Legal reasoning for Knox case released

[Thanas]

Since the previous thread on this is a year old:

Italy’s highest court acquitted Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito of the 2007 murder of the British university student Meredith Kercher, because there were “stunning flaws” in the investigation that led to their convictions, according to judges’ legal reasoning.

A panel of judges at the court of cassation in Rome found that the state’s case against the pair, who were definitively cleared of murder in March, lacked enough evidence to prove their wrongdoing beyond reasonable doubt, and cited a complete lack of “biological traces” in connection to the crime.

The 52-page legal motivazioni, published on Monday, detailed the reasons for the acquittal of Knox, a US exchange student, and Sollecito, who each served four years in prison for Kercher’s murder before they were released and then retried.

Releasing the details involved in a court decision months after a verdict has been announced is common practice in Italy’s highest court.

“The trial had oscillations which were the result of stunning flaws, or amnesia, in the investigation and omissions in the investigative activity,” the judges wrote.

They also said that the murder investigation was ultimately hindered by the fact that investigators were under pressure to come up with answers once the case was prominently covered in media around the world.

“The international spotlight on the case in fact resulted in the investigation undergoing a sudden acceleration, that, in the frantic search for one or more guilty parties to consign to international public opinion, certainly didn’t help the search for substantial truth,” the judges wrote.

They also criticised prosecutors and lower court judges for failing to establish a clear theory on what would have prompted Knox, who is now 28, and Sollecito, 31, to commit the murder, and that they instead had bought into a “theory of complicity” – suggesting, for instance, that Knox had been resentful of her flatmate – with few facts to back them up.

The judges denounced the prosecutors’ argument that there was not more physical evidence linking Knox and Sollecito to the crime because they had selectively cleaned the crime scene as illogical. Such an act would have been impossible, they said.

Instead of being wary of the lack of evidence, the judges said the lower court in Perugia that initially found Knox and Sollecito guilty in 2009 had ignored experts who had “clearly demonstrated possible contamination”. The lower court had also misinterpreted evidence about the knife that prosecutors argued was the murder weapon.

They said evidence pointed to the guilt of one man – Rudy Guede, a drifter from Ivory Coast, who received a 16-year prison sentence for Kercher’s murder following a fast-track trial in 2008. At the time of his conviction, it was stated that he did not act alone. In their decision, the judges said Guede may have had accomplices but that prosecutors had not proven them to have been Knox or Sollecito.

The judges added that the only crime of which Knox was guilty was the false accusation she made to police days after her roommate was killed, in which she blamed her boss, Diya “Patrick” Lumumba, a bar owner, for the crime. Lumumba spent two weeks in jail before he was exonerated. Although the charge carried a three-year sentence, it was deemed moot because of the time Knox had already spent in prison.

On Monday Carlo Dalla Vedova, one of Knox’s lawyers, said the judges’ explanation was tantamount to a “great censure, a note of solemn censure of all the investigators”. Speaking about his client, the lawyer told AP: “She is very satisfied and happy to read this decision. At the same time, it’s a very sad story. It’s a sad story because Meredith Kercher is no longer with us, and this is a tragedy nobody can forget,” he added.

The Knox case became a media circus in Italy and was the subject of intense attention in the world press, which nicknamed the young American “Foxy Knoxy”. A native of Washington state, she was portrayed both as a harmless innocent and a sex-crazed killer.

The case began on 2 November 2007, when the body of Kercher, a 21-year-old Leeds University student from Surrey, was found in the bedroom of the flat she shared with Knox in Perugia, central Italy, where both were studying. Her throat had been cut and she had been sexually assaulted.

Kercher’s family expressed profound dismay when Knox and Sollecito were acquitted in March. At the time, the family’s lawyer, Francesco Maresca, called the decision a “defeat for the Italian justice system”.

Today, the case itself – and the fact that Knox and Sollecito were found guilty, not guilty and then guilty again before finally seeing their case thrown out – is seen by many as an indictment of the Italian court system.

