Knox convicted for second time

[Melchior]

Why on earth should the prosecution be allowed to shop around until they find a panel of judges that will convict?

The prosecution can't shop around (nobody can, actually), there is a specific constitutional prohibition about moving cases from their "natural judge".

If brand new evidence were to show up, that would be one thing, but in this case it is moot. And even if it were not, such a thing is subject to abuse if permitted.

Almost everyone here seems to be confused by the concept of preliminary rulings. It happens for every single trial, which partly explains the slowness.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And I repeat, what better way to do that than to have several independent highly qualified bodies make a judgement on it? You are a scientist, so you should be familiar with the concept of peer review. What is better, one reviewer or three?

Bit of a bad example. A trial procedure bears more resemblance to a diagnostic procedure or specific experimental protocol than it does to a submitted manuscript. The goal is to correctly categorize a criminal defendant as guilty or not guilty, with as much certainty as possible. However, there are two types of error in the procedure. Type I error--incorrectly classifying an innocent person as guilty, and Type II error--incorrectly classifying a guilty person as innocent.

When procedures are designed, you can bias the procedure toward one of those two types of error, but you can never eliminate it. This is why medical tests (rapid HIV tests) are WAY more sensitive than they strictly need to be. In the context of a medical test, it is better to tell someone they have an illness that they dont have and treat it (provided the medication is safe) than it is to miss a diagnosis and have the patient die. Take HIV tests again. Any positive result (they have HIV) is confirmed with another test, because tests are so sensitive they can give false positives. But they almost never give false negatives so you dont need to retest in the event of those.

Transfer the same line of reasoning to the courts. It is, generally speaking, better to let a guilty person go free than it is to convict an innocent person. If you convict an innocent person, not only does the Real Criminal go free (which happens when you fail to convict a guilty person), but you have created a second victim who's life is ruined--and that is on your head (not you specifically. Third person you plural).

So, the court procedure should be biased such that if it is going to misclassify someone, it will misclassify someone who is guilty as innocent.

The US court system is designed to do that. The technology for doing it (to continue my analogy to medical diagnostics) is hopelessly out of date and there are other problems that make the courts bad at doing this (like the use of lay juries) but the procedures in terms of appeals and double jeopardy are designed for that purpose.

Yes and I think this is the problem. everybody knows the way the US system works. No american knows how the European system works.

Less the "knowing how the systems work" in this case, more "I have deeply internalized values regarding the administration of justice that may bias my reasoning"

No. Italy does not use an adversarial system. They are using a modified inquisitorial system with adversarial elements, such as the main case has to be made by the lawyers. This is a pretty good basic summary.

I actually did read that beforehand to make sure I was more or less correct. The elements of the procedure that are important (the prosecutor having professional investigators at their disposal etc) are similar enough that they are extensionally equivalent. The fact that this is a civil law court that borrowed from common law court procedures is insufficient to render my point void, because the things it borrowed are the very things I was discussing.

For example: If, in the Italian court system, a nominally impartial judge queried the evidence presented by the defense and prosecution who each had their own investigative branches of law enforcement and who both had full access to the results of eachother's inquiries, my point would be null and void. But it is not. Only the prosecution can collect evidence, which is then handed over to the defense.

It is still the full weight and might of the state vs one person on trial for their freedom and their legal bodyguard. My argument still stands, even if we want to quibble over semantics regarding the historical evolution of the court system.

Because everybody can make mistakes.

See above regarding how mistakes ought be biased.

They already did that by making sure that if the defendant appeals no harsher sentence than the original one might be handed down.

That does not address the problem, which is in the guilty/not guilty classification. Sentencing is another matter entirely. In other words: It does not matter if you sentence an innocent person to 25 years or increase the original sentence to 30. You have still sent an innocent person to prison, which you should categorically not do.

How could they shop around? Please look at the way the system is set up. I am sure you will find that mistake yourself.

My apologies. I misspoke. I will construct the argument differently.

This sort of thing happens in science to a distressing degree--especially when financial incentives are involved. If someone does not get the results they want, they may repeat their experiment until by chance, they get what they are looking for, and then publish the results. I will illustrate how this works

Set up a test. You want to know if there is some relationship between X and Y, where X is some sort of information, and Y is a binary outcome that serves as a proxy for something else (in the context of a trial X=trial evidence, Y=verdict, which is a proxy for G= actual guilt).

I am illustrating the principle here, so I am going to model this randomly. The numbers dont matter, just the illustration of principle.

Assume you have 9 replicates (Judges, Jurors, whatever. Does not matter for the purposes of the illustration. Which you use just changes the numbers around, not the general principle). You apply X to each Y (Y1-Y9) replicate simultaneously. In order to be sufficiently certain of guilt (because you are biasing in favor of releasing the guilty to avoid convicting innocent people), you need unanimous agreement among Y1-Y9.

Case 1. Assume no relationship between X and Y, the probability of each outcome for any given Yn is 50% (Assume evidence is weak and you have established only that the person COULD have committed the crime and are relying on subjective evaluations by Y1-Y9. Assume that the person really is innocent. But you, the prosecutor, do not know this).


Do a bit of math... and the chance that Y1-Y9 will all come up 1 is .0019
(in other words, you can convict this innocent person ~1 time in 500)

Modified procedure for non-unanimity:
Assume that instead of a unanimous verdict, you only need a 2/3rds majority. This probability is .254, which is WAY the fuck too high for any definition of justice. You will convict this innocent person of the time.

Case 2. Now, assume that there is a weaker positive relationship between X and Y, such that the probabilities change, and the probability of a result of 1(guilt) for any given Yn is ~33% (the defense did a decent job attacking your case, but there is a lot of room for subjective interpretation. Again, this person really is innocent, but you do not know this). You still need a unanimous verdict.

Do a bit of math....

Probability of a unanimous verdict is 4.6x10^-5

Modified procedure for non-unanimity:
Assuming need for 2/3rds majority, probability of guilty verdict is .042

Case 3. Now, assume that there is a stronger relationship between X and Y, such that the probabilities change and the chance of a result of 1 (guilt) for any given Yn is ~66% (Assume the person looks guilty. You have a solid motive and they cannot account for their whereabouts. Or perhaps they are just unlikable. But they really are innocent)

For a unanimity requirement, the probability is .026

Modified procedure for non-unanimity:
Assuming need for 2/3rds majority, probability of guilty verdict is .65

.........................................................................................................

