I’ve looked at this twice—first after reading the friends of amanda blog, wikipedia, and scanning the justice for meredith blog.
My initial probabilities were:
P(AK=guilty) = .55, P(RS=guilty)=.5, P(RG=guilty)=.999, P(views coincide)=.5. Having read a few comments I initially revised the first two probabilities down—I realised I was guilty of having given a lot of weight to the rape story, and not given weight to the improbability of the “weird sex” story.
Having read more I find it hard to be sure of anything—it seems to be next to impossible to get any unbiased information on this (wikipedia contradicts friends of amanda, e.g. on the washing machine and the cleaning operation which are crucial). I would also be astonished if the Italian legal system could encourage such a high-profile miscarriage to take place. Italy is one of the most developed countries in the world. While they do have a mad president, some might say the same about some American presidents. And I have seen clear one-sided bias against the Italian legal system (e.g. the sashes worn by the jury—standard dress for jurists in Italy)
EDIT: Looked at this again. I’ve got to revise them to .99, .99, .999, .9
Some excerpts from the evidence on this blog—the evidence that FoA discounts looks very real to me. The only thing I find really weird is how the three could have got together.
http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showpost.php?p=13695224&postcount=718
And I have seen clear one-sided bias against the Italian legal system
Keep in mind, this bias may not be entirely unjustified. The guilty blog quotes a major Italian newspaper (it says) which itself jokes about the Italian’s system ‘near biblical’ slowness and forthrightly admits that it is the target of much legitimate criticism. And then there’s the general black market economy of Italy, tax evasion, and dispect for the law. The Maxi Trial is an interesting example, without so far as I know, any American analogue:
“The existence and crimes of the Mafia had been denied or merely downplayed by many people in authority for decades, despite proof of its criminal activities dating back to the 19th century. This can be attributed in part to three particular methods used by the Mafia to provide an environment akin to near immunity—paying off key people, killing real or perceived leaks in their own organization, and threatening or even killing key people (judges, lawyers, witnesses, politicians...) were used successfully to keep many prosecution efforts at bay. In fact it was only in 1980 that it was first seriously suggested that being a member of the Mafia should be a specific criminal offence by Communist politician Pio La Torre. The law only came into effect two years later—after La Torre had been gunned down for making that very suggestion.
After Chinnici’s murder in July 1983, his successor Antonino Caponnetto, headed the pool. The Antimafia pool was a group of investigating magistrates who closely worked together sharing information on related cases to diffuse responsibility and to prevent one person from becoming the sole institutional memory and solitary target. [Shades of Death Note!]
The Maxi trial took place next to the Ucciardone (the Palermo prison) in a bunker specially designed and built to try the defendants. It was a large octagonal building made from reinforced concrete that was able to prevent rocket attacks; inside there were cages built into the green walls holding the many defendants in large groups. There were over six-hundred members of the press as well as many carabinieri wielding machine guns and a 24-hour air defense system keeping an eye on the defendants and would-be attackers attempting to thwart the efforts.
There were many critics of the Maxi Trial. Some implied that the defendants were being victimized as part of some sort of vendetta of the magistrates. The Sicilian writer Leonardo Sciascia said that: “There is nothing better for getting ahead in the magistracy than taking part in Mafia trials.” Cardinal Pappalardo of the Catholic Church gave a controversial interview where he said that the Maxi Trial was “an oppressive show” and stated that abortion killed more people than the Mafia.
The Maxi Trial was largely regarded as a success. However, the appeals process soon began, which resulted in a shocking number of successful appeals on minor technicalities. Most of this was thanks to Corrado Carnevale, a judge in the pay of the Mafia who was handed control over most of the appeals by the corrupt politician Salvatore Lima.
In January 1992, Falcone and Borsellino managed to take charge of further Maxi Trial appeals. Not only did they turn many appeals down, they reversed previous successful ones, resulting in many Mafiosi who had recently swaggered out of prison after their convictions were overturned being unceremoniously rounded up and put back behind bars, in many cases for the rest of their lives....That summer, Falcone and Borsellino were murdered in audacious bomb attacks.”
(My apologies for the lengthy quoting, but does this sound like a peaceful highly law-abiding nation, with an effective and uncorrupt judicature?)
I’d be careful about generalising from the south of Italy (Sicily) to the north—there’s a famous division between the two parts of the country, to the extent that many believe in formally splitting the country. And I’m certainly not interested in which system is superior, American or Italian—the answer is clearly Canadian.
