Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Lothian]

Interesting. And yet, based on zero evidence that doesn't require special pleading to get it to stand upright and stagger a couple steps before it falls down again, you are convinced that two innocent persons are guilty of aggravated murder.

This should be quite sufficient embarrassment for you, I would think.

Thank you for proving my point about wild uninformed guesses.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

we are done here

I don't think posts in Sept 2011 affect what happened or make guilt more or less likely


I am not going to embarrass myself by making wild uninformed guesses when there are so many here who are experts at it.

Lothian,

Thank you for your thoughts. Welcome to ignore.

 

[js202]

Thank you for proving my point about wild uninformed guesses.

I see. You expect me to believe that, given the hostility of your tone in response to an eminently polite and reasonable poster like Halides1, you are not pro-guilt? I evince a guffaw in your general direction.

And stand with Halides1; in being unimpressed, unconvinced, and hunting for the ignore function...

 

[LondonJohn]

I think we can get an insight into the level of intelligence/knowledge of some pro-guilt commentators from this post made by someone on .org. It's about the impending execution of a prisoner in Georgia, USA, and the wider rights and wrongs of the death penalty:

I don't want to get into a discussion of his innocence/guilt. What is crystal clear, however, is that there is now significant doubt, doubt raised since his trial 20 years ago. Many people, such as my brother, favor capital punishment only in cases where guilt has been proven beyond any doubt.

It explicitly illustrates that this individual doesn't understand the burden of proof for guilt of any criminal charge. It so happens that this post is in the context of the death penalty, but it betrays a wider ignorance and misunderstanding. The key is the last sentence. This poster doesn't seem to understand that any conviction can only rightfully be made where guilt has been proven beyond any doubt. That's actually what the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" means: beyond any doubt based in human reason. If a juror has any doubt whatsoever as to the guilt of the defendant, (s)he cannot legitimately vote guilty.

Therefore, in the particular instance being discussed in that post, if significant real doubt has now been established as to the guilt of this individual in Georgia, then not only should he not be being put to death, he should be either retried or acquitted! What's more, the same individual has gone on subsequently to repeat and expand upon this position. Not a single poster has corrected the ignorance/confusion inherent in the "argument". I can only suppose that there are many more pro-guilt commentators who do not properly understand the burden of proof in criminal trials. And that would actually make some sense: it would help explain why so many of them are making unsupportable arguments for the convictions of Knox and Sollecito if they think that there can still be convictions in the presence of some level of doubt.

 

[charlatan]

I am not going to embarrass myself by making wild uninformed guesses when there are so many here who are experts at it.

With the large quantity of transcripts, photographs, videos and court documents available online, what information do you feel people here are lacking?

 

[LondonJohn]

With the large quantity of transcripts, photographs, videos and court documents available online, what information do you feel people here are lacking?

Ah yes: this appears to be one of the current tropes (hehe) being put about in relation to the pro-acquittal arguments: we outsiders have a significantly incomplete set of information upon which to base our discussions; therefore, in this absence of proper information, we should assume that the courts had access to different/better information - information which validates the guilty verdicts in the Massei trial and will lead to guilty verdicts in the Hellmann appeal trial.

But as anyone who has studied this case in any detail should know, this is a false proposition. For example, apart from the translation issue, everyone can find out exactly what caused Massei's court to reach guilty verdicts. If it's not in the report, we can safely and correctly assume that it was not significantly important to the court's reasoning of guilt. And we can all read the grounds for appeal filed by the defence (and prosecution) teams. And we can all read/see contemporaneous media accounts of the vast majority of significant events in the first trial and the Massei appeal. In fact, we easily have a full enough data set from which to make reasoned arguments about the guilt/non-guilt/innocence of Knox and Sollecito.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

clear and compelling

I think we can get an insight into the level of intelligence/knowledge of some pro-guilt commentators from this post made by someone on .org. It's about the impending execution of a prisoner in Georgia, USA, and the wider rights and wrongs of the death penalty:



It explicitly illustrates that this individual doesn't understand the burden of proof for guilt of any criminal charge. It so happens that this post is in the context of the death penalty, but it betrays a wider ignorance and misunderstanding. The key is the last sentence. This poster doesn't seem to understand that any conviction can only rightfully be made where guilt has been proven beyond any doubt. That's actually what the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" means: beyond any doubt based in human reason. If a juror has any doubt whatsoever as to the guilt of the defendant, (s)he cannot legitimately vote guilty.

