I don’t see a motivation that the Kerchers would be motivated to harm Amanda Knox other than their belief that she killed their daughter. In this context, what do you think is the underlying motive that they are engaging in self-deception to accomplish?
I can’t speak for wedrifid, obviously, but the one that immediately suggests itself to me is the desire for satisfaction and closure- it’s more comforting to believe Amanda Knox killed their daughter than some random stranger they know nothing about who may or may not ever be caught.
Oh. Oops. (Reads up on trial.) In that case, the only vaguely credible hypothesis I can see is some kind of unconscious consistency effect / sunk costs fallacy thing, where recanting a belief that has been proven to be mistaken is perceived as tremendously more costly and difficult than it actually is. Or something. Maybe wedrifid could clarify what he meant?
According to the motivation document from Guédé′s appeal trial, it was reduced due to mitigating circumstances (difficult childhood, intended to turn himself in, apologized to Kercher family for “not coming to Meredith’s aid”).
I don’t think that sentence is that far off what I’d expect in Italy. In general, prison sentences in most of Western Europe are much shorter than they are in the US.
I think it’s believed that the crime had to have been committed by more than one person, so now they do have to deal with not having caught/convicted Guede’s accomplice(s), whoever that is.
I think it’s believed that the crime had to have been committed by more than one person
No; that theory is subscribed to almost exclusively by people who believe Knox and Sollecito are guilty. Knox and Sollecito’s defense argued (almost certainly correctly) that Guédé acted alone.
I can’t speak for wedrifid, obviously, but the one that immediately suggests itself to me is the desire for satisfaction and closure- it’s more comforting to believe Amanda Knox killed their daughter than some random stranger they know nothing about who may or may not ever be caught.
The random stranger was caught within a month: his name is Rudy Guédé, and he was sentenced to 16 years in prison for the crime.
Oh. Oops. (Reads up on trial.) In that case, the only vaguely credible hypothesis I can see is some kind of unconscious consistency effect / sunk costs fallacy thing, where recanting a belief that has been proven to be mistaken is perceived as tremendously more costly and difficult than it actually is. Or something. Maybe wedrifid could clarify what he meant?
Is that a normal sentence? Reduced for testifying?
According to the motivation document from Guédé′s appeal trial, it was reduced due to mitigating circumstances (difficult childhood, intended to turn himself in, apologized to Kercher family for “not coming to Meredith’s aid”).
I don’t think that sentence is that far off what I’d expect in Italy. In general, prison sentences in most of Western Europe are much shorter than they are in the US.
I think it’s believed that the crime had to have been committed by more than one person, so now they do have to deal with not having caught/convicted Guede’s accomplice(s), whoever that is.
No; that theory is subscribed to almost exclusively by people who believe Knox and Sollecito are guilty. Knox and Sollecito’s defense argued (almost certainly correctly) that Guédé acted alone.