What I think is interesting about this is that the decision comes down to whose judgement you trust least:
My judgement is clouded by lack of access to evidence and a lack of access to unbiased evidence. I feel I am unbiased because I have no axe to grind, but these websites expose me to every form of prejudice—I am sure it has an effect.
The jury convicted Amanda—a jury is only supposed to convict where guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The jury has access to the evidence and hours to examine it. However juries do sometimes give incorrect verdicts where the victim is an attractive woman (e.g. the Jill Dando case in the UK).
The police worked hard to collect a lot of evidence. However the prosecutor appears to have a sexual obsession, and the police failed to record interviews with suspects.
The existence of a group like Friends of Amanda suggests that many people think the case is not robust. However Amanda is an attractive female, being tried in a foreign country. And of course mothers never think their children are guilty.
Meredith’s parents and the British press are strongly against Amanda. The British Tabloids are not worth the paper they’re written on.
All in all, I think that I have no chance of making an unbiased and accurate judgement on the first hand evidence. Based on the fact that she was found guilty in a court of law, in northern Italy, and given that there was so much evidence, much of it from Amanda herself, I think she is probably guilty. However even with 99% probability I still wouldn’t convict − 1 in 100 is a reasonable doubt.
I’ve looked at this twice—first after reading the friends of amanda blog, wikipedia, and scanning the justice for meredith blog.
My initial probabilities were: P(AK=guilty) = .55, P(RS=guilty)=.5, P(RG=guilty)=.999, P(views coincide)=.5. Having read a few comments I initially revised the first two probabilities down—I realised I was guilty of having given a lot of weight to the rape story, and not given weight to the improbability of the “weird sex” story.
Having read more I find it hard to be sure of anything—it seems to be next to impossible to get any unbiased information on this (wikipedia contradicts friends of amanda, e.g. on the washing machine and the cleaning operation which are crucial). I would also be astonished if the Italian legal system could encourage such a high-profile miscarriage to take place. Italy is one of the most developed countries in the world. While they do have a mad president, some might say the same about some American presidents. And I have seen clear one-sided bias against the Italian legal system (e.g. the sashes worn by the jury—standard dress for jurists in Italy)
EDIT: Looked at this again. I’ve got to revise them to .99, .99, .999, .9 Some excerpts from the evidence on this blog—the evidence that FoA discounts looks very real to me. The only thing I find really weird is how the three could have got together. http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showpost.php?p=13695224&postcount=718
Keep in mind, this bias may not be entirely unjustified. The guilty blog quotes a major Italian newspaper (it says) which itself jokes about the Italian’s system ‘near biblical’ slowness and forthrightly admits that it is the target of much legitimate criticism. And then there’s the general black market economy of Italy, tax evasion, and dispect for the law. The Maxi Trial is an interesting example, without so far as I know, any American analogue:
(My apologies for the lengthy quoting, but does this sound like a peaceful highly law-abiding nation, with an effective and uncorrupt judicature?)
I’d be careful about generalising from the south of Italy (Sicily) to the north—there’s a famous division between the two parts of the country, to the extent that many believe in formally splitting the country. And I’m certainly not interested in which system is superior, American or Italian—the answer is clearly Canadian.
What I think is interesting about this is that the decision comes down to whose judgement you trust least:
My judgement is clouded by lack of access to evidence and a lack of access to unbiased evidence. I feel I am unbiased because I have no axe to grind, but these websites expose me to every form of prejudice—I am sure it has an effect.
The jury convicted Amanda—a jury is only supposed to convict where guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The jury has access to the evidence and hours to examine it. However juries do sometimes give incorrect verdicts where the victim is an attractive woman (e.g. the Jill Dando case in the UK).
The police worked hard to collect a lot of evidence. However the prosecutor appears to have a sexual obsession, and the police failed to record interviews with suspects.
The existence of a group like Friends of Amanda suggests that many people think the case is not robust. However Amanda is an attractive female, being tried in a foreign country. And of course mothers never think their children are guilty.
Meredith’s parents and the British press are strongly against Amanda. The British Tabloids are not worth the paper they’re written on.
All in all, I think that I have no chance of making an unbiased and accurate judgement on the first hand evidence. Based on the fact that she was found guilty in a court of law, in northern Italy, and given that there was so much evidence, much of it from Amanda herself, I think she is probably guilty. However even with 99% probability I still wouldn’t convict − 1 in 100 is a reasonable doubt.
Check out Amanda’s note by the way: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html
Those are very high probabilities.