Therefore, in the particular instance being discussed in that post, if significant real doubt has now been established as to the guilt of this individual in Georgia, then not only should he not be being put to death, he should be either retried or acquitted! What's more, the same individual has gone on subsequently to repeat and expand upon this position. Not a single poster has corrected the ignorance/confusion inherent in the "argument". I can only suppose that there are many more pro-guilt commentators who do not properly understand the burden of proof in criminal trials. And that would actually make some sense: it would help explain why so many of them are making unsupportable arguments for the convictions of Knox and Sollecito if they think that there can still be convictions in the presence of some level of doubt.

LondonJohn,

Yes he certainly should not be convicted if the trial were held today, and I would argue should not have been convicted previously (the absence of physical evidence and some of the testimony was dubious right from the start). Yet in the American system, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant once he or she is convicted, and the bar is set very high: "But the judge overseeing the hearing, William T. Moore Jr., decided that in order to overturn the original jury verdict, Davis needed not only to cast doubt on the evidence against him, but to provide 'clear and compelling' proof of his innocence. In an August 2010 ruling dismissing Davis' appeal, he declared that while the state's case 'may not be ironclad,' Davis failed to make a showing of 'actual innocence' and thus should not be granted a new trial. The evidentiary hearing was the first such legal proceeding in more than 50 years."

I think that this position (which may be legally accurate) is logically unsound*. Why isn't a new trial the place to show "actual innocence" in a "clear and compelling" manner? I am highly critical of aspects of the Italian system, but this is one area where the American system does not recommend itself relative to the Italian one. Although I strongly hope the someone does the right thing in the Davis case (and stays the execution), I think that this case and the Todd Willingham case indicate that there is a problem under the present laws for inmates who uncover exculpatory evidence that falls short of proof of innocence.
*perhaps "problematic" or "paradoxical" is closer to my meaning than "logically unsound."

 

[Diocletus]

I am highly critical of aspects of the Italian system, but this is one area where the American system does not recommend itself relative to the Italian one.

Speaking of the death penalty, here's a question I've been asking:

If required to choose between these two, which one would you pick:

1) Execute an actual murderer, or

2) Wrongfully imprison someone for 26 years for a murder he did not commit

If you would choose to imprison instead of execute, how many innocent people, for how many years, would you imprison to save one murderer's life?

If you would choose to execute instead of wrongfully imprison, how many murderers would you execute to save one innocent person from serving 26 years in prison?

I hear people talking about the barbarity of the death penalty, but isn't it just as barbaric to maintain a legal system where the prosecution is free to manipulate evidence and public opinion, and through incompetency and artifice to destroy, neglect and hide exculpatory evidence, and to use these powers to achieve the imprisonment of innocent people?

 

[Rolfe]

That's such an interesting question, why don't you start a separate thread on it?

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

LondonJohn,

Yes he certainly should not be convicted if the trial were held today, and I would argue should not have been convicted previously (the absence of physical evidence and some of the testimony was dubious right from the start). Yet in the American system, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant once he or she is convicted, and the bar is set very high: "But the judge overseeing the hearing, William T. Moore Jr., decided that in order to overturn the original jury verdict, Davis needed not only to cast doubt on the evidence against him, but to provide 'clear and compelling' proof of his innocence. In an August 2010 ruling dismissing Davis' appeal, he declared that while the state's case 'may not be ironclad,' Davis failed to make a showing of 'actual innocence' and thus should not be granted a new trial. The evidentiary hearing was the first such legal proceeding in more than 50 years."

I think that this position (which may be legally accurate) is logically unsound*. Why isn't a new trial the place to show "actual innocence" in a "clear and compelling" manner? I am highly critical of aspects of the Italian system, but this is one area where the American system does not recommend itself relative to the Italian one. Although I strongly hope the someone does the right thing in the Davis case (and stays the execution), I think that this case and the Todd Willingham case indicate that there is a problem under the present laws for inmates who uncover exculpatory evidence that falls short of proof of innocence.
*perhaps "problematic" or "paradoxical" is closer to my meaning than "logically unsound."

I'm actually ambivalent on the two-trial system in Italy. Yes, it's true that it gives the defence a chance to see the outcome of the first trial and tailor a strategy for the appeal trial. But I think that there's actually nothing wrong with a one-trial system, provided that this one trial is conducted properly, exhaustively and justly. And it's worth remembering too that if there are any inherent faults in the justice system, a two-trial system is not a panacea for such faults. And in the anglo-saxon system, one can argue that preliminary hearings, arraignments or grand jury hearings essentially fulfill a similar role to that of the first trial in the Italian system (with the main difference being that prosecutors cannot appeal acquittals at that stage).