The case continues to captivate people’s interest, but the court said there was no possibility that Kercher’s murder would be investigated again. It would be impossible to offer, at this late stage, any more “answers of certainty”.

Raise your hand if you saw this coming?

[Frank the Tank]

I did, but then it was obvious to anybody who read any of the evidence reports, trial reports, forensic analysis, etc., that the prosecution's case was rancid tripe. I recall that there was quite a division on this board six or seven years ago between many of the European members (who defended the prosecution as fair, balanced, and based on high quality investigating and DNA analysis) and many of the American members (who felt pretty much the opposite). I'm curious whether the people who believed in her guilt back then still feel that way or not.

[Simon_Jester]

[raises hand]

Saw it coming. As the Italians' courts have now determined, the prosecution committed several of the classic "this is how not to run a prosecution" blunders, the court fell for it, and a great deal of time and energy was wasted by all.

I also feel vaguely vindicated in my contention that it wastes time and energy to have have the courts hear appeals in a criminal case against a defendant whose appeal just succeeded... it certainly did in this case.

[Grumman]

I'm curious whether the people who believed in her guilt back then still feel that way or not.

I've seen at least one idiot try to argue that since the police succeeded in browbeating a potential witness into making a false accusation against her boss by subjecting her to hours of unrecorded interrogations without counsel, this is evidence that she should still be considered a suspect.

[Lord Revan]

I wonder how much of that is however just poorly disguised hatred towards USA, so that if they could get away with it these would argue that being US citizen is proof enough of guilt.

FYI:I'm not US citizen myself and I can definetly understand why USA can cause such hate since at worst Americans are arrogant self-righteous jerks that are quick to judge anyone who doesn't belong to their group as inferior but I also know that not all US citizens are like that and we shouldn't judge a whole country by the "bad apples".

[Thanas]

Uh....this is just the opinion of the court that was promised several years ago. The decision was already made. So the thread title is wrong. I'll fix it.

I also feel vaguely vindicated in my contention that it wastes time and energy to have have the courts hear appeals in a criminal case against a defendant whose appeal just succeeded... it certainly did in this case.

....
how did you ever pass statistics?

[Simon_Jester]

A vague sense of vindication is not the same as saying "this one instance is ironclad proof."

If you once told someone their refusal to plan ahead was going to ruin their life, and their refusal to plan ahead causes one bad thing... would you say "I told you so?" Would you even feel tempted to say "I told you so?" Because I'll be honest, I would.

I would certainly not say "my knowledge of statistics tells me that one incident is not data, so it is irrelevant that bad things are resulting from this man's failure to plan ahead, it has nothing to do with whether failure to plan ahead will literally ruin his life."

Maybe that makes me a bad person, but I do not think it does. Honestly, I'd be grossly surprised to learn that you never feel a sense of vindication (even a vague one) when you find that something you thought was a wrongful waste of time turns out to be a wrongful waste of time in a particular case.

[TheHammer]

This was a case that I had followed for a while, and I am glad to see the final ruling firmly rooted in logic and common sense. It was pretty clear that this was an attempted railroad job from the start by the prosecutor. Once you were able to separate the facts from the rumors you realize that they had TONS of solid evidence against Guede, and absolutely nothing of substance against Knox/Sollecito while putting forth the theory that the tree were "accomplices in committing the act". That alone should have lead to this acquittal in the very first trial.

[Flagg]

Her guilt or innocence was never much of an issue for me, TBH. My personal opinion was that she and her "boyfriend" had nothing to do with the murder of Meridith Kertcher and that if they did, then they were criminal geniuses who pulled it off perfectly in every technical detail and then had massive IQ reducing strokes after the fact, but before speaking to investigators.

