Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[bolint]

As reluctant as I am to side with Machiavelli over LJ, I'm afraid I have to agree that the mere use of the formula "for not having committed the act" in the announcement of the verdict does not indicate whether the acquittal is under 530.1 or 530.2. This will be specified only in the motivation document (since no mention was made in the announcement) .

To think that the above-mentioned formula distinguishes between 530.1 and 530.2 is a category error. According to my understanding, there are two independent "axes" of classification for acquittal verdicts. On the horizontal axis (let's say), you have the categories "For not having committed the act" (i.e. someone else did it), "Because the act does not exist" (e.g. if the victim turned out to be still alive), "Because the act does not constitute a crime" (e.g. perhaps if they killed the victim in self-defense), etc. Then, separately, on the vertical axis, you have 530.1 (finding of innocence) and 530.2 (insufficiency or contradictoriness of evidence of guilt). The wording of the announcement only served to mark place of the ruling on the horizontal axis, without saying anything about the vertical. The announcement of "For not having committed the act" meant that whatever reasonable doubt the court had (regardless of whether or not it was of a sufficient level to justify a 530.1 finding) had to do with whether Knox and Sollecito were responsible for Meredith's murder as opposed to someone else, not with e.g. whether Meredith was murdered in the first place, or whether she was killed with homicidal intent.

In fact, my suspicion is that the upholding of the Lumumba slander charge is a signal that this will turn out to be a 530.2 acquittal.

I also argued along these lines, but I see now that almost all Italian newspapers take it for granted that it was 530.1.
Is it just copycat journalism?

Logically, however, I can't imagine that the judges can deduce with absolute certainty that they did not commit it.
That would be even more difficult than Massei's effort to deduce that they did.

 

[Verklagekasper]

There are so many people absolutely convinced she's innocent even though she has been lying all along about events of the evening and even accused an innocent man of murder (who was released because the police did their job, not because she retracted her accusasion).

You aren't too picky about the people you treat like rock stars, are you?

Well, please don't send any more students abroad. kthx

 

[Katody Matrass]

There's also the ridiculous theory that she will be compensated for wrongful imprisonment. Nah, she will have to get by with the millions she will get on the talk circuit.

She didn't receive justice but I wish she'll make millions.

BTW lionking, do you still think there was a huge conspiracy to frame her?

 

[Micromegas]

One other thing you may wish to take into consideration is things like Amanda accusing a black man to save herself, and that she was 'cold' after the murder were disseminated for the purpose of suggesting to people like yourself that she was guilty of murder, they do not stand scrutiny

Well, you still haven't established that the psychologically-questionable notion of coerced confession even applies here, because Knox never confessed. She accused an innocent person. The notion that the police suggested Lumumba, and Knox developed a false memory after a few hours of interrogation, is one I think could only come from an imagination desperate to save poor, cute Ms. Knox from being put in a bad light.

Look, I don't think Knox was guilty. But the "coerced confession" bit from her supporters always left a bad taste in my mouth.

-Mike

 

[lionking]

She didn't receive justice but I wish she'll make millions.

BTW lionking, do you still think there was a huge conspiracy to frame her?

Ask someone who cares.

The only things I'm interested in since the verdict are the "sore winner" phenomenon, and the illusion by some that "we" did it. As I said in another thread, outraged responses to my posts have given me a real laugh. This thread keeps on giving.

 

[komponisto]

Well, you still haven't established that the psychologically-questionable notion of coerced confession even applies here, because Knox never confessed. She accused an innocent person. The notion that the police suggested Lumumba, and Knox developed a false memory after a few hours of interrogation, is one I think could only come from an imagination desperate to save poor, cute Ms. Knox from being put in a bad light.

Look, I don't think Knox was guilty. But the "coerced confession" bit from her supporters always left a bad taste in my mouth.

-Mike

In the phrase "coerced confession", the important word is "coerced", not "confession". (A coerced confession is more similar to a coerced non-confession than to a non-coerced confession.)