Do you see the problem? The Beyond a Reasonable Doubt standard does not apply to the individual judge or juror. It applies to the panel. In theory, it is SUPPOSED to apply to each individual, but that is not the way the human mind works. The human mind reaches a decision based on a lot of factors, many of which are not related to the case at all, and then it rationalizes itself into certainty. A professional juror or a judge may have some of this trained out (by way of training them to have a higher threshold for that initial decision perhaps), but it is not eliminated. Which is why, ultimately, multiple people are used. To multiply the probabilities. Ideally, the probabilities for any one of them will be higher because the evidence is stronger, but you and I both know that is not always the case (or frankly, even most of the time).

The more "bites at the apple" the prosecution gets if they dont like the result, the greater the chance that they will get a false conviction. Case 3 above is a really weak case (the other two should never go to trial, frankly). If ONLY the defense can appeal and get a retrial, the probabilities multiply (they have to be falsely convicted twice), so the chance of a false conviction in that case goes to .000676. If BOTH sides can appeal once, the probabilities add to .052 with a unanimous verdict requirement.

It is positively monstrous when you DONT need a unanimous decision.

In Italy, the court has two professional judges, and six citizens chosen from the population at large. The numbers will be even worse.

...............................................................................................

So, I will return to the specific case in question. What do we have as evidence?

We have statements made by a woman who was stressed, exhausted, emotionally shocked, and manipulated by police AND her interpreter, without the aid of legal council, that implicate her (for varying definitions of implicate) and a man named Lumumba, who was found to not be a suspect. These statements are not even evidence. But let us assume they are, as we move on.

Someone else, Guede, was found with forensic evidence tying him to the murder scene. The police changed their theory of the crime so that "evidence" which may have implicated Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba, instead implicated the former and Guede... which makes no fucking sense.

A cornucopia of forensic evidence links Guede to the murder. His DNA, Fingerprints, shoeprints, skin cells were found Everywhere. Yet no such forensic evidence exists for Knox and Sollecito (well, no valid evidence for Sollecito, see below), who are alleged to have cleaned all forensic evidence that might implicate themselves, but not done so for evidence implicating Guede? That is not possible. Given the violent nature of the attack and her intimate physical involvement, there is no possibility that no forensic evidence of Knox's involvement with the murder would have been left. None. You cannot remove clothing fibers and hairs without specialized equipment and a LOT of time and manpower. The same goes for fingerprints. There would have been defensive wounds given her alleged involvement.

The prosecution's case is spectral. As in, Salem Witch Trial spectral. "Lack of evidence is evidence of her guilt!".

There was a knife with Kercher's DNA on the blade. It was a trace amount, which could easily result from cross-contamination in the lab, and given that the investigators did not bother to provide the testing dates, makes that possibility all the more likely. Especially given that if the two HAD taken such care to remove all if their hairs, clothing fibers, fingerprints, and saliva from the scene of a violent rape-homicide, why on earth would they have taken a murder knife back home? What did they do, dress in a hazmat suit to murder the girl, then take a souvenir so they could remember the murder fondly over diced and sauteed mushrooms?

In point of fact, the police handled that knife with gloves that were visibly contaminated. It is on fucking video.

Even if the knife was the murder weapon, given the conflicting statements from various interrogations, it does not implicate Knox. See below for Sollecito's trial evidence.

The rest of the "evidence" relating to her personal demeanor. Which is not evidence. Hell, the pool of lay judges (at least), was tainted by the pre-trial publicity that included a flat-out libelous account of Amanda Knox.

Now... the other defendant.

Sollecito was interrogated without audio or video documentation. He may have signed a statement indicating Knox was elsewhere while under coercion. Not evidence.

The knife mentioned above? Too big to be the murder weapon.

DNA on a bra clasp? OK. But they missed it for 46 days, contaminated it at the scene, and we already know that their evidence and DNA processing procedures are absolute shit. This is substantiated by the appeal, given that the clasp could not be retested due to improper handling and storage. Either way, Knox is not implicated.

And that is just the first trial, and initial appeal. Now for the prosecution appeals.

The Court of Cassation ruled that the any new trial should give weight to the verdict at Guede's trial, which asserts he did not act alone, and Knox's accusation of Lumumba. Then draw a non sequitur line between the two, and hence to Guilty.

Then, we get to the new trial, and the DNA evidence from the knife? Yeah. Result of lab contamination. A backup sample was run, it did not belong to the victim.

They were found guilty anyway. On Spectral Evidence.


.........................

So there is that. For fuck's sake, I am not particularly wed to the US judicial system, I have criticized it repeatedly. But this is bullshit. Absolute fucking bullshit. Italy DOES have a kangaroo court system. Of course, we knew this already, because this same court system managed to convict a bunch of geologists for failing to predict an earthquake. That's right. They convicted people for failing to do something that is impossible to do with our current understanding of geology. Now, they have convicted two people on precisely zero evidence.

No reliable witnesses.
No uncontaminated forensic evidence
No motive.
Coerced statements that, even if true and uncoerced, only establish that it is not physically impossible for the two to have committed the murder, and would only implicate them if someone other than Guede was guilty.

This shit is worse than Stofsk's trial. At least there, they had something that looked like a motive and could establish he was in the house at the time of the murder.

[Thanas]

I am knowledgeable enough that I can argue the forensics that has been listed.
Biggest thing is, to be blunt, they seem to have solid forensics on Guede but basically nothing for Knox or Sollecito
Generally, that is pretty smoking gun against them being involved.

Let me ask you a question - what would the Italian justice system achieve by framing people? Because that is what you are saying here, that the Italian justice system as a whole is actively out to get Knox....because?

The US court system is designed to do that. The technology for doing it (to continue my analogy to medical diagnostics) is hopelessly out of date and there are other problems that make the courts bad at doing this (like the use of lay juries) but the procedures in terms of appeals and double jeopardy are designed for that purpose.

I am not convinced. If you have several people checking it then they will be better off. Assuming a neutral judiciary there should not be a blatant favor for one side built in the system. The only reason the US has it is because it is a flawed system from the start, based upon the general assumption that lay juries will do a better job than professionals, something which is not accepted for any other field. There is no reason to favor the defence in a neutral system.

Less the "knowing how the systems work" in this case, more "I have deeply internalized values regarding the administration of justice that may bias my reasoning"

Call it whatever you like I am not interested in a semantics debate. Do however take a moment to review that the only people familiar with the Italian justice system in this thread do not view it as a big deal. That might tell you something.

I actually did read that beforehand to make sure I was more or less correct. The elements of the procedure that are important (the prosecutor having professional investigators at their disposal etc) are similar enough that they are extensionally equivalent. The fact that this is a civil law court that borrowed from common law court procedures is insufficient to render my point void, because the things it borrowed are the very things I was discussing.

