We respect the decision of the judges but we do not understand how the decision of the first trial could be so radically overturned,
I completely agree. It’s hard to understand and it’s hard to believe that such a serious, important verdict can switch like that.
It can really make you feel bitter about the judicial system, and skeptical about it’s ability to reliably root out the truth, so I think Kercher’s family is doing great with being able to say this:
“We still trust the Italian judicial system and hope that the truth will eventually emerge.”
Or was there something else?
(By the way, I couldn’t understand how the verdict was guilty to begin with. But from the point of view of the parents, not only would it have been too much to ask them to look rationally and independently at the evidence with respect to Knox’s guilt to determine on their own there likely wasn’t enough evidence—grieving parents may be dependent on the judicial system for that—they would have been deeply hurt from anything the accused did to hinder the case. I expect the parents would have seen their evasions as much more malicious than we would. If Amanda was a friend how could she have not told the complete truth from the beginning? Etc.)
As the article also notes, they became very emotional when they announcement was made. That article may not have been the best example article to use. This one has more quotes from family members.
They include:
“It is ludicrous. How can they ignore all the other evidence. I thought the judge might play it safe and uphold the conviction but reduce the sentence. But this result is crazy.”
and
“It makes a mockery of the original trial. We are all shocked, we could understand them reducing the sentence but completely freeing them, wow.”
There doesn’t seem to be any indication that the family has been at all shaken in their absolute certainty that Knox is guilty.
That is a better article, but I still don’t think the parents are disgraceful based on that. They just believed the first verdict.
Which I believe is the point of a verdict. It’s supposed to mean the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The parents followed the first trial, believed in it, and were of course emotionally invested in its validity.
It also sounds like they just need more time. They are in shock and don’t know what to think:
What happens now? Does that mean the police have to look for more killers?
The poor grieving parents. They have to start back from square one. They’ll be needing a few months, not hours.
It makes a mockery of the original trial. We are all shocked, we could understand reducing the sentence but completely freeing them, wow.
No kidding.
I’m glad they’re ‘completely freed’ but how can such two 180 degree verdicts even happen?
In this context, the new ruling was not just that there was insufficient evidence but (as I understand it) that she likely had not done it. I don’t fully understand the distinction in the Italian system but in the American system at least appeals don’t generally do that sort of thing.
What happens now? Does that mean the police have to look for more killers?
I’m a bit confused that they are so confused. Guede’s verdict is still guilty. How in the process of the appeal were they not introduced to the notion that their daughter could simply have been killed by one person without co conspirators?
How in the process of the appeal were they not introduced to the notion that their daughter could simply have been killed by one person without co conspirators?
The same way they avoided being introduced to it during the first-level trial: by not listening to the defense arguments.
That, it occurs to me, was their mistake, and is why they are in my opinion fully worthy of criticism for the stance they have taken. From the beginning, they appear to have only gotten their information through prosecution filters. (They admit as much when they speak of having to trust the police; but they didn’t have to trust the police—they could have attended the trial and listened to the arguments, which they didn’t do.) It isn’t that they can’t be excused for feeling harshly toward the people they believe killed their daughter/sister; it’s that they shouldn’t have allowed themselves to become convinced that Knox and Sollecito killed her without listening to what Knox and Sollecito’s attorneys had to say first.
(Indeed, I find it somewhat telling that they flew in in time to hear the verdict, but not to hear Knox and Sollecito address the court earlier the same day.)
Good question. The father actually answers it in one of the handful of quotes given by the press. They were convinced by the prosecution that the crime could not have been committed by one person—this was probably a key component of Knox and Sollecito’s initial guilty verdict. The father said,
There were 47 wounds on Meredith and two knives used. One person couldn’t possibly have done that.
I think it is a good sign that in his confusion, the father is clinging to facts. I think it is a matter of time before they see things more clearly. Despite their emotional state, the parents seem to have a better than average relationship with epistemology.
I find it odd that the prosecution would ever have claimed that one person couldn’t possibly have done that. I mean, it’s their job to find reasons to believe in the guilt of the defendants, but a simple review of murder cases committed with knives should be able to dispense with that. I’ve only read several, but one of the things that surprised me was the sheer number of times which the perpetrators frequently stabbed the victim. In one case that I read, the murderer stabbed the victim over 90 times.
I suspect that murderers often continue in a panic or frenzy when they discover how hard it is to get their victim to die. An inexperienced knife wielder against a struggling victim can easily stab the victim dozens of times without inflicting a single individually fatal wound.
That is a better article, but I still don’t think the parents are disgraceful based on that. They just believed the first verdict.
Complete agreement. I said “interesting and tragic” and described their reaction as “understandable.” See the rest of the discussion in this subthread. I strongly disagree with describing the parents as disgraceful.
I strongly disagree with describing the parents as disgraceful.