 

[Katody Matrass]

I also argued along these lines, but I see now that almost all Italian newspapers take it for granted that it was 530.1.
Is it just copycat journalism?

Logically, however, I can't imagine that the judges can deduce with absolute certainty that they did not commit it.
That would be even more difficult than Massei's effort to deduce that they did.

No mention of "insufficient evidence" or second para in the verdict so by default it seems 530.1

Absolute certainty? I don't think the judges get that philosophical. If so, there would be no 530.1 at all.
I think it's the matter of findings of fact that the court made. They most certainly found that the break-in was typical Guede's act and was real, the footprint was Guede's, there was single attacker etc. If the court found the fact that Guede was the only perpetrator (The finding that there was no staging of the crime scene strongly indicates so) than common sense dictates 530.1

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well, you still haven't established that the psychologically-questionable notion of coerced confession even applies here, because Knox never confessed. She accused an innocent person. The notion that the police suggested Lumumba, and Knox developed a false memory after a few hours of interrogation, is one I think could only come from an imagination desperate to save poor, cute Ms. Knox from being put in a bad light.

On the contrary, this argument is purely semantic (it assumes that because "confession" and "accusation" are different words that the mechanisms that produce false confessions cannot produce false accusations), and it's also factually false. Some of the most famous cases of false confessions, such as the Norfolk Four case, had the false confessors making false accusations of each other.

Look, I don't think Knox was guilty. But the "coerced confession" bit from her supporters always left a bad taste in my mouth.

If you look into what is known to science about false confessions, nothing about her statement is in any way unusual for a false confession. If it leaves a bad taste in your mouth it's because you don't know enough about the matter.

 

[DrDave]

There's also the ridiculous theory that she will be compensated for wrongful imprisonment. Nah, she will have to get by with the millions she will get on the talk circuit.

As I heard the other day, she's going to teach us how to turn Kercher into Kerching.



(I'm so going to hell)

 

[Katody Matrass]

Ask someone who cares.

The only things I'm interested in since the verdict are the "sore winner" phenomenon, and the illusion by some that "we" did it. As I said in another thread, outraged responses to my posts have given me a real laugh. This thread keeps on giving.

You were very vocal about the vast conspiracy of cops and prosecutors. I was interested if you changed your mind.

Do you remember, you also wrote that you will apologise for calling Amanda "murderer" after the verdict. That would be a nice, humane gesture.



And I think there are no winners here, unless you're talking about winning an internet debate or a bet. This huge error of investigators and subsequent wrongful conviction dealt great additional pain to the Kercher family, damaged the lives of Amanda and Raffaele and their families. There is no way to truly compensate for this and there is little hope those responsible for this mistake will get punished.

 

[DrDave]

You were very vocal about the vast conspiracy of cops and prosecutors. I was interested if you changed your mind.

Do you remember, you also wrote that you will apologise for calling Amanda "murderer" after the verdict. That would be a nice, humane gesture.



And I think there are no winners here, unless you're talking about winning an internet debate or a bet. This huge error of investigators and subsequent wrongful conviction dealt great additional pain to the Kercher family, damaged the lives of Amanda and Raffaele and their families. There is no way to truly compensate for this and there is little hope those responsible for this mistake will get punished.

Compensate convicted criminal Amanda Knox? Why would you want to do that? She got 3 years and served 4, bfd.

 

[komponisto]

No mention of "insufficient evidence" or second para in the verdict so by default it seems 530.1

You think so? I'm not so sure about that. I think 530.2 makes more sense as a default, actually; and maybe 530.1 is reserved for extreme cases (which this actually is, but understanding of that fact isn't so common).