BS. The prosecutor has professional investigators at his disposal in every inquisitorial system, the defence has not. That is no argument against the system being any less fair.

For example: If, in the Italian court system, a nominally impartial judge queried the evidence presented by the defense and prosecution who each had their own investigative branches of law enforcement and who both had full access to the results of eachother's inquiries, my point would be null and void. But it is not. Only the prosecution can collect evidence, which is then handed over to the defense.

As is the case in every inquisitorial system. There goes your argument.

PS: The defence can always hire their own detectives and get reimbursed later on if they can show the expenses to be necessary in inquisitorial systems. The same is AFAIK true for Italy.

It is still the full weight and might of the state vs one person on trial for their freedom and their legal bodyguard. My argument still stands, even if we want to quibble over semantics regarding the historical evolution of the court system.

No it does not because unless you want to argue that every European system is inherently unfair then you got no case. You would have a case if the prosecutors were out to get people (untrue because they get nothing out of that, no advancement etc. unless you want to argue that there is some nebulous caped crusader inhabiting every prosecutor).

See above regarding how mistakes ought be biased.

Mistakes made by the defence have the same weight as mistakes made by the prosecution. It is hilarious that one wants to gloss over one side but completely put the focus on the other.

The more "bites at the apple" the prosecution gets if they dont like the result, the greater the chance that they will get a false conviction. Case 3 above is a really weak case (the other two should never go to trial, frankly). If ONLY the defense can appeal and get a retrial, the probabilities multiply (they have to be falsely convicted twice), so the chance of a false conviction in that case goes to .000676. If BOTH sides can appeal once, the probabilities add to .052 with a unanimous verdict requirement.

It is positively monstrous when you DONT need a unanimous decision.

So according to you Germany and every country in Europe is monstrous. Got you.

Do you realize how arrogant and uninformed you sound?

In Italy, the court has two professional judges, and six citizens chosen from the population at large. The numbers will be even worse.

OH NOES. THE HORROR. HOW DOES EUROPE EVER MANAGE NOT TO SLIDE INTO TYRANNY?

Do you realize how condescending and insulting you sound?

What would the Italian justice system achieve by framing people? Because that is what you are saying here, that the Italian justice system as a whole is actively out to get Knox....because?

So there is that. For fuck's sake, I am not particularly wed to the US judicial system, I have criticized it repeatedly. But this is bullshit. Absolute fucking bullshit. Italy DOES have a kangaroo court system. Of course, we knew this already, because this same court system managed to convict a bunch of geologists for failing to predict an earthquake. That's right. They convicted people for failing to do something that is impossible to do with our current understanding of geology.

You mean, the same trial which according to german geologists was absolutely justified because the scientists in question did act against scientific evidence and rules of the field?
http://www.pnn.de/weltspiegel/692369/ (link in German with the opinion of the head of our seimological service).

[LaCroix]

I would very much see a statistic on miscarriages of justice in the US vs other countries.

A cursory lookup in general miscarriages of justice, or exonerated death row inmates in the US in Wikipedia does not support the assumption that US way of holding trials is vastly superior to the European way.

[Kitsune]

I am knowledgeable enough that I can argue the forensics that has been listed.
Biggest thing is, to be blunt, they seem to have solid forensics on Guede but basically nothing for Knox or Sollecito
Generally, that is pretty smoking gun against them being involved.

Let me ask you a question - what would the Italian justice system achieve by framing people? Because that is what you are saying here, that the Italian justice system as a whole is actively out to get Knox....because?

Same thing that often causes people to be tried in the United States . . . .Human nature
Prosecutors often get tunnel vision. . . .They lock onto one person and have a hard time changing.
Related to this, many people do not like admitting they are wrong.
Which could, of course, include me as well with this issue.

Now, I have pointed to the Norfolk Four as a specific instance in the United States which seems to have shades of this locking onto one person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norfolk_Four

[Thanas]

I don't know what happened. What I do however think is that the entire theory of prosecutors having it in for her is pretty unlikely.

[Kitsune]

I don't know what happened. What I do however think is that the entire theory of prosecutors having it in for her is pretty unlikely.

Depends on what you mean by "In"?
I think they just had an early fixation on her and could never get free of it.
No Machiavellian plot however

[Alyrium Denryle]

I am not convinced. If you have several people checking it then they will be better off. Assuming a neutral judiciary there should not be a blatant favor for one side built in the system. The only reason the US has it is because it is a flawed system from the start, based upon the general assumption that lay juries will do a better job than professionals, something which is not accepted for any other field. There is no reason to favor the defence in a neutral system.

Yes. There is. Even if we discount everything about the full weight and might of the state etc.

If a guilty person is set free, here are the harms. We will assume exactly identical crimes.

1. Justice for their victims is not done.
2. They may go on to commit other crimes.

If an innocent person is convicted, here are the harms. Again, exact same crime

1. Justice is not done for the victim (equal to 1, above)
2. The real guilty party may go on to commit other crimes (marginally greater than 2 above, because presumably in the case of a guilty party being set free they would at least be held prior to trial and prevented for some time from committing other crimes. Here, they are not)
3. A second victim is created by way of an innocent person having their lives destroyed (a HUGE harm in and of itself)

That alone is reason enough to bias proceedings in favor of the defense. Unless you believe procedural fairness outweighs the actual outcome of trials in terms of their consequences with respect to justice and protecting society from criminals. In which case, you are insane.

BS. The prosecutor has professional investigators at his disposal in every inquisitorial system, the defence has not. That is no argument against the system being any less fair.

+


PS: The defence can always hire their own detectives and get reimbursed later on if they can show the expenses to be necessary in inquisitorial systems. The same is AFAIK true for Italy.

Prosecution Investigators: Armed men who have the authority of law to detain and question witnesses, obtain authorization to enter homes and other private spaces, engage in broad scale surveillance including wiretapping, and have the facilities and in-house expertise (such as it in Italy, apparently) to collect and process forensic evidence.

Defense: Can be reimbursed if they hire a private investigator, who has none of the aforementioned legal powers.

If you think those two things are equivalent, you need a reality check.

No it does not because unless you want to argue that every European system is inherently unfair then you got no case.

That depends on your definition of fairness. But more on that momentarily.

You would have a case if the prosecutors were out to get people (untrue because they get nothing out of that, no advancement etc. unless you want to argue that there is some nebulous caped crusader inhabiting every prosecutor).

Neither needs to be true. No one is ever really dispassionate. There could be any number of things that could induce a prosecutor to become erroneously convinced of someone's guilt. One of the good things about european courts compared to US courts is that they do not create an actual incentive to do so, but it can still happen.