My issue was the ignorant gnashing of teeth and flinging of feces by virtually the entire American media (especially locally here in the Seattle area) and thus most Americans who couldn't seem to fathom the idea that different countries have different legal systems and that they are in no fucking way, shape, or form beholden to the U.S. Justice System. Hell, just look at some of the hilarity here on this subject in past threads, it's fucking awesome.

Of course if her name had been Alashonda King under the same circumstances, no one, even in Seattle (aside from her family), would have given a flying fuck. But an attractive blonde American from an upper-middle class family? How dare they?!

[Melchior]

I wonder how much of that is however just poorly disguised hatred towards USA, so that if they could get away with it these would argue that being US citizen is proof enough of guilt.

FYI:I'm not US citizen myself and I can definetly understand why USA can cause such hate since at worst Americans are arrogant self-righteous jerks that are quick to judge anyone who doesn't belong to their group as inferior but I also know that not all US citizens are like that and we shouldn't judge a whole country by the "bad apples".

This isn't actually conforming to reality. Despite the media circus being mostly around Knox (due to increased clickbait potential linked to, well, rank misogyny, really) american transfer students are generally regarded benevolently (if not taken very seriously - the stereotype is that you can generally find them passed out drunk in clubs). As far as I know there exist absolutely no pattern of judiciary persecution of US citizens, the court system is just slow and convoluted for everyone (would still feel safer being tried here than in the USA).
Absent the media, the one that would elicit more public hatred is surely Sollecito (hugely entitled blowhard from a "prominent" family, etc.).

[Replicant]

I seem to remember at least one self righteous poster in this form (cough cough Thanas) who seemed to enjoy pointing out his superior sources and how it proved she was guilty the entire time.

Enjoy the crow, happy to see that justice was finally served.

[Lord Revan]

I wonder how much of that is however just poorly disguised hatred towards USA, so that if they could get away with it these would argue that being US citizen is proof enough of guilt.

FYI:I'm not US citizen myself and I can definetly understand why USA can cause such hate since at worst Americans are arrogant self-righteous jerks that are quick to judge anyone who doesn't belong to their group as inferior but I also know that not all US citizens are like that and we shouldn't judge a whole country by the "bad apples".

This isn't actually conforming to reality. Despite the media circus being mostly around Knox (due to increased clickbait potential linked to, well, rank misogyny, really) american transfer students are generally regarded benevolently (if not taken very seriously - the stereotype is that you can generally find them passed out drunk in clubs). As far as I know there exist absolutely no pattern of judiciary persecution of US citizens, the court system is just slow and convoluted for everyone (would still feel safer being tried here than in the USA).
Absent the media, the one that would elicit more public hatred is surely Sollecito (hugely entitled blowhard from a "prominent" family, etc.).

I was referring to the public option about the case in the internet not about how people are actually behaving.

that said it seems the police seemed to screw up the investigation big like here, so regardless of guilt Knox should been let go here simply due to the poor handling of the case. After all it's not that guilt of the suspect that matters but rather whether you can prove it or not.

[Thanas]

I seem to remember at least one self righteous poster in this form (cough cough Thanas) who seemed to enjoy pointing out his superior sources and how it proved she was guilty the entire time.

Enjoy the crow, happy to see that justice was finally served.

I've always said that if she were innocent, the Italian justice system would say so and to wait for the final release of judgement. Glad to see your reading comprehension is still as poor as it was then.

[Edi]

To add a comment of my own, this sort of judicial review is the entire fucking reason we have such a tiered system in most European countries, where also new evidence will be concerned at the appeals levels if it comes to light.

Knox finally got vindicated and she got returned home a long while ago, so it's not as if she was rotting in an Italian prison up until this decision. Now she also has a clean slate as far as the Italian system is concerned.

Contrast with the US "justice" system, where if you so much as scratch the surface, you run into numerous stories of outright prosecutorial misconduct, people rotting on death row for crimes they did not commit and not being released for years despite evidence they're innocent, newly turned up evidence being ignored at higher levels because, a rigged jury selection process, grand juries that can't get indictments for trial even in clearcut cases and all kinds of bullshit.