Absolute certainty? I don't think the judges get that philosophical. If so, there would be no 530.1 at all.
I think it's the matter of findings of fact that the court made. They most certainly found that the break-in was typical Guede's act and was real, the footprint was Guede's, there was single attacker etc. If the court found the fact that Guede was the only perpetrator (The finding that there was no staging of the crime scene strongly indicates so) than common sense dictates 530.1

They may have thought that the hypotheses that Guede was the sole perpetrator was plausible enough to constitute grounds for reasonable doubt.

Actually, for all I know, the possibility may even exist that Hellmann and Zanetti haven't yet settled on whether they're going to write it up under 530.1 or 530.2; this being merely a point of jurisprudence not affecting the status of Amanda and Raffaele, it may not have figured in the deliberations with the lay judges.

 

[RoseMontague]

At this point I really don't care what paragraph the judge based the ruling on. The practical result is that Raffaele and Amanda are free. That is something Machiavelli was wrong on, as well as the bra clasp additional profiles, the possibility of the court granting additional expert review, the court's opinion going into the DNA review on reasonable doubt, and the problems of discovery. It will be interesting to read the appeal court's motivation and if Machiavelli wants to cling to the possibility of paragraph 2, that is fine with me. I know what the judge said, and the result of his ruling. Personally, I think the Massei motivation will be ripped to shreds by Hellmann's motivation and in more areas than Curatolo and the DNA results.

My opinion is the chances of Amanda ever stepping inside another Italian prison are as close to zero as you can get. The Italian legal eagles at PMF were wrong about the appeal, the Machine's sources pretty stupid, and Popper's 1% chance of acquittal pretty funny in retrospect.

I find it amusing as well how the result is now blamed on this vast American PR machine when in the past the argument was that this criticism of how the case was handled would backfire with the appeal court. The argument of how great this Italian system of justice is has become how much it now needs in the way of reform, how fair the process is has become how political the decision was. All I can say is What-Ever, Raffaele is free and Amanda is back in the US.

 

[bolint]

Actually, the possibility may even exist that Hellmann and Zanetti haven't yet settled on whether they're going to write it up under 530.1 or 530.2.

That's what I think, too, they left it open and we will learn it from the Motivations.

 

[komponisto]

Compensate convicted criminal Amanda Knox? Why would you want to do that? She got 3 years and served 4, bfd.

4 - 3 = 1 year of legally undeserved prison time.

Or, in the case of fully-acquitted non-criminal Raffaele Sollecito, 4 - 0 = 4.

 

[komponisto]

At this point I really don't care what paragraph the judge based the ruling on. The practical result is that Raffaele and Amanda are free. That is something Machiavelli was wrong on, as well as the bra clasp additional profiles, the possibility of the court granting additional expert review, the court's opinion going into the DNA review on reasonable doubt, and the problems of discovery. It will be interesting to read the appeal court's motivation and if Machiavelli wants to cling to the possibility of paragraph 2, that is fine with me. I know what the judge said, and the result of his ruling. Personally, I think the Massei motivation will be ripped to shreds by Hellmann's motivation and in more areas than Curatolo and the DNA results.

My opinion is the chances of Amanda ever stepping inside another Italian prison are as close to zero as you can get. The Italian legal eagles at PMF were wrong about the appeal, the Machine's sources pretty stupid, and Popper's 1% chance of acquittal pretty funny in retrospect.

I find it amusing as well how the result is now blamed on this vast American PR machine when in the past the argument was that this criticism of how the case was handled would backfire with the appeal court. The argument of how great this Italian system of justice is has become how much it now needs in the way of reform, how fair the process is has become how political the decision was. All I can say is What-Ever, Raffaele is free and Amanda is back in the US.

I agree entirely.

However, I am bothered by the calunnia conviction. I really don't think Amanda deserves to be a "convicted criminal".

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I'm sure 100 people will come and slam me all over the place but I kind of feel like that's how it went down.

As you say at this point it's moot, and no good will come from 'slamming' those who still feel Sollecito and Knox were in some way involved. I hope you will believe me when I say that I am genuinely interested in understanding how people have come to be in your position.