Regarding post-conviction appeals (where the situation in Italy is actually similar to that in the anglo model), I think it's proper that the burden of proof should shift to the convicted party to show that either that there were misapplications of law, or that new evidence has come to light that would probably have altered the outcome of the original trial if it had been known at that time. But it's my opinion (and the opinion of many seasoned commentators) that appeal judges in this scenario often act in a reactionary, protectionist and conservative manner. They are very often minded to require that the convicted party proves his/her innocence, when this is not actually required for the appeal courts to set aside the trial verdict. Appeal judges should actually quash a conviction if serious breaches/irregularities/malpractice at the original trial can be proven - provided that it can be concluded that a fair trial might reasonably have acquitted. There should be no need whatsoever to prove innocence. And if new evidence comes to light which might have led to acquittal in the original trial, the proper remedy is to order a retrial.

It's a shame - and an intractable problem - that in most jurisdictions (including the US and UK, and I suspect Italy too) the post-conviction appeal system doesn't work in the optimal way. I suspect it will ever be thus, although the publicity surrounding wrongful convictions has hopefully had some influence on the mindset of appeal court judges around the world. I am still ashamed to read Lord Lane's ruling as he threw the first Birmingham 6 appeal out - I hope that appeal court judges in this day and age would not be quite so belligerent, reactionary or credulous.

 

[Rolfe]

Point of information. It was Lord Denning.

Rolfe.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Reforms

Speaking of the death penalty, here's a question I've been asking:

If required to choose between these two, which one would you pick:

1) Execute an actual murderer, or

2) Wrongfully imprison someone for 26 years for a murder he did not commit

If you would choose to imprison instead of execute, how many innocent people, for how many years, would you imprison to save one murderer's life?

If you would choose to execute instead of wrongfully imprison, how many murderers would you execute to save one innocent person from serving 26 years in prison?

I hear people talking about the barbarity of the death penalty, but isn't it just as barbaric to maintain a legal system where the prosecution is free to manipulate evidence and public opinion, and through incompetency and artifice to destroy, neglect and hide exculpatory evidence, and to use these powers to achieve the imprisonment of innocent people?

Diocletus,

I hope I never have to face the problem you set forth. However, imprisoning someone wrongly for life, or even for 26 years, is such a terrible thing as to be almost beyond contemplation. Let me put my cards on the table. I think that the Knox/Sollecito, Misseri, and Federico Aldrovandi cases probably show systemic problems in the Italian justice system (based upon a report from Amnesty International some years ago). I hope that the Italian people undertake appropriate reforms.

Some have tried to portray Knox's American supporters as a bunch of Chauvinists. However, I do not believe that the American system (or British system) is necessarily better overall. That is too broad a judgment for me; I lack enough information to make such a call. The Timothy Cole, Norfolk Four, and West Memphis Three cases (in addition to the ones I have already mentioned) should be enough to keep Americans busy reforming their system. I say, "Let's have a race to the top."
ETA
I agree with LondonJohn's view (as I understand it) that a one-trial system could be made to function better than it does.

 

[LondonJohn]

Point of information. It was Lord Denning.

Rolfe.

It was both of these fusty old reactionaries actually.

Denning did indeed make an egregiously dreadful ruling in the 1980 appeal, in which he made the following observation in listing his reasons for denying the appeal:

Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial ... If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. ... That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, "It cannot be right that these actions should go any further".

It's horrific to read with the benefit of hindsight.

But Lane was actually the lead judge in that notorious failed appeal. He made the following observation in his writings denying the appeal:

The longer this case has gone on, the more convinced this court (the Court of Appeal) has become that the verdict of the jury (at the original trial in 1975) was correct.

 

[Rolfe]

A few weeks ago I attended a public lecture given by a well-known novelist about the Lockerbie affair. The lecture was clear, coherent and well-argued. At the end the chairman, a senior politician who is also a lawyer, began to attack the speaker in a condescending and frankly insulting manner. His basic premise was that he, as a lawyer, understood these things far better than mere laymen, and of course we (most of the audience agreed with the speaker) were wrong.