Yet because there was one case involving an American citizen that got dragged out in a European court and ultimately turned out correctly, there's all this hurf-durfing and sanctimoniousness by some of the Americans here. Yet if the case were reverse, a European caught in the wheels of the US legal system, they sure as fuck would never have been released to return home before the SCOTUS decision came down.

So Replicant and the rest of his ilk, go fuck yourselves with a rusty sawblade. I'll take any West European justice system over the US one any day without even needing to think about it.

[Simon_Jester]

To add a comment of my own, this sort of judicial review is the entire fucking reason we have such a tiered system in most European countries, where also new evidence will be concerned at the appeals levels if it comes to light...

Contrast with the US "justice" system, where if you so much as scratch the surface, you run into numerous stories of... all kinds of bullshit.

Well, yes. The US has a tiered system of courts- there are appeals courts, and you are supposed to be able to appeal your case if there is a miscarriage of justice. But the actual appeals process is crippled by a variety of factors.

European nations have a tiered system too, with a less crippled appeals process- and a good thing, too!

Personally, my own commentary on the issue, so far as I can recall, boiled down to two things:

1) Remarks along the lines of "wow, there must have been something wrong with the Italian officials trying to build the case against Sollecito and Knox," a position which appears to have been correct although I can't claim it required any great insight on my part to arrive at that conclusion.

2) Remarks along the lines of "I think it better if an appeals court does not permit the prosecution to re-open the case." This second issue earned me some flak, and, well...

...one case involving an American citizen that got dragged out in a European court and ultimately turned out correctly, there's all this hurf-durfing and sanctimoniousness by some of the Americans here. Yet if the case were reverse, a European caught in the wheels of the US legal system, they sure as fuck would never have been released to return home before the SCOTUS decision came down.

Nitpick: if the same situation had occurred (first court finds them guilty, second court finds them innocent), then in the American court system the European citizen would be free, that would be the end of the matter. There would be no question of the case moving on to a third or fourth court, once the defendant had won an appeal.

This is not to deny that the American court system is in many ways less reliable, less efficient, and inferior. In that single, solitary respect, though, I think there is something to be said for a specific practice adopted by (among others) US courts- namely, that of letting the defendant go after they have won an appeal.

[Frank the Tank]

Wow... even when he's wrong, Thanas is still a dick about it. And fucking Edi coming in with the reinforcement of dickishness.

Do you two always have to be assholes in tandem? Has it ever occurred to you to simply not be pricks?

EDIT: Christ, with that sort of behavior from moderators, no wonder there are only about 20 people left commenting on this board. Nobody needs to put up with this level of assholery.

[Thanas]

Wow... even when he's wrong, Thanas is still a dick about it. And fucking Edi coming in with the reinforcement of dickishness.

Do you two always have to be assholes in tandem? Has it ever occurred to you to simply not be pricks?

This is not to deny that the American court system is in many ways less reliable, less efficient, and inferior. In that single, solitary respect, though, I think there is something to be said for a specific practice adopted by (among others) US courts- namely, that of letting the defendant go after they have won an appeal.

I don't see why as it is nothing but an admission that you don't trust your judges to make a fair case.

[Grumman]

This is not to deny that the American court system is in many ways less reliable, less efficient, and inferior. In that single, solitary respect, though, I think there is something to be said for a specific practice adopted by (among others) US courts- namely, that of letting the defendant go after they have won an appeal.

I don't see why as it is nothing but an admission that you don't trust your judges to make a fair case.

There are two very important reasons:

One, because an ongoing criminal case is itself harmful to the defendant to the point where we must consider whether it violates the defendant's right to not be punished without due process. It is why we have a right to a speedy trial, and it is why we have the right to not be dragged back in, again and again, as long as the prosecution doesn't get an answer it likes. The prosecution has an obligation to not waste everyone's time by half-assing their job, and telling them they have only one shot at it forces them to take that obligation seriously.