Mistakes made by the defence have the same weight as mistakes made by the prosecution. It is hilarious that one wants to gloss over one side but completely put the focus on the other.

See above with respect to harm comparisons. An innocent person being convicted is qualitatively and quantitatively worse than a guilty person going free. That is why. It is not something that is glossed over, one is factually worse than the other.

More to the point, the only way to convict a higher proportion of guilty people is to either

A) Only ever bring very strong cases (so, way the hell stronger cases than the three hypothetical cases I presented above. This has the benefit of increasing the probability that the person actually IS guilty)

B) Increase the probability of convicting innocent people.

So according to you Germany and every country in Europe is monstrous. Got you.

Every judicial system on the planet is dysfunctional in its own special way. That is how yours is. A high probability of convicting innocent people due to court procedures. It may be the case that the way trials are decided might be better (because professional juries and judges are better than lay juries), but the mere fact that the prosecution can appeal a not-guilty verdict ADDS the probability of false accusation per iteration, rather than multiplying it (and remember, adding fractions results in bigger numbers than multiplying fractions. Just in case you forgot)

Do you realize how arrogant and uninformed you sound?

I did just prove my case with math. If we control for all other factors (such as the jury system vs impaneled judges), the mere fact that the prosecution can appeal a Not Guilty verdict increases the probability of convicting an innocent person compared to common law counterparts, particularly in the most likely instances where an innocent person would be brought to trial. Cases where circumstantial evidence is all the prosecution has (modeled by case 3 in my original post). This is made worse by only requiring a majority vote to convict.

Yes Thanas. In a circumstantial evidence case with only slight evidence of guilt, a probability of falsely convicting an innocent person of 60% is pretty damn monstrous.

Which segues into the next bit.

OH NOES. THE HORROR. HOW DOES EUROPE EVER MANAGE NOT TO SLIDE INTO TYRANNY?

The fact that in the sane european countries, you use panels of nothing but judges who presumably are better trained than the 6 citizens who can override the better judgement of the two judges in an italian court?

Here. I will illustrate the principle by comparing three judicial systems in a murder trial. Italy, the US, and Germany (German Schwurgericht, I believe), modeled after Case 3 in my original post. Lay judges and Jurors are here considered to be identical. Professional judges are also considered identical to eachother. Remember, the person really is innocent.

Probability of a Lay Judge/Juror voting to convict: 66%. These are lay people. Lay people are stupid.

Probability of a judge voting to convict: 10%, the evidence is weak, but there is some room for assholes and morons who make it onto the bench somehow, or people becoming convinced of guilt for reasons only present in their own heads.

US conviction probability: 0.0077 (.77%)

If the defendant appeals the conviction, I managed to find the dispositions of criminal appeals in the federal courts. So I will go with those probabilities. When I consider appeals by the prosecution, I will consider all probabilities to be identical. So, basically, I assume the federal courts will Affirm or Reverse prior court decisions/verdicts at the same rate, no matter which side brings an appeal.

Further assumptions: Dismissals I am lumping in with affirmations. As I understand it, this is when the appeal is dismissed, so it is extensionally equivalent. I am also lumping partial affirmations in with affirmations. I shall also be using Sentence and Conviction appeals.

Reversal: .152
Remand: .121
Affirm: .727

The probability of convicting an innocent person with only Defendant appeals is equal to
Initial Probability of Conviction*(Affirm+(Remand*Initial)
.0077*(.727+(.121*.0077))=.0056
Or .56%

If both the prosecution AND defense can appeal (assuming an appellate court was ever given the power to overturn a not-guilty verdict), here is the equation
Defense Appeal+(Reversal+(remand*initial))

Here they are, added together
.0056+(.152+(.121*.0077))=.1585
or 15.85%

Holy Fuck.


German Conviction Probability:
This calculation is a bit more complicated. My understanding is that you need a simple majority from 3 judges, and 2 lay judges. I cannot do this with just a binomial distribution, so here are the possibilities


3PJ+ x≥0LJ=.001
2PJ+≥1 LJ=.024
1PJ+2LJ=.271*.4448=.1205



Add these, Probability of Conviction is .1455

That is pretty fucking bad, considering you are convicting an innocent person. The only thing that saves the German judiciary from blatant injustice is that the Bundesgerichtshof is made up of 5 judges. I would use numbers from US criminal appeals courts like I did above, but the function of judges in the Bundesgerichtshof is completely different, and they are, as far as I am aware (please correct me if I am wrong, and I will revise the calculations, or if you have the statistics on the disposition of appeals cases, please link me. I looked. Did not find them.), permitted to acquit in total, remand to retrial, or simply reconvict on their own.

Assume that irrespective of verdict, it gets appealed to the Bundesgerichtshof

10% chance to vote in favor of convicting the defendant
30% chance to vote to remand for a second trial
60% chance to vote in favor of releasing defendant

Notice, I am not trying to sandbag your judge panels. I suspect these values are heavily biased toward releasing defendants, relative to your actual court system.

To convict completely there are several possibilities
3 Guilty +1 Remand +1 Acquittal=.0036
3 Guilty +2 Remand +0 Acquittal=.0009
3 Guilty+ 0 Remand +2 Acquittal=.0036
4 Guilty+ 1 Remand +0 Acquittal=.00015
4 Guilty+ 0 Remand +1 Acquittal=.00030
5 Guilty+ 0 Remand +0 Acquittal=.00001

Summed probability: .00896

To completely acquit the defendant:
1 Guilty + 1 Remand + 3 Acquittal=.12960
2 Guilty + 0 Remand + 3 Acquittal=.02160
0 Guilty + 2 Remand + 3 Acquittal=.19440
1 Guilty + 0 Remand + 4 Acquittal=.06480
0 Guilty + 1 Remand + 4 Acquittal=.19440
0 Guilty + 0 Remand + 5 Acquittal=.07776
Summed Probability:=.68256


To remand for new trial
3 Remand +1 Guilty +1 Acquittal=.03240
3 Remand +2 Guilty +0 Acquittal=.00270
3 Remand+ 0 Guilty +2 Acquittal=.09720
4 Remand+ 1 Guilty +0 Acquittal=.00405
4 Remand+ 0 Guilty +1 Acquittal=.02430
5 Remand+ 0 Guilty +0 Acquittal=.00243
Summed Probability .16308

If remand for new trial, assume the original probability of conviction applies.

So, if both sides can appeal a guilty verdict, then the end probability of convicting an innocent person is

Defense Appeal + Prosecution Appeal

(Initial Trial*(Convict+(Remand*Initial)))+(Convict +(Remand*Initial))
(.1455*(.00896+(.16308*.1455)))+((.00896+(.16308*.1455)))=0.0374

If only the defense can ever appeal, you get this:.0047

So, lets compare.

