I’m going to have to distinguish here between guilt in the actual sense, and guilt in a legal sense. Do I think Amanda Knox did it? Somewhat likely. Do I think the prosecution proved that beyond a reasonable doubt? No.
I think my estimates of guilt for all three parties will be higher than most commenters, but here they are:
Probability that Knox participated in the murder: 15%
Probability that Knox participated in or covered up the murder: 20%
Probability that I would find Knox guilty of murder: 5%
Probability that Solecito participated in the murder 10%
Probability that Solecito participated in or covered up the murder: 20%
Probability that I would find Solecito guilty of murder: 5%
Probability that Rudy Guedo participated in the murder 80%
Probability that Rudy Guedo participated in or covered up the murder 95%
Probability that I would find Guedo guilty of murder: 85%
The biggest problem to me with the prosecution’s case is the alleged physical abuse of Knox by her interrogators. Her story did change somewhat, but not in a manner consistent with a guilty party. If Knox was guilty and wanted to frame someone else, it is unlikely that she would have fingered Lumumba days later and made vague statements that incorporated some kind of clairvoyant dream about Lumumba raping Kerscher rather than just making immediate and damning accusations. If the police physically harmed her in any way, that alone should have been enough to immediately drop the case. I’d find Charlie Manson innocent if I found that the police had roughed him up in interrogation to elicit a confession; such actions by the police undermine the very fabric of a free legal system and cannot be tolerated in any way whatsoever.
Secondly, the prosecution failed to establish a clear motive. First they claimed that Meredith refused to participate in some unspecified ‘sex games’. They never showed that Knox or Solecito were inclined to that sort of sexual behavior, and even if they were, it is a large leap from sexual frustration to murder. There was the stolen credit cards and missing money, but it was never shown that Knox or Solecito were in possession of the money. It should have been fairly easy to find a record of their withdrawals from Kerscher’s account, but it appears the police never even attempted to find such evidence. So the prosecution claimed that since Knox and Solecito smoked cannabis, they must have been addicts who stole the money (that no one ever proved the couple even had) to fuel their raging drug habits and possibly buy ‘hard drugs’ like cocaine. Que clips from ‘Reefer Madness’ now.
There is DNA evidence against Knox, but being roommates with the victim, it would be a challenge to find something of Kerscher’s that didn’t have some of Knox’s DNA on it. This seems to be a case of the ‘CSI effect’ actually working in favor of the prosecution. All the jury hears is ‘DNA’, but don’t stop to consider any number of explanations as to why Knox’s DNA would be on one of her own kitchen knives and on her roommate’s clothes that don’t involve murder.
There is also some dodgy eyewitness testimony, but even if the witnesses were so-called ‘credible witnesses’ eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable.
Guede, on the other hand, used the classic ‘a large unidentified black man did it’ defense at first but then changed his story when he found out Knox and Solecito were involved. He did flee the country, but so would I if accused of murder in a foreign country. Forensic evidence also confirmed that Guede had sex with Kirscher that night, not rock solid evidence I know, but notable. More evidence against Guede comes from the story he gave of how he was sitting on the toilet listening to his iPod when the attack occurred, which would have meant that he knew about the attack when it happened, failed to call the police, and fled the scene to go dance at a night club. Additionally he originally claimed that he tried to comfort Kerscher, meaning she was still alive, before fleeing and leaving her to die, which is ethically equivalent to murder.
To draw this lengthy post to a conclusion, I’m going to give my first impressions of the site wanting to keep Knox behind bars. As Nietzsche said “Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful.” All of these ‘victim rights’ groups who spend their time trying to keep other people in prison are a walking contradiction. A murder victim, by definition, has no rights; they’re dead. It does a victim no good to keep the murderer behind bars; it only serves to satiate the need for vengeance in the bereaved. True, there are people who will likely murder again if released, but often, these groups continue to hound those who have reformed and express remorse (Leslie Van Houten), or those whose guilt was never clearly established in the first place (Leonard Peltier). Knox seems to be just another one of these unfortunate victims getting slandered by those who confuse justice with revenge. Am I out on a limb here, or does someone want to present a rational case for rights post-mortem?
I’m going to have to distinguish here between guilt in the actual sense, and guilt in a legal sense. Do I think Amanda Knox did it? Somewhat likely. Do I think the prosecution proved that beyond a reasonable doubt? No.
Although I’m invariably annoyed by this kind of (what seems to me like) weasly hedging (“just state your probability already!”), it might be a reasonable thing to say if your probability is somewhere between 50% and 99%. At 15%, however, I hardly see the point, and in fact it’s downright misleading.
How is that ‘weaselly’? Say there is a criminal who confesses to a crime, and quite obviously did it, but the police failed to properly Mirandize them, or otherwise unlawfully elicited the confession. Legally, you should find them not guilty, even if they likely committed the crime. Not guilty does not equal innocent.
Say there is a criminal who confesses to a crime, and quite obviously did it, but the police failed to properly Mirandize them, or otherwise unlawfully elicited the confession. Legally, you should find them not guilty
That’s a separate matter entirely. (Actually, my understanding of the way it’s supposed to work in such a case is that you’re not supposed to ever hear about the confession as a juror, and so may not have enough evidence to rationally believe they’re guilty with the required confidence, even if they in fact are; as opposed believing them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but just “finding” them not—a form of jury nullification.)
This discussion here is entirely about one’s rational belief about guilt or innocence, not anyone’s legal opinion on the admissibility of evidence into court. You said your probability estimate that Amanda Knox killed her roommate was 15%. That’s the information of interest, and it makes you a firm innocentista. Legal issues are a red herring. They would be a red herring even if your belief was 75% -- but in that case, it would at least be a legitimate discussion point to say,”thus, although I believe she probably did it, I would have to acquit if I were on a jury, because I don’t believe it beyond a reasonable doubt.”