Only she didn't die for two hours and in that time Amanda and her boyfriend came home and basically tormented her and watched her die.

I do not personally know anybody who would be capable of such hideous behavior, unless (or even if) there was extreme provocation. I'm sure there must be a few tortured souls out there who would do it, but what evidence is there that both Sollecito and Knox are in that club?

This is just an idea I've had in my mind for some time. But it does match up some of the things that didn't make sense to me. Like Amanda blaming the manager of the restaurant, and her saying she was in the kitchen holding her ears so she didn't hear her screaming.

Do you think that the initial idea came to you before hearing about these things, or was it afterward? My hunch is that the idea formed in your mind as various details of the case came out, and that at some point it created a narrative which tied them all together. Unfortunately however, many of the reported 'facts' were not exactly accurate, so it's not surprising that your feelings on 'how it went down' don't match what we now know to be true.

What I find curious - and somewhat disturbing - is how many people are apparently unable to abandon an idea that was formed from false or incomplete information. Once the wrong idea takes hold, it then reinforces itself by searching for corroborating evidence, and rejecting anything that conflicts with it. For some reason the effect seems to be particularly strong in murder cases.

Perhaps it is actually instinctive behavior. Once the suspect is identified as being a liar and a sociopath, nothing she can say or do will convince people otherwise - thus they are inoculated against her wiles. This may have worked reasonably well in primitive societies, where interaction was face-to-face, and a perpetrator might unintentionally signal their guilt via body language or intimate lies. But in this modern world we have several layers of filtering and distortion before the signals get to us...

 

[bolint]

There is no way to truly compensate for this

Giving back the shoes to Raffaele seems to be the most important step.

La Stampa with his father

E la rabbia trapela, a tratti, nelle lunghe conversazioni con il padre come quando il ragazzo spiega perché la notte del primo interrogatorio non ha pensato di chiamare un avvocato. «Avevo davanti la polizia e non potevo immaginare che non stesse lì anche per tutelare me come mi ha sempre insegnato mio padre. Non potevo certo immaginare che la polizia invece che salvaguardare i cittadini potesse esercitare azioni violente e coercitive». Parole amare, dure, che portano a quella notte quando Sollecito venne sottoposto, come dice il padre cercando di essere diplomatico, ad un «interrogatorio particolarmente energico, in condizioni di disagio fisico e psicologico». «Gli vennero anche tolte le scarpe». «E non voglio aggiungere altro», dice cupo questo padre che non ha mai smesso di lottare per riportarsi a casa il figlio.

 

[RoseMontague]

You think so? I'm not so sure about that. I think 530.2 makes more sense as a default, actually; and maybe 530.1 is reserved for extreme cases (which this actually is, but understanding of that fact isn't so common).



They may have thought that the hypotheses that Guede was the sole perpetrator was plausible enough to constitute grounds for reasonable doubt.

Actually, for all I know, the possibility may even exist that Hellmann and Zanetti haven't yet settled on whether they're going to write it up under 530.1 or 530.2; this being merely a point of jurisprudence not affecting the status of Amanda and Raffaele, it may not have figured in the deliberations with the lay judges.

If it were me, I would have given reasonable doubt on the murder charge and factual innocence on the knife, theft, and staging charges. When the report comes out I can read the report, cherish the report, quote the report, and I am looking forward to telling others to do the same. LOL.

ETA...Number Nine...Number Nine...Number Nine

 

[Katody Matrass]

Compensate convicted criminal Amanda Knox? Why would you want to do that? She got 3 years and served 4, bfd.

From the judicial point of view I think she's not a criminal until her conviction is confirmed in the final appeal. Even if so, there still is that extra year.

I think there is big difference between just serving an extra year and spending years fighting a wrong conviction of 20+ years for murder.

If you're suggesting that she's somehow responsible for the huge mistake of investigators and judiciary, than it's something I strongly disagree with.