US Chance of False Conviction: .38%
US Chance of False Conviction if Prosecution May Appeal: 15.85%
German Chance of False Conviction: 3.74%
German Chance of False Conviction if Only Defense May Appeal: .47%

In both of these cases, the chance of getting a false conviction is increased by permitting the prosecution to appeal. Note, the German system in this case is an estimation, as are initial verdict probabilities. However, irrespective of what those numbers are, the pattern remains the same. In fact, they must. The rules of multiplication and addition of percents do not permit any differently.

However, assuming my estimates for German appeals are reasonable (which I have no data for), the fact that you use a 5 judge panel allows you to mitigate the consequences significantly better than the US would if we permitted prosecutorial appeals. Also, this does not take into account differences in other aspects of our respective court systems (like jury racism in the US, differences in rules of evidence etc etc etc) that may lead to higher baseline false conviction rates (which I suspect due to the review of death row inmates done in Illinois a few years ago).

OK. Now for Italy. There is a reason I said they would be so very much worse. And, while the US and Germany might not be directly comparable, Germany and Italy should be better in that respect.

The Italian criminal courts utilize a panel of 2 judges and 6 lay judges who I understand are selected in a way similar to German lay judges. Majority vote (I am assuming 5 necessary to convict). Same conviction probabilities (66% for lay people, 10% for actual trained judges)

Conviction probability again, is somewhat complicated by having two groups with different probabilities. Here are the possible combinations.

2 PJ+ x≥3LJ=.01*.90=.009
1PJ+ x≥4LJ=0.18*0.68=.1224
0PJ+ x≥5LJ=.81*.351=.284

Total=0.4154

Yes. You read that right. Identical evidence. Identical people. Different composition than German courts. At initial trial (not even getting into the preliminary stuff where someone is indicted), the probability of an innocent person being convicted as per Case 3, is 41.5%

Now, to their appeals!

Once a case is appealed

An appeal in Italy is effectively a second trial. Same makeup, they review the same evidence, and then rule.

The equation here will be different.
Defense: Initial conviction*(New Conviction)+(New Conviction)
(.4154*.4154)+(.4154)=.587

If they permitted only defendants to appeal, their false conviction chance would drop to a mind-shattering 17.26%

Do you see that Thanas? In the Italian court system, assuming identical conditions, having a second full trial in which both sides are permitted to appeal is identical to having only a single trial. They are that fucked up. You could make the argument that the second trial might be better, but it wont be THAT much better. Hell, I can even model that for you. Assume that the second trial conforms to my original Case 1. 50/50 for Lay Judges, 5% for the actual judges. The prosecution's case has become weaker due to additional fact finding such that it takes an actual judge to be actively incompetent for them to vote to convict. Here are the probabilities.

2 PJ+ x≥3LJ=.0025*.65625=.00164
1PJ+ x≥4LJ=.095*.34375=.03267
0PJ+ x≥5LJ=.9025*.109375=.0987

Sum: .13301

Now, we take that, and plug it into our old friendly equation
(.4154*.13301)+(.13301)

An 18.8% chance of convicting an innocent person.

If they ONLY permitted defendants to appeal, the chance of false conviction would drop to a paltry 5.6% under these conditions

So, lets see what happens when the Court of Cassation rears its ugly head. The way it works is similar to the US system (in the sense that it does not rule on the merits of cases, only on procedural and legal mistakes). I have no idea where I might find their statistics. So, I will assume probabilities equivalent to the US appellate courts.

Reversal: .152
Remand: .121
Affirm: .727

.13301*(.727+(.121*.13301))+(.152+(.121*.13301))=.267

After the Court of Cassation gets done (I know this verdict can be appealed, but jesus christ), there is a 26.7% chance that, under the conditions specified, an innocent person would be convicted.

If they only permitted the defendant to appeal, this would drop to
.056*(.727+(.121*.13301))=4.15%

So, in summary


US Chance of False Conviction: .38%
US Chance of False Conviction if Prosecution May Appeal: 15.85%
German Chance of False Conviction: 3.74%
German Chance of False Conviction if Only Defense May Appeal: .47%
Italian Chance of False Conviction: 26.7%
Italian Chance of False Conviction if Only Defense May Appeal: 4.15%

You might be able to argue about some of my inputs. Vote probabilities are arbitrary. However, I kept them constant between all three countries, so the initial conviction probabilities should be fully comparable, controlling for everything but the structure and makeup of the court proceedings.

German appeals, I had to pick something and those numbers seemed reasonable. I can readily recompute with US values so everything is fully comparable if you like. In fact, I will do that. In this case, they Remand to themselves for a main trial (so I compute conviction probabilities based on a panel of 5 judges at a Convict vote probability of 10%)

Reversal: .152
Remand: .121
Affirm: .727

.1455*(.152+(.121*0.00856))+(.152+(.121*.00856))=.173

Which is worse than the original trial.

US Chance of False Conviction: .38%
US Chance of False Conviction if Prosecution May Appeal: 15.85%
German Chance of False Conviction: 3.74%
German Chance of False Conviction if Only Defense May Appeal: .47%
German Chance of False Conviction(Revised): 17.3%
Italian Chance of False Conviction(with a better second trial, way worse if it is the same): 26.7%
Italian Chance of False Conviction if Only Defense May Appeal: 4.15%

Conclusion:


Allowing the prosecution to appeal makes the chance of false conviction WAY higher for an innocent defendant, no matter what court system you are in. The idea that multiple independent looks at the evidence results in a better, more accurate verdict is mathematically proven false, because probabilities of false conviction are added, not multiplied as they are when only a defendant can appeal.

Additionally, there are differences between systems, and because all inputs into the equations were held constant, these results are comparable, and attributable to differences in the structure and makeup of the court and appeals process.

If you really really want to torment me, I am willing to set probabilities that someone is guilty vs being convicted, and recompute. However, I do hope you understand the point now.

I don't know what happened. What I do however think is that the entire theory of prosecutors having it in for her is pretty unlikely.

It does not need to be personal. This sort of thing happens with police in the US all the time, even though technically they have no incentive to convict any given person. They get fixated early. Confirmation Bias takes over and they begin twisting facts to fit a particular suspect rather than find a suspect that fits the facts. It is completely unconscious, and not malicious. It happens as a byproduct of human psychology.

[Simon_Jester]

I understand how the European system approaches appeals- I just think that it's unfair to defendants to handle appeals as the Italian courts are handling them in this case. The point of appeals courts is to correct mistakes made by the lower courts on matters of procedure, or possibly on matters of law or evidence ignored by the lower court.