Two, if there is confusion as to whether the defendant is innocent or guilty, it is far better to err on the side of finding them not guilty. If your standard of evidence for finding them guilty is "beyond a reasonable doubt", then an appellate court handing down a finding that clearly shows that they had doubt of their guilt - presumably reasonable doubt - then that in itself makes it impossible to reach the standard necessary for a guilty verdict.

[TheHammer]

Of course if her name had been Alashonda King under the same circumstances, no one, even in Seattle (aside from her family), would have given a flying fuck. But an attractive blonde American from an upper-middle class family? How dare they?!

Plenty of people of color have been freed through similar innocence project efforts. Your comment is completely out of place and as a quick google search will show to be clear, is complete bullshit.

As for the Europeans here who would prefer the European system of justice, they are entitled to their opinion. As for me: hell no. Being jerked around "guilty, innocent, guilty, innocent" is hardly what I'd consider to be a "good system". And then there are the other quirks such as jurors being allowed to discuss the case with journalists as the trial moves along that I find to be absolutely absurd. Please spare me the "they are professional and wouldn't be influenced". Such a statement defies common sense and ignores human nature. If they feel they got the "real story" from the media, how can that not influence their decision? Which is why you should not allow it to begin with. Not that the US system of justice is perfect, but still the one I'd prefer. But then I suppose we all prefer "the devil we know"...

But as to the trial itself, the thing that's so stark is that anyone could have found Knox and Sollecito guilty in the first place. The prosecution's case boiled down to "Amanda Knox acted weird" and that she gave a false confession (one obtained under duress and which in no way fit the evidence). Oh wait, I forgot that the confession was deemed inadmissible... Of course, since the jurors could just talk to the media I'm sure they heard all about it anyway, along with what a slut Amanda was which definitely meant she was guilty.

[Thanas]

I don't see why as it is nothing but an admission that you don't trust your judges to make a fair case.

There are two very important reasons:

One, because an ongoing criminal case is itself harmful to the defendant to the point where we must consider whether it violates the defendant's right to not be punished without due process. It is why we have a right to a speedy trial, and it is why we have the right to not be dragged back in, again and again, as long as the prosecution doesn't get an answer it likes.[/quote]

How is it being extraordinarily harmful if as soon as there is a not guilty verdict - no matter if there is an appeal or not - the defendant gets released? In fact, this is exactly what happened here. As soon as the first appeal overturned the courts decision Knox could - and did - leave the country.

The prosecution has an obligation to not waste everyone's time by half-assing their job, and telling them they have only one shot at it forces them to take that obligation seriously.

I'd like to see some numbers supporting the claim that the US has a lesser wrongful conviction rates than systems who do not follow that rule. Because the last time we discussed this the numbers said the exact opposite.

Two, if there is confusion as to whether the defendant is innocent or guilty, it is far better to err on the side of finding them not guilty. If your standard of evidence for finding them guilty is "beyond a reasonable doubt", then an appellate court handing down a finding that clearly shows that they had doubt of their guilt - presumably reasonable doubt - then that in itself makes it impossible to reach the standard necessary for a guilty verdict.

It doesn't, really. For example, anybody can make a mistake in judgement or law. That doesn't mean some truth is reached or facts are met, it means that there was an error. 2+2 doesn't became 3 if somebody says it is 5.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't see why as it is nothing but an admission that you don't trust your judges to make a fair case.

It is part of a systematic bias that in common law courts is built into the system- the presumption of innocence.

The Italian court rather explicitly enshrines the idea that the prosecution and defense are on an equal footing. This is the reasoning behind letting the prosecution make appeals.