I’m going to have to distinguish here between guilt in the actual sense, and guilt in a legal sense. Do I think Amanda Knox did it? Somewhat likely. Do I think the prosecution proved that beyond a reasonable doubt? No.
I think my estimates of guilt for all three parties will be higher than most commenters, but here they are:
Probability that Knox participated in the murder: 15% Probability that Knox participated in or covered up the murder: 20% Probability that I would find Knox guilty of murder: 5%
Probability that Solecito participated in the murder 10% Probability that Solecito participated in or covered up the murder: 20% Probability that I would find Solecito guilty of murder: 5%
Probability that Rudy Guedo participated in the murder 80% Probability that Rudy Guedo participated in or covered up the murder 95% Probability that I would find Guedo guilty of murder: 85%
The biggest problem to me with the prosecution’s case is the alleged physical abuse of Knox by her interrogators. Her story did change somewhat, but not in a manner consistent with a guilty party. If Knox was guilty and wanted to frame someone else, it is unlikely that she would have fingered Lumumba days later and made vague statements that incorporated some kind of clairvoyant dream about Lumumba raping Kerscher rather than just making immediate and damning accusations. If the police physically harmed her in any way, that alone should have been enough to immediately drop the case. I’d find Charlie Manson innocent if I found that the police had roughed him up in interrogation to elicit a confession; such actions by the police undermine the very fabric of a free legal system and cannot be tolerated in any way whatsoever.
Secondly, the prosecution failed to establish a clear motive. First they claimed that Meredith refused to participate in some unspecified ‘sex games’. They never showed that Knox or Solecito were inclined to that sort of sexual behavior, and even if they were, it is a large leap from sexual frustration to murder. There was the stolen credit cards and missing money, but it was never shown that Knox or Solecito were in possession of the money. It should have been fairly easy to find a record of their withdrawals from Kerscher’s account, but it appears the police never even attempted to find such evidence. So the prosecution claimed that since Knox and Solecito smoked cannabis, they must have been addicts who stole the money (that no one ever proved the couple even had) to fuel their raging drug habits and possibly buy ‘hard drugs’ like cocaine. Que clips from ‘Reefer Madness’ now.
There is DNA evidence against Knox, but being roommates with the victim, it would be a challenge to find something of Kerscher’s that didn’t have some of Knox’s DNA on it. This seems to be a case of the ‘CSI effect’ actually working in favor of the prosecution. All the jury hears is ‘DNA’, but don’t stop to consider any number of explanations as to why Knox’s DNA would be on one of her own kitchen knives and on her roommate’s clothes that don’t involve murder.
There is also some dodgy eyewitness testimony, but even if the witnesses were so-called ‘credible witnesses’ eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable.
Guede, on the other hand, used the classic ‘a large unidentified black man did it’ defense at first but then changed his story when he found out Knox and Solecito were involved. He did flee the country, but so would I if accused of murder in a foreign country. Forensic evidence also confirmed that Guede had sex with Kirscher that night, not rock solid evidence I know, but notable. More evidence against Guede comes from the story he gave of how he was sitting on the toilet listening to his iPod when the attack occurred, which would have meant that he knew about the attack when it happened, failed to call the police, and fled the scene to go dance at a night club. Additionally he originally claimed that he tried to comfort Kerscher, meaning she was still alive, before fleeing and leaving her to die, which is ethically equivalent to murder.
To draw this lengthy post to a conclusion, I’m going to give my first impressions of the site wanting to keep Knox behind bars. As Nietzsche said “Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful.” All of these ‘victim rights’ groups who spend their time trying to keep other people in prison are a walking contradiction. A murder victim, by definition, has no rights; they’re dead. It does a victim no good to keep the murderer behind bars; it only serves to satiate the need for vengeance in the bereaved. True, there are people who will likely murder again if released, but often, these groups continue to hound those who have reformed and express remorse (Leslie Van Houten), or those whose guilt was never clearly established in the first place (Leonard Peltier). Knox seems to be just another one of these unfortunate victims getting slandered by those who confuse justice with revenge. Am I out on a limb here, or does someone want to present a rational case for rights post-mortem?
Although I’m invariably annoyed by this kind of (what seems to me like) weasly hedging (“just state your probability already!”), it might be a reasonable thing to say if your probability is somewhere between 50% and 99%. At 15%, however, I hardly see the point, and in fact it’s downright misleading.
How is that ‘weaselly’? Say there is a criminal who confesses to a crime, and quite obviously did it, but the police failed to properly Mirandize them, or otherwise unlawfully elicited the confession. Legally, you should find them not guilty, even if they likely committed the crime. Not guilty does not equal innocent.
That’s a separate matter entirely. (Actually, my understanding of the way it’s supposed to work in such a case is that you’re not supposed to ever hear about the confession as a juror, and so may not have enough evidence to rationally believe they’re guilty with the required confidence, even if they in fact are; as opposed believing them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but just “finding” them not—a form of jury nullification.)
This discussion here is entirely about one’s rational belief about guilt or innocence, not anyone’s legal opinion on the admissibility of evidence into court. You said your probability estimate that Amanda Knox killed her roommate was 15%. That’s the information of interest, and it makes you a firm innocentista. Legal issues are a red herring. They would be a red herring even if your belief was 75% -- but in that case, it would at least be a legitimate discussion point to say,”thus, although I believe she probably did it, I would have to acquit if I were on a jury, because I don’t believe it beyond a reasonable doubt.”