I have never in my life encountered such a breathtaking display of closed-mindedness. It was quite genuinely educational. The more so when I had a chance to question the chairman directly, and he continued his arrogance, condescension and veiled insults. He went from stonewalling ("I don't agree" with no reasons given) to sneering shakes of the head, to flat-out lying (when I quoted a section from the appeal judgement to him, he said "that's not the case").

Part of his thesis was that we mere mortals might think a jury would have acquitted (it was a non-jury trial), but judges know better than juries, having such great experience in reading the credibility of witnesses and being able to see a pattern rather than unpick individual parts of the evidence.

I know juries can come to some damn-fool decisions, but after listening to that lot, I would never, ever contemplate waiving my right to a jury trial - innocent or guilty.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

By a strange coincidence, the Discovery Science channel here in UK is right now re-running the "Secrets of Interrogation" programme that features the improperly-coerced false confession from Roberto Rocha. The comparisons with the Knox situation are many: the police became convinced that Rocha was either part of or party to the murder of a girl. They based this belief on the fact that they discovered that one of the other suspects phoned Rocha's number shortly before the murder.

The police hauled Rocha in and told him they had evidence that he knew all about the murder, and that he was hiding things from the police. Rocha said he knew nothing at all about the murder, and that he wasn't there when it happened. The police told him that if he didn't tell them everything he knew, then he'd end up in very deep trouble. After a protracted period of very aggressive interrogation, Rocha broke and confessed to being party to the killing, and to witnessing the other police suspects committing the actual murder.

The truth was actually very different. It was subsequently proven that Rocha had in fact been in Brazil - thousands of miles away - on the day of the murder. It's proof positive of how improper police tactics can lead to coerced false confessions/accusations. And I believe a not-dissimilar thing happened to Knox.

Here is the video of the interrogation and the false confession/accusation:

http://www.yourdiscovery.com/video/secrets-of-interrogation-admission-of-guilt/

 

[Chris_Halkides]

manipulation of public opinion

I hear people talking about the barbarity of the death penalty, but isn't it just as barbaric to maintain a legal system where the prosecution is free to manipulate evidence and public opinion, and through incompetency and artifice to destroy, neglect and hide exculpatory evidence, and to use these powers to achieve the imprisonment of innocent people?

Diocletus,

I agree with you that the manipulation of public opinion and withholding of potentially exculpatory evidence in this case are extremely serious deviations from the principle of the right to a fair trial. Even though Italy does not have the death penalty, incarcerating someone for 25-30 years effectively ruins their life, for reasons I have previously given. Sadly, prosecutors who put people away wrongfully for the sake of their careers can be found in more than one city.

When I was commenting here on another thread about this case, non-American commenters threw the death penalty at me. I happen to oppose it; other Knox supporters approve of it. I do not consider it to be the aspect of the American system that is its worst or the one most in need of reform. I would say that a system that abolished the death penalty but failed to reform these problems would gain nothing substantial. Putting it another way, if Cameron Todd Willingham were spared execution but simply locked up for life and forgotten about, with no reform of arson forensics, I would fail to see that as a significant improvement.* Moreover, the people who were bringing it up were not making a satisfactory argument (this ties into the whole Chauvinism thing). Whether or not the death penalty is wrong is not germane to the question of whether or not Knox and Sollecito are factually guilty or should be found legally culpable for this murder.
EDT
*Conversely if Knox and Sollecito are released but forensic police still refuse to turn over electronic data files and machine logs, it will only be a matter of (not much) time until someone else is wrongfully convicted. I would be happy for Knox and Sollecito, but I would wish for more.

 

[RoseMontague]

It was pointed out to me that it was very significant that Judge Hellman did not choose to review certain pieces of evidence. My sources indicate this is because he feels the rest of the so called evidence doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

 

[RoseMontague]

I am not going to embarrass myself by making wild uninformed guesses when there are so many here who are experts at it.

I like the way Kaosium put this:

There's a reason your buddies exploded, why there's all those books, a movie out already and more in store for the future. You may never see anything quite like this happen ever again, at least as reflected on the internet. This is one where everything is backwards, where very little is quite as it seems at first glance...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7442416&postcount=451

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The McPhail family

I think that this passage is germane to the present case: "That the board did not see that doubt may well have something to do with the impassioned advocacy of McPhail's family, whose grief and determination that [Troy] Davis should be executed for the crime have always been a highlight of the prosecution's case."

 

[Poppy1016]

Hi Rose
I sure hope your sources are reliable lol