(I can quote the Italian... I believe supreme court... on that)

My counter is that it is inherently impossible for this to be truly the case. The defendant will always have more at stake than the prosecution- at most the prosecution risks their reputation, while the defendant risks their freedom. The defendant can lose resources as a result of being involved in criminal proceedings- opportunity costs, if nothing else. The prosecution loses little save the time they explicitly get paid to use for this very purpose.

While there is a lot not to like about the common law system of justice and about how particular countries, including the US, implement it... the US version of this system does have at least one desirable feature, which the Italian court seems to lack, which is this particular rule in place banning the prosecution from appealing a finding of innocence. Which serves to protect the innocent from either accidentally being found guilty, or from being subjected to an unreasonable burden of time and stress associated with the uncertainties of a prolonged trial.

[No, this does not automatically make US trials speedy, because there are problems and limitations, I know, and pointing these out accomplishes nothing except to tu-quoque the argument to death]

And frankly, Thanas, I am completely baffled at how you translate "no appealing a finding of innocence" into "don't trust judges." Quite the contrary, I am deciding that there is an entire category of case (where the defendant is found not guilty) where the judges are to be trusted, and any applicable juries are as well, on the assumption that if they find the defendant not guilty they must have had sufficient reason to do so- that is, sufficient reason to doubt the defendant's guilt.

Once such reasons are found to the satisfaction of one court, I am prepared to consider that final and have no interest in finding another court that thinks there is no such room for doubt.

I'd like to see some numbers supporting the claim that the US has a lesser wrongful conviction rates than systems who do not follow that rule. Because the last time we discussed this the numbers said the exact opposite.

You would have to control for other variables- for instance, many parts of the US have elected prosecutors, which is an incredibly stupid thing to do and will obviously tend to increase the frequency of wrongful prosecutions due to reduced professionalism and a greater incentive for the prosecutor to make themselves look like a strong crime-fighter by wrongfully going after innocent people.

But it's as if I and Grumman are arguing that buildings should have fire sprinklers installed, and we argue that sprinklers are a good thing because they reduce the risk of major damaging fires. And you say "Ah, but in Boravia they do not have sprinklers, and in Slobbovia they DO have sprinklers, and yet in Slobbovia they have more major damaging fires! Clearly sprinklers make fires worse!"

There are a lot of rational explanations for why Slobbovia might have more fires in spite of having sprinkler systems mandated in its building code. It could be that there are a lot of building code violations in Slobbovia. The country might have a history of dry weather and lightning-started forest fires. The country might have a cultural predisposition toward arson. Who knows? But you can't simply say "A has Problem X worse than B does, therefore literally every measure A uses to combat the problem is ineffective and inferior."

That is simply not how logic works. There are plenty of explanations for why "A has problem X worse than B does" which do not require that literally every part of A's system be inferior to literally every part of B's system.

Two, if there is confusion as to whether the defendant is innocent or guilty, it is far better to err on the side of finding them not guilty. If your standard of evidence for finding them guilty is "beyond a reasonable doubt", then an appellate court handing down a finding that clearly shows that they had doubt of their guilt - presumably reasonable doubt - then that in itself makes it impossible to reach the standard necessary for a guilty verdict.

It doesn't, really. For example, anybody can make a mistake in judgement or law. That doesn't mean some truth is reached or facts are met, it means that there was an error. 2+2 doesn't became 3 if somebody says it is 5.

Except in the most gross cases of incompetent reasoning, this has no bearing on the "reasonable doubt" standard.

If I say that you are innocent because 2+2=3, then yes, I have clearly made a mistake.

If I say that you are innocent because the physical evidence is unconvincing and it would be totally out of character with your entire past life over a period of decades for you to commit the crime in the first place... NO, I have not 'obviously' made a mistake. Some other person may disagree with me, or may feel that I inadequately weighted some piece of evidence against you. But we have still got a presumably reasonable person who believes that you are not guilty.

If the Italian courts have such a problem with the lower courts finding defendants innocent "because 2+2=3" or some similarly stupid thing, so that prosecutors need the appeals to avoid routine, gross miscarriages of justice dumping huge numbers of criminals on the street... then frankly, that's a serious problem with the competence and professionalism of the Italians' lower courts.