And this is exactly what is happening here. (Wrongly?) applied legal judgement is still a matter of law.

What I mean is, is there actually evidence of some kind of severe malfeasance or incompetence? Did the appeals court screw up in some definable way? Can we tell what the source of displeasure with the appeals court's decision is? Because in the absence of more information it comes across as "we don't like our own court's conclusion so we're going to arbitrarily nullify it and ask again, very probably getting a different verdict."

In that case, what went wrong in the Knox case before?

I don't think it should be sufficient for the superior court to go "we looked at the evidence and think the odds are 60/40 in favor of guilt, while you figured 60/40 in favor of innocence, therefore we overturned your verdict of not guilty." I'm NOT saying the Italians are actually doing this- but I can't tell the difference easily.

It's been five years. How long should Amanda Knox have the sword of Damocles hanging over her head? How many bullets should the prosecution get?

They get as many appeals as the law allows.

I find it ironic that this is supposed to be a great injustice yet within the US people wait for decades on death row not knowing whether they shall live or die. Compared to that the italian system is very benign.

It's an appeals process you idiot. Appeals can go on for decades in the states. This whole "raaaaar double jeopardy!!!" stuff is a fucking red herring.

Indeed.

The main functional difference is that anyone who appeals a criminal decision in the US is someone who's been found guilty. At least ONE court seriously believes they're a criminal, which justifies at least holding them behind bars until someone else finds out what's going on.

So the appeals process just drags out the attempt to prove you innocent; it cannot threaten to prove you guilty years after the fact and the original ruling.

But in a country with a more 'modern' approach, we have people being put onto appeals when they're found innocent by the lower court. This creates a whole separate problem because it prevents those citizens from ever stabilizing their lives, because being found innocent is no guarantee you won't have another round of high-profile murder trial a few days later.

So let me get this straight - the defence gets the chance to appeal anything they like, but the prosecution has to bear any procedural mistakes or errors in judgement? Where the heck is the fairness in that?

If the defense's appeal is bad, their case gets thrown out summarily and we're back to ground zero. It's the important part

We place a higher burden on the prosecution because (at least in anything like the US system) it operates with the full resources of the state, whereas the defense has somewhat less in the way of resources and control over the tone of the investigation.

The American death penalty is a complete clusterfuck, but at least once you're off death row you don't have to worry about some judge deciding "Nope, you're guilty again. You're back on death row."

And at least once the appeal process is exhausted, you are free as well. I don't see the problem here.

The problem here is that in a LOT of cases where the prosecution appeals, what's actually happening is that an innocent man is being ripped out of their normal life to re-account for an alleged 'crime' that took place under uncertain conditions

At some point the whole concept starts reminding me of Javert chasing a (productive, well-adjusted) citizen Jean Paul Jean.

Well some people truly like the idea "may 10 guilty men go free before 1 innocent man be jailed" whether or not its a good idea.

Yeah, because them Eurocommies have no respect for FREEDUM.

No. Get out of here. This is beyond laughable.

Will you please stop and actually think for a minute rather than just chuckling and saying "MURCA DUMB?"

Like it or not, this "blah 10 guilty men innocent man blah" theory really is the basis for a lot of the civilized world's ideas about how trials are supposed to work. We have rules of evidence, we have limits on permissible police conduct, specifically because we're trying to avoid the primitivism, showmanship, and kangaroo courts that dominate most of the history's jurisprudence.

Even in a state theoretically committed to very fair trials, the reality is still that one party has the advantage of greater resources, education, and specialists on retainer. The only way to counter that is to make it hard to use those specialists effectively.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ghetto Edit: I made a math error, corrected the math, forgot to change the text

Change

Do you see that Thanas? In the Italian court system, assuming identical conditions, having a second full trial in which both sides are permitted to appeal is identical to having only a single trial. They are that fucked up. You could make the argument that the second trial might be better, but it wont be THAT much better. Hell, I can even model that for you. Assume that the second trial conforms to my original Case 1. 50/50 for Lay Judges, 5% for the actual judges. The prosecution's case has become weaker due to additional fact finding such that it takes an actual judge to be actively incompetent for them to vote to convict. Here are the probabilities.

to

Do you see that Thanas? In the Italian court system, assuming identical conditions, having a second full trial in which both sides are permitted to appeal is worse than having only a single trial. They are that fucked up. You could make the argument that the second trial might be better, but it wont be THAT much better. Hell, I can even model that for you. Assume that the second trial conforms to my original Case 1. 50/50 for Lay Judges, 5% for the actual judges. The prosecution's case has become weaker due to additional fact finding such that it takes an actual judge to be actively incompetent for them to vote to convict. Here are the probabilities.

[Kitsune]

I want to add a minor item. . . .
In most (I don't know if it is all) cases, a judge does have to look over the case
With the garbage quality of the evidence, the judge might very well go "You don't have a case" before it even gets to a jury.

[Edi]

Jesus fucking Christ. To sum up the thread: Americans have no understanding of European legal systems, presume all assumptions about their own apply and proceed to demonstrate they are fucking morons.

Listen up:

As Thanas has repeatedly pointed out, in most European legal systems (will not say all, because I'm not familiar with all of them even cursorily) prosecutors are appointed, not elected. They don't get promoted based on number of convictions and don't need to pander to an ignorant public as being tough crime, which is what regularly happens in the US. The prosecutor makes his decisions on whether to prosecute and for what crime based on results of police investigation of crimes. Depending on the criminal justice system and the crimes involved, the prosecutor may sometimes lead the investigation and sometimes the investigation is headed by a police officer assigned to the case, who just forwards the results to the prosecutor.

It is generally also required by law that the prosecutor must, ex officio, take into account all mitigating factors that affect the defendant and present also evidence that is in the defendant's favor, not just cherry pick whatever maximizes the chances of a conviction.

Yet it is, in almost all the posts of the Americans in this thread, the assumption that European prosecutors will cherry pick evidence in order to secure convictions. If you're that fucking unable to understand even the very basics of the differences between the systems, then it is better if you simply don't post.

And if the bullshit conspiracy theories refuse to die, then I will simply lock this thread and any other subsequent threads related to the Knox affair. Simply because it is not worth dealing with all the ignorant asshattery.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Edi: Could you clarify something before I respond any further.

Do you mean this rebuke to also apply to my line of argument? All assumptions I make are in the form of mathematical controls, to isolate out the effects of court structure and composition in the absence of other variables. The numbers are, in effect, arbitrary, provided they are standardized across the board and comport with assumptions such as "judges are more accurate than jurors or lay judges", which I do not think anyone will dispute.

