzo gave some examples in his blog. You can read about it there...Oh well, maybe not.

Not examples. Statistics. People held in prison because of a brutal sex slaying and who are allowed to remain free until the time their third trial rolls around.

You're kind of cooked either way, here. If it does turn out that Italians typically dance around the maypole with not-quite-convicted sex killers then their system is a lot more lenient than ours is. Recklessly lenient. On the other hand, as is more likely, if they normally keep them locked up for their own safety and for concerns for the community, then Knox and Sollecito are exactly where they should be.

 

[stilicho]

So if all these extra courts don't hear the case, is she unconvicted? Does she stay in prison just to rest? Does she walk? Does she turn a cartwheel?

Italy is a nominally Catholic nation and they do have concepts such as limbo. Perhaps that's what he's thinking of.

 

[PhantomWolf]

3)At 2:56 UTC on July 21, 1969, did US astronaut Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon?

Serious question. Do you believe this just because NASA says it happened? (Goes towards reasons to believe things.)

Those claiming that AK is guilty purely based on "The court says so" are guilty of of the fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Whether we like it or not, courts get it wrong, that is why we have Apeals Courts. If the lower courts never got it wrong, there would be no need for a High Court, Court of Appeal, or Supreme Court. The entire basis or the western justice system is that the system itself in fallible, so claiming the absolute guilt of someone purely because the court stated they were guilty is actually going against the entire spirit of the Court system.

Can you imagine a system where every appeal was turned down automatically because "the lower court is almost always right so they can't have gotten your case wrong"?

For those saying, "It rarely happens," true, it is rare, but how can you be sure that this one isn't one of the rare cases?

Surely there is only one way to determine this, the evidence. Now I'll get back to the opening question. How do I know Apollo was real and that Neil walked on the moon? The evidence. I have spent 8 years looking at reading, learning the evidence, I don't have to take NASA's, the US Government's, or Jay Windley's word that it happened, I can see from what evidence is presented by both sides of the arugment that it did happen.

So this case...

I can see the evidence for the Innocence case, if I have questions, they get answered. When I look for the evidence of the Guilty case what I find is out-dated, is not clearly proven, is discredited, wasn't actually raised in the trial, but rather the media, or is based entirely on someone's opinion rather than solid ground. When I ask questions of those claiming guilt, all they come back with is about the "lies" and "but the court found her guilty" or they reharsh the same old out-dated claims that never stacked up in the first place (e.g. the faked break in.)

If there really was as much evidence of Knox's guilt as there is of Apollo being real, then I'd say that comparing the two was far, but there isn't, by any stretch of the imagination. The suggestion there is, is a totally false analogy.

 

[LondonJohn]

Cite?

Show me the statistics on how many brutal sex killers are allowed to hoof it during this three-stage process.

I see you're not above the odd straw man yourself! I didn't say that people accused in Italy of sex-related murders using weapons habitually get bail during this process, did I? (Or is that what you wanted to believe I said?). I said it's not uncommon for people charged with murder to get bail. And it's not. This article explains exactly how and when suspects are remanded into custody in Italy:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/criminal/procedural/doc/chapter_15_Italy_en.pdf

In fact, according to my reading of Italian criminal procedures and their application, Knox and Sollecito were correctly refused bail in this case. Italian courts tend to err heavily on the side of caution in crimes of this type. However, I was never trying to argue that Knox's or Sollecito's pre-trial (and inter-trial) detention was unjust.

If you re-read my post, I was illustrating how the detention that Knox and Sollecito are currently undergoing is of a "remand" variety rather than as a result of them being convicted of a criminal offence. Of course, if they do end up finally standing convicted after the Supreme Court appeal, their time served to that point on remand will be deducted from their sentence. But they are not serving their sentence at the moment. That was my point.

 

[PhantomWolf]

So if all these extra courts don't hear the case, is she unconvicted?

The only reason not to hear the cases is when the defendant accepts the verdict of the first trial on a fast track system, e.g. Geude's trial

Does she stay in prison just to rest?

She's on remand as a flight risk, same reason that Julian Asange was in the UK lockup till he managed to prove to the Judge he wouldn't flee.

Does she walk? Does she turn a cartwheel?

She only does those while talking on the phone.

 

[LondonJohn]

So if all these extra courts don't hear the case, is she unconvicted? Does she stay in prison just to rest? Does she walk? Does she turn a cartwheel?

Yes, she is unconvicted. She stays in prison because the authorities judge her to be a flight risk or a re-offending risk for a serious crime, pending the final outcome of the trial process. The appeals process is automatic in crimes of this type in Italy. You are continuing to confuse the meaning of the word "appeal" as it applies to anglo-saxon criminal trals with its different meaning in Italian criminal trials. And, in my opinion, you're now verging on the facetious. Which is interesting and instructive.

 

[RandyN]

There also have been a few deliberate mistranslations/tilting for the home team here and on other threads.

Yes....how about "See you later"

 

[LondonJohn]

The only reason not to hear the cases is when the defendant accepts the verdict of the first trial on a fast track system, e.g. Geude's trial

Actually no, even in Guede's case he was entitled to the two appeals - only with certain limitations since he opted for the fast-track process. His first appeal resulted in an another guilty verdict, but a sentence reduction from 30 to 24 years*, and his Supreme Court appeal affirmed the verdict and sentence. As with Knox and Sollecito, Guede was remanded in custody throughout this process, and was only convicted after the Supreme Court ruling. He is now serving his sentence.

* which will actually be 16 years because he opted for the fast-track process, which brings an automatic 1/3 reduction in any prison sentence.

 

[stilicho]

....

Surely there is only one way to determine this, the evidence. Now I'll get back to the opening question. How do I know Apollo was real and that Neil walked on the moon? The evidence. I have spent 8 years looking at reading, learning the evidence, I don't have to take NASA's, the US Government's, or Jay Windley's word that it happened, I can see from what evidence is presented by both sides of the arugment that it did happen.

....

How many scientific theories have you spent eight years of your own time proving? Assuming you live past eighty, you'd only have time to acknowledge the correctness of about ten things. I can't imagine anyone doing that. What happens when you find out that one of them is false?

I'm serious about this because your approach to understanding the moon landings is very similar to that of a CT. The only difference is that they find "errors" in the evidence after looking at it for eight years. Or ten years. Or their whole lives.

I do understand why people consider that the courts might have gotten it all wrong in the Knox/Sollecito convictions. There might be an alternate explanation for the mixed traces of DNA. There might be the same for Knox telling the police that her African employer raped and murdered her roommate while she stood in the kitchen plugging her ears. There might be reason to believe that Guede staged the burglary. And so on.

But you're sure not going to solve it here and both Knox and Sollecito threw the highest-paid professional consultants at the problem and they weren't even internally consistent. I've never seen two different scientists tell me two completely different things about the moon landings.

Hopefully, though, we can move the discussion back to the OP. How would you establish that Edda and Curt were innocent of defamation?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Those claiming that AK is guilty purely based on "The court says so" are guilty of of the fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

BZZZZZZ!!!! Wrong.

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A (Judge/Court) is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S (Law).
2. Person A (Judge/Court) makes claim C (Knox is guilty) about subject S (Law).
3. Therefore, C (Knox is guilty) is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A (Judge/Court) is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S (Law), then the argument will be fallacious.

Unless you are prepared to claim that a Court of Law is not a legitmate authority on the Law, then as you can see, your claim doesn't hold water.

Thank you for playing, please drive through.