But if the Italian courts instead have prosecutors using their appeals because they feel the lower court improperly weighted the evidence, or threw out something the prosecutor thinks should have been heeded... then the Italian courts are being professional, but by definition that means reasonable bodies of jurists are looking at these cases and deciding on innocence.

In which case a later court cannot reasonably come back and say "there is no realistic way this person could have been innocent." That standard of evidence for guilt simply cannot survive a case where the defendant has already been acquitted by a competent judge and/or jury.

Which is exactly why I favor not giving the prosecution an appeal in criminal trials.

[Elheru Aran]

The problem with the American method is that it does allow the occasional guilty person to escape via a mistrial, locked jury, or simply being found innocent by virtue of either an competent lawyer, an easily swayed jury, or a lack of evidence. This is patently visible in cases such as OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony. They're rare, but they do happen, and there's no easy legal way to penalize them for the crime when either it's obvious they were guilty and they just managed to get lucky (Casey Anthony) or the evidence proving their guilt doesn't emerge until later. Or in OJ's case, he wrote a book that more or less told it all from a 'fiction' perspective...

[Thanas]

It is part of a systematic bias that in common law courts is built into the system- the presumption of innocence.

I get the feeling that I am talking to a particularly dumb brick wall here. Because this is word for word your argument from last time, where you were corrected on the Continental system having this as well. If in doubt, the tie goes to the accused.

My counter is that it is inherently impossible for this to be truly the case. The defendant will always have more at stake than the prosecution- at most the prosecution risks their reputation, while the defendant risks their freedom. The defendant can lose resources as a result of being involved in criminal proceedings- opportunity costs, if nothing else. The prosecution loses little save the time they explicitly get paid to use for this very purpose.

Brick wall again. You have yet to make an argument why not sacrificing opportunity costs is worth more than the best and most thorough pursuit of truth a system can have.

BTW, I still await your proof that the US system produces less wrongful convictions.

Which serves to protect the innocent from either accidentally being found guilty, or from being subjected to an unreasonable burden of time and stress associated with the uncertainties of a prolonged trial.

Can you actually prove that the US system results in less costs and less time lost for the average defendant? Because I have a hard time believing that, what with the absurd numbers US lawyers can and do charge. And that this protects against being accidentally found guilty is a bit rich without any numbers to prove that this is indeed the case.

And frankly, Thanas, I am completely baffled at how you translate "no appealing a finding of innocence" into "don't trust judges." Quite the contrary, I am deciding that there is an entire category of case (where the defendant is found not guilty) where the judges are to be trusted, and any applicable juries are as well, on the assumption that if they find the defendant not guilty they must have had sufficient reason to do so- that is, sufficient reason to doubt the defendant's guilt.

So if you trust the judges, then why not trust that their judgement will hold up? Because that is literally what you are saying here - "One cannot trust that another set of more experienced judges will see it the same way".

Once such reasons are found to the satisfaction of one court, I am prepared to consider that final and have no interest in finding another court that thinks there is no such room for doubt.

Are you deliberately making this sound like the prosecution can just appeal whatever they like? If so, you are one dishonest twat, considering this has been pointed out to you multiple times that this is not the case.

You would have to control for other variables- for instance, many parts of the US have elected prosecutors, which is an incredibly stupid thing to do and will obviously tend to increase the frequency of wrongful prosecutions due to reduced professionalism and a greater incentive for the prosecutor to make themselves look like a strong crime-fighter by wrongfully going after innocent people.

Or maybe the system of not allowing a judgement to be challenged is just bad.

But it's as if I and Grumman are arguing that buildings should have fire sprinklers installed, and we argue that sprinklers are a good thing because they reduce the risk of major damaging fires.