Differences in rules of evidence have been intentionally nullified, for example, lest they create confounding effects. Like controlling the diet of three groups of mice in a medical experiment.

[Edi]

That mathematical argument rests on assumptions that skew its results into numbers that have absolutely nothing to do with the real world. If there was false conviction rates in the double digits in the Italian and German court systems (or the Finnish one for that matter, which is very similar with lower courts, Appeals Courts and the Supreme Court) and it was that obvious, you would see torches and pitchforks in the streets of Rome, Berlin and Helsinki.

You also ignore everything related to actual police work, i.e. the gathering of evidence phase and the mechanisms and laws that govern investigations and how they are performed, which automatically have an effect on the trial itself.

That's why you might as well abandon the entire mathematics argument because this issue cannot be reduced to that sort of model. You assume equal conditions, where they do not exist, so you proceed directly into a wall from the starting line.

[Thanas]

Yes. There is. Even if we discount everything about the full weight and might of the state etc.

If a guilty person is set free, here are the harms. We will assume exactly identical crimes.

1. Justice for their victims is not done.
2. They may go on to commit other crimes.

If an innocent person is convicted, here are the harms. Again, exact same crime

1. Justice is not done for the victim (equal to 1, above)
2. The real guilty party may go on to commit other crimes (marginally greater than 2 above, because presumably in the case of a guilty party being set free they would at least be held prior to trial and prevented for some time from committing other crimes. Here, they are not)
3. A second victim is created by way of an innocent person having their lives destroyed (a HUGE harm in and of itself)

That alone is reason enough to bias proceedings in favor of the defense. Unless you believe procedural fairness outweighs the actual outcome of trials in terms of their consequences with respect to justice and protecting society from criminals. In which case, you are insane.

You are the one who is insane if you think the proportion of innocent people being convicted is in any way enough to make this a viable comparison.

Prosecution Investigators: Armed men who have the authority of law to detain and question witnesses, obtain authorization to enter homes and other private spaces, engage in broad scale surveillance including wiretapping, and have the facilities and in-house expertise (such as it in Italy, apparently) to collect and process forensic evidence.

Defense: Can be reimbursed if they hire a private investigator, who has none of the aforementioned legal powers.

If you think those two things are equivalent, you need a reality check.

And you need to read up on the nature of prosecutors in Europe and their duties and powers. Once again you project US ignorance on European realities.

If you really really want to torment me, I am willing to set probabilities that someone is guilty vs being convicted, and recompute. However, I do hope you understand the point now.

I do not because your point has no basis in reality and assumes a number of things, such as that the lay judges will not listen to the experts etc. It has no basis in reality and does not even come close to the experiences of professionals like myself with the various justice systems.

It does not need to be personal. This sort of thing happens with police in the US all the time, even though technically they have no incentive to convict any given person. They get fixated early. Confirmation Bias takes over and they begin twisting facts to fit a particular suspect rather than find a suspect that fits the facts. It is completely unconscious, and not malicious. It happens as a byproduct of human psychology.

Six years for no personal gain? Yeah, no.

I don't know what happened. What I do however think is that the entire theory of prosecutors having it in for her is pretty unlikely.

Depends on what you mean by "In"?
I think they just had an early fixation on her and could never get free of it.
No Machiavellian plot however

After three trials and over six years? What makes you think the same prosecutors even still handle the case?

What I mean is, is there actually evidence of some kind of severe malfeasance or incompetence? Did the appeals court screw up in some definable way? Can we tell what the source of displeasure with the appeals court's decision is? Because in the absence of more information it comes across as "we don't like our own court's conclusion so we're going to arbitrarily nullify it and ask again, very probably getting a different verdict."

In that case, what went wrong in the Knox case before?

I don't think it should be sufficient for the superior court to go "we looked at the evidence and think the odds are 60/40 in favor of guilt, while you figured 60/40 in favor of innocence, therefore we overturned your verdict of not guilty." I'm NOT saying the Italians are actually doing this- but I can't tell the difference easily.

Read this, it has some interesting info like:

We won't know exactly what the Florence court's reasons were until it releases its written "motivazioni" – or explanation – and it does not have to do that for another 90 days. Certainly, to long-term observers, there was no sense that the new appeal moved the case on dramatically. The debate centred largely on by-now-familiar arguments which pit two starkly different versions of events against each other. The court had been instructed by the judges in the cassation court to consider the evidence as a whole, rather than in the "fragmented" way the Perugia appeals court had done. It also said it should pay heed to the sentence of Rudy Guede, the young man in jail for the murder, which found he did not act alone, and encouraged the court to consider Knox's false naming of Patrick Lumumba in connection with the murder charge, rather than separating it out. (She says she only named him due to intense police pressure.)

No written opinion yet you already have formed an opinion. On what basis?

But in a country with a more 'modern' approach, we have people being put onto appeals when they're found innocent by the lower court. This creates a whole separate problem because it prevents those citizens from ever stabilizing their lives, because being found innocent is no guarantee you won't have another round of high-profile murder trial a few days later.

Such inconvenience is a small price to pay for a system which actively works to correct its mistakes and anybody "harassed" that way gets damages anyhow.

We place a higher burden on the prosecution because (at least in anything like the US system) it operates with the full resources of the state, whereas the defense has somewhat less in the way of resources and control over the tone of the investigation.

Which is not the case in Europe as the function of prosecutors are different.

The problem here is that in a LOT of cases where the prosecution appeals, what's actually happening is that an innocent man is being ripped out of their normal life to re-account for an alleged 'crime' that took place under uncertain conditions

Statistics needed for "A LOT".

At some point the whole concept starts reminding me of Javert chasing a (productive, well-adjusted) citizen Jean Paul Jean.

And if you truly knew the work of Les Miserables you would not make such an ignorant statement. Read up on the situations of French law at the time and why Javert is chasing him.

Will you please stop and actually think for a minute rather than just chuckling and saying "MURCA DUMB?"

You americans are not doing a great job from dissuading people from that notion in this thread.

[Melchior]

You also ignore everything related to actual police work, i.e. the gathering of evidence phase and the mechanisms and laws that govern investigations and how they are performed, which automatically have an effect on the trial itself.

This cannot be understated - the improperness of the comparison becomes blatant when one considers that for example Japan has a 99.7% conviction rate (because they don't even attempt to bring controversial cases to trial, mostly).