It should be noted that Wedrifid strongly disagrees with describing the parents as disgraceful. This leaves, I believe, a total of 0 people who describe the parents as disgraceful.
I read your description of the parent’s reaction as ‘very negative’ and wondered what you meant. I then looked to Wedrifid’s comment for elaboration and averaged them together. The subthread developed in the meantime.
How have they reacted negatively?
I completely agree. It’s hard to understand and it’s hard to believe that such a serious, important verdict can switch like that.
It can really make you feel bitter about the judicial system, and skeptical about it’s ability to reliably root out the truth, so I think Kercher’s family is doing great with being able to say this:
Or was there something else?
(By the way, I couldn’t understand how the verdict was guilty to begin with. But from the point of view of the parents, not only would it have been too much to ask them to look rationally and independently at the evidence with respect to Knox’s guilt to determine on their own there likely wasn’t enough evidence—grieving parents may be dependent on the judicial system for that—they would have been deeply hurt from anything the accused did to hinder the case. I expect the parents would have seen their evasions as much more malicious than we would. If Amanda was a friend how could she have not told the complete truth from the beginning? Etc.)
As the article also notes, they became very emotional when they announcement was made. That article may not have been the best example article to use. This one has more quotes from family members.
They include:
and
There doesn’t seem to be any indication that the family has been at all shaken in their absolute certainty that Knox is guilty.
That is a better article, but I still don’t think the parents are disgraceful based on that. They just believed the first verdict.
Which I believe is the point of a verdict. It’s supposed to mean the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The parents followed the first trial, believed in it, and were of course emotionally invested in its validity.
It also sounds like they just need more time. They are in shock and don’t know what to think:
The poor grieving parents. They have to start back from square one. They’ll be needing a few months, not hours.
No kidding.
I’m glad they’re ‘completely freed’ but how can such two 180 degree verdicts even happen?
This isn’t so rare, is it? That’s what appeals are for.
In this context, the new ruling was not just that there was insufficient evidence but (as I understand it) that she likely had not done it. I don’t fully understand the distinction in the Italian system but in the American system at least appeals don’t generally do that sort of thing.
This is being widely reported, but my own understanding is that this cannot actually be determined until the motivation document is published.
(Regarding the Kerchers, you will want to see this comment.)
I’m a bit confused that they are so confused. Guede’s verdict is still guilty. How in the process of the appeal were they not introduced to the notion that their daughter could simply have been killed by one person without co conspirators?
The same way they avoided being introduced to it during the first-level trial: by not listening to the defense arguments.
That, it occurs to me, was their mistake, and is why they are in my opinion fully worthy of criticism for the stance they have taken. From the beginning, they appear to have only gotten their information through prosecution filters. (They admit as much when they speak of having to trust the police; but they didn’t have to trust the police—they could have attended the trial and listened to the arguments, which they didn’t do.) It isn’t that they can’t be excused for feeling harshly toward the people they believe killed their daughter/sister; it’s that they shouldn’t have allowed themselves to become convinced that Knox and Sollecito killed her without listening to what Knox and Sollecito’s attorneys had to say first.
(Indeed, I find it somewhat telling that they flew in in time to hear the verdict, but not to hear Knox and Sollecito address the court earlier the same day.)
Good question. The father actually answers it in one of the handful of quotes given by the press. They were convinced by the prosecution that the crime could not have been committed by one person—this was probably a key component of Knox and Sollecito’s initial guilty verdict. The father said,
I think it is a good sign that in his confusion, the father is clinging to facts. I think it is a matter of time before they see things more clearly. Despite their emotional state, the parents seem to have a better than average relationship with epistemology.
I find it odd that the prosecution would ever have claimed that one person couldn’t possibly have done that. I mean, it’s their job to find reasons to believe in the guilt of the defendants, but a simple review of murder cases committed with knives should be able to dispense with that. I’ve only read several, but one of the things that surprised me was the sheer number of times which the perpetrators frequently stabbed the victim. In one case that I read, the murderer stabbed the victim over 90 times.
I suspect that murderers often continue in a panic or frenzy when they discover how hard it is to get their victim to die. An inexperienced knife wielder against a struggling victim can easily stab the victim dozens of times without inflicting a single individually fatal wound.
Complete agreement. I said “interesting and tragic” and described their reaction as “understandable.” See the rest of the discussion in this subthread. I strongly disagree with describing the parents as disgraceful.
It should be noted that Wedrifid strongly disagrees with describing the parents as disgraceful. This leaves, I believe, a total of 0 people who describe the parents as disgraceful.
I don’t see where you retracted your comment...? Or are you making a distinction between people being disgraceful and behavior being disgraceful?
This
You’re right, we’re in agreement.
I read your description of the parent’s reaction as ‘very negative’ and wondered what you meant. I then looked to Wedrifid’s comment for elaboration and averaged them together. The subthread developed in the meantime.
Corruption and hubris.