I am disappointed that your lack of logic has gotten so bad that you now equate a 100% safety-enhancing and near-failsafe mechanical safety device with a legal procedure, when the value of said procedure is the core of what this argument is about. I mean, I might just as well go "you are saying that a bug-fixing procedure damages software quality" and it would be the same argument.

It doesn't, really. For example, anybody can make a mistake in judgement or law. That doesn't mean some truth is reached or facts are met, it means that there was an error. 2+2 doesn't became 3 if somebody says it is 5.

Except in the most gross cases of incompetent reasoning, this has no bearing on the "reasonable doubt" standard.

Clearly, the reasonable doubt standard is doing good work. Go ahead and claim that again with a straight face. I need more comedy in my life.

In which case a later court cannot reasonably come back and say "there is no realistic way this person could have been innocent." That standard of evidence for guilt simply cannot survive a case where the defendant has already been acquitted by a competent judge and/or jury.

This is quite clearly bullshit. If a case is strong enough to convict somebody, then it should be able to stand up to multiple examinations of that guilt. If a judge is of the opinion that there is reasonable doubt, then his explanation of how he came to that opinion should also be able to be scrutinized for errors of judgement or law. It is the only way to ensure that there are as little mistakes as possible.

[Flagg]

The U.S. inJustice System scares the ever loving fuck out of me, personally. You know why? If I were ever accused of a crime against a child along the lines of molestation, the fact that I'm a molestee would be used as a goddamned cudgel. The fact that I was put into a residential mental health facility at 13 for 6 months for depression and not walking away from fights only to get punched in the back of the head anymore, would be a stone placed around my neck (despite the fact that when I found out a fucking person on my quad, same age as me, was a molester and when I found out it took 5 grown men trained in restraining batshit crazy kids like me from taking his eyes (I got a few eyelashes. Wish it had been the 4'11" woman there or I'd have gotten a lid, well I did at the time, anyway, grateful now). My porn predilections and permavirgin status (it's not that disgusting (IMO) legal aged women looking like young girls or anything, just not mainstream) would also be used against me. Not because it would be relevant, just because character assassination in order to gain a conviction is not common in the U.S. inJustice system, it's the way Persecutors get convictions in this country when there's no actual, you know, evidence.

Honestly, the only aspect of the U.S. inJustice system that I find admirable in general is the concept of double jeopardy (which I have a suspicion is not an American invention) but I think it should be tweaked so that if at a later time a "smoking gun" (like the guy who got away with raping and torturing women to death only for a roll of film at his former home to be found by the new owners showing his unequivocal guilt in 35mm in a hidden compartment in the floor of his former den that dozens of apparently incompetent authority searches missed) is found that proves without any doubt whatsoever the defendants guilt. But it would have to rise to that level of evidence for me to be comfortable since it seems like these days the vast, vast, vaaaaaaast amount of persecutors only care about winning in the U.S.

[TheHammer]

I think the adversarial and inquisitorial systems both have their benefits and drawbacks, and quite frankly they could probably benefit a lot by borrowing ideas from the other. There may be a system in Europe that blends the best of inquisitorial and adversarial systems, but its not in Italy.

The main issues I have with the Italian system are that there doesn't seem to be any check against outside information influencing the jurors. You've got a major media circus surrounding a case with half truths and misinformation, and jurors are allowed to read and talk about it outside of the trial? I think that's an aspect they should take from the American system wherein you do not allow jurors to discuss the case, or seek information about the case outside of trial. The notion that they can divorce themselves from what they heard outside of trial and not have it influence the outcome is not logical. No matter how "professional they may be" they are not robots.

The idea of having educated professional jurors in and of itself does sound like a better instrument of justice than "12 angry men". In this specific case, Italian Jury in the first and third trials showed themselves to be as dimwitted as the worst of American juries. Was that due to the media or other influence? I suspect its very possible. Because there is no fucking way a logical human being returns a guilty verdict based solely on the evidence presented at trial.