[Flagg]

The problem is that over and over again my countrymen want to view the entire thing through the fucked up prism of the American "Justice" system where very often it's the same prosecutors, the same cops, and the same judges dealing with appeals so shit like confirmation bias, tunnel vision, fucked up conspiracy theorist thinking, racism, face saving, and good old fashioned corruption are literally everyday occurrences across the entire country.
From what I gather from people who actually know what the fuck they are talking about when it comes to Western European justice systems they don't seem to have the same issues on the same scale that America does. And the systems can be radically different yet provide similar or better results. So if you don't know shit about Western European justice systems, Italy's specifically, either shut the fuck up or use this opportunity to ask questions and educate yourselves as to how other countries do things.

This message is brought to you by the letter .

[LaCroix]

The numbers speak for themselves - according to the wiki statistics I posted above, wrong convictions:

Italy: 5
US: >200

[Flagg]

The numbers speak for themselves - according to the wiki statistics I posted above, wrong convictions:

Italy: 5
US: >200

Yeah but what's the percentage? The US has a larger population than Italy. Looking at Wikipedia (please don't hurt me, I'm just a boy) Italy has about 50+ million while the US has 300+ million. And I don't even wanna try to figure out how many people go through each countries judicial system. Plus you have the vast majority of cases in the US resolved through plea bargain which is its own fucked up depressing can of worms.

[LaCroix]

The numbers speak for themselves - according to the wiki statistics I posted above, wrong convictions:

Italy: 5
US: >200

Yeah but what's the percentage? The US has a larger population than Italy. Looking at Wikipedia (please don't hurt me, I'm just a boy) Italy has about 50+ million while the US has 300+ million. And I don't even wanna try to figure out how many people go through each countries judicial system. Plus you have the vast majority of cases in the US resolved through plea bargain which is its own fucked up depressing can of worms.

Well, the claim was that Italy's judicary is prone to mistakes, and the system is slated to make convictions of innocent more likely. Still, the number of wrong convictions in the last 40 years is minisule.

Italian crime
US crimes

Let's see - US has roughly 5-6 times more total crimes (11.8 million vs 2.2 million) which means we got parity here (US has about 6 times the population.

There are 7 times as many people in US prisons(715 per 100.000 vs 100 /100.000), but 40 times more wrong convictions (200 vs 5), a rough eye-ball estimation would support the claim that the Italian justice system is roughly 6 times more efficient in preventing wrong convictions.

Going by adults on trial, the US has ~26 times more people on trial (14.2 vs 0.54 million) - and 40 times more wrong convictions. Makes the Italian system still roughtly twice as efficient in preventing innocent convictions.

[Flagg]

The numbers speak for themselves - according to the wiki statistics I posted above, wrong convictions:

Italy: 5
US: >200

Yeah but what's the percentage? The US has a larger population than Italy. Looking at Wikipedia (please don't hurt me, I'm just a boy) Italy has about 50+ million while the US has 300+ million. And I don't even wanna try to figure out how many people go through each countries judicial system. Plus you have the vast majority of cases in the US resolved through plea bargain which is its own fucked up depressing can of worms.

Well, the claim was that Italy's judicary is prone to mistakes, and the system is slated to make convictions of innocent more likely. Still, the number of wrong convictions in the last 40 years is minisule.

Italian crime
US crimes

Let's see - US has roughly 5-6 times more total crimes (11.8 million vs 2.2 million) which means we got parity here (US has about 6 times the population.

There are 7 times as many people in US prisons(715 per 100.000 vs 100 /100.000), but 40 times more wrong convictions (200 vs 5), a rough eye-ball estimation would support the claim that the Italian justice system is roughly 6 times more efficient in preventing wrong convictions.

Going by adults on trial, the US has ~26 times more people on trial (14.2 vs 0.54 million) - and 40 times more wrong convictions. Makes the Italian system still roughtly twice as efficient in preventing innocent convictions.

Thanks for doing the math, I'm... Challenged when it comes to math.

[Kitsune]

After three trials and over six years? What makes you think the same prosecutors even still handle the case?

Same prosecutors office I believe

[RogueIce]

So, a question about the trial itself. From what I've read, the ECHR does not allow for in absentia convictions? Or rather, from the Wikipedia page, it seems that if it happens they're entitled to have the trial redone while they're present?

Essentially, I'm asking about the significance, if there is one, of this conviction being rendered in absentia?

[LaCroix]

So, a question about the trial itself. From what I've read, the ECHR does not allow for in absentia convictions? Or rather, from the Wikipedia page, it seems that if it happens they're entitled to have the trial redone while they're present?

Essentially, I'm asking about the significance, if there is one, of this conviction being rendered in absentia?

1.In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2.Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3.Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

Article 6 defines the right to a fair trial, which according to current interpretation, includes the right to a retrial if someone is tried in absentia. In this case, though, that this isn't an issue - she was present for most of the trial, had time to prepere her defence, was heard in person, already. She was invited to the last appeal trial - she just refused to show up.

[stormthebeaches]

I've been skimming through the thread and have a few comments to make.

It is good to know that you are adequately informed about the case and have the legal education and mind to make your opinion matter. I mean, you have read the evidence file, right? Or did you just go and base your opinion on the US media which has howled "ITALIAN MONKEY JUSTICE BAD" right from the get go?

And on the other hand we have the British and Italian media conducting a massive character assassination on Knox herself, lets not pretend that media bias is all one way. Also, I think the whole point about "satanic rituals" was how much the prosecution in the original trial screwed things up. The failure to provide a believable motive is just the beginning.

This is bullshit and you know it. The US system gives far greater motivation for a prosecutor to send an innocent to jail.

No. Prosecutors are not elected, nor are they promoted based on conviction rates, but generally based on seniority. There is no incentive for a prosecutor to hold back evidence (and in fact he can be hauled up on charges if he does so). So why would anybody risk scuttling entire cases and his career for no gain?

Prosecutors are not paid by conviction, not elected, generally have a lifelong career and don't use it to get into higher political office. Sure you end up with assholes, especially in some regions of Italy, but that is more a byproduct of the regions than the area itself. When you get blown up with car bombs on a regular basis you get a bit bitter.

It seems that a lot of people are focusing on the idea that Italian prosecutors don't have an incentive to use dishonest means to get an conviction. But prosecutors in Italy have been convicted of prosecutorial misconduct in the past. Giuliano Mignini (the prosecutor in the first Amanda Knox trial), was convicted of abusing his power to, among other things, illegal wiretapes during the Monster of Florence case. You can read about it here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/o ... conspiracy (a British newspaper before anyone shouts of American bias).

What would the Italian justice system achieve by framing people? Because that is what you are saying here, that the Italian justice system as a whole is actively out to get Knox....because?

Who said anything about them wanting to frame her? More likely it is a case of certain people not wanting to admit that they screwed up.