Podcast for 3 February 2014

[thalamay]

Nope. No do-overs from an acquittal.

I get that this is an Anglo-Saxon principle in the judiciary system. But I fail to see why this has to be so. In fact, I find it to be just wrong. I don't see any good reason for why mistakes shouldn't be allowed to get corrected.

What if it turns out that a judge/jury that lets a murder suspect go was bribed to do so? What if other new evidence appears?

I get that a citizen should be protected from being sued over and over again for the same "crime" until the verdict suits the prosecutor. But you can have that protection and still allow for a re-trial when new evidence appears.

[Ibrahim90]

Sorry, but that is just factually wrong. I'm sure that most of the time these geologists in question were honest and said that there is no way of knowing when an earthquake might hit you, but here there was clear evidence that local politicians and these scientists came together and conspired to give the public the perception of there not being any danger.

that's not what I've read in the articles (including the one in science) that I did read but I'll hear you out: it wouldn't be the first time news was misreported. Things have gotten interesting: I was not aware of any evidence of an actual conspiracy or dealings or the like. the articles were simply stating what we told you.

Secondly, there were lots of wiretaps going on at the time due to suspicion of corruption (many of which turned out to be justified) and they proved that the geologists were persuaded by the politicians to act against better knowledge.

is there a transcript, or the recordings proper? If so, I'd be very interested to see or hear this. If it is the case, I think more people should know about it. It certainly has troubling implications on the matter: if they are taking bribes or similar, then it raises a BIG question mark on the integrity of the Italian scientific scene.

Lastly, on the night before the quake, there was the fatal press conference with those scientists in which they didn't qualify their statements by saying that nobody can predict earthquakes or that the chances of an earthquake are as they always are. They deliberately (as the wiretaps proved) failed to do so. What they did say was that there's nothing to fear and that the inhabitants should make themselves a nice evening. A couple of hours later, more than 300 were dead.

well, the sceintists most relevant to this matter weren't allowed to speak to the media privately, so it's no surprise (the transcripts of this would further add to the picture). I think we can both agree that the conference did not communicate the facts to the people, though I only know two people from the committee who could speak to the media (the politician and the Vulcanologist).

Back when the court case was finished, I heard a radio program where they questioned German geologists about the case and while they were shocked by the severity of the sentences, they agreed with the lawsuit being brought forth to begin with as the scientists and politicians in question "made statements that were simply factually wrong".

So as I originally said, this is more complicated than it is made out to be. It's really less a case about science and more about Italian corruption.

I would agree with the Germans, if this is indeed the case: I know one of the Politicians did say to the people n the conference that the chances of an earthquake were reduced by the minor tremors--which indeed is wrong, but aside from him, I don't see why the severity of the sentence to the scientists.

either way, this is not a good thing to hear, and does not cast the Italian Government in a favorable light.

[MrBogosity]

what did play the biggest role in the original lawsuit (and I would guess also in the most current one) were her contradictory statements and her accusation of someone who turned out to be innocent, combined with a faked break in to the apartment.

Which is why it's FUCKING BULLSHIT. Not only were those statements all but coerced, made after she was interrogated at length and sleep-deprived, having been denied an attorney and not even informed she was a suspect (which would get them thrown out of any DECENT court), but the main thing here is you CANNOT use the defendant's behavior as primary evidence. You need physical evidence linking to her first, and THEY DON'T HAVE IT.

This is also what they said about Casey Anthony. This is how innocent people get railroaded.

As I said, I'm also in the "not guilty" camp, but I wouldn't call it obvious. I think the overall evidence (as far as I'm aware of it) is too flimsy so convict anyone. But there's another chance as there's one more appeal court to go to.

It shouldn't have happened AT ALL! Once you're acquitted, that's IT! If this is really how the Italian courts work, then everything is bullshit except for the very last appeal trial, and you might as well just skip the rigmarole and go straight to the last one.

[MrBogosity]

I get that this is an Anglo-Saxon principle in the judiciary system. But I fail to see why this has to be so.

Because the government can't just keep trying until it gets lucky.

What if it turns out that a judge/jury that lets a murder suspect go was bribed to do so?

If the defendant was involved, then the acquittal is invalid. But that's pretty much the only case.

What if other new evidence appears?

Tough. The state should have done their job collecting evidence the first time around.

But you can have that protection and still allow for a re-trial when new evidence appears.

No, you can't. Because then you'd have 10 innocent people imprisoned for every 1 guilty person that goes free, instead of the other way around.

[thalamay]

is there a transcript, or the recordings proper? If so, I'd be very interested to see or hear this. If it is the case, I think more people should know about it. It certainly has troubling implications on the matter: if they are taking bribes or similar, then it raises a BIG question mark on the integrity of the Italian scientific scene.

I'm sure there are transcripts, in fact I know there are. Some of the taps are even on YouTube. But I don't speak Italian, so it's difficult for me to sieve through all of that. I followed the story from Germany and here we got most of the same coverage as people in the US did. So at first I was just as enraged about it. But once I dug a little deeper, I saw that it really wasn't about science but about corruption.

A quick google search provided me with this English language article, talking about the wiretaps and also linking to some audio files:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22439-bugged-phone-deepens-controversy-over-italian-quake.html?full=true#.UvAxenlPuTo

[thalamay]

...but the main thing here is you CANNOT use the defendant's behavior as primary evidence.

I agree that the behavior ALONE cannot possibly be considered evidence. But if it fits into a larger narrative that is (crucially) ALSO supported by physical evidence, then you have something.

You need physical evidence linking to her first, and THEY DON'T HAVE IT.

I edited my posting to include a link which lists all the evidence brought forth.

It shouldn't have happened AT ALL! Once you're acquitted, that's IT!

No, you can't. Because then you'd have 10 innocent people imprisoned for every 1 guilty person that goes free, instead of the other way around.

I really don't see how that would follow. If you have an independent judge analyzing whether new evidence justifies a re-trial, how does that lead to relatively more innocent people in prison?
Th only argument I can think of is that trials inevitably lead to false rulings, including the conviction of innocents. But if that's the problem, then we'd have to stop enforcing the law period.

Quite frankly, I'd take the Italian legal system over the American one every day of the week. Despite my own prejudices regarding the Italian political system and the corruption within it, their legal system seems to be one of the most trustworthy ones.

[Ibrahim90]

I'm sure there are transcripts, in fact I know there are. Some of the taps are even on YouTube. But I don't speak Italian, so it's difficult for me to sieve through all of that. I followed the story from Germany and here we got most of the same coverage as people in the US did. So at first I was just as enraged about it. But once I dug a little deeper, I saw that it really wasn't about science but about corruption.

A quick google search provided me with this English language article, talking about the wiretaps and also linking to some audio files:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22439-bugged-phone-deepens-controversy-over-italian-quake.html?full=true#.UvAxenlPuTo

OK, I'm listening to the transcript: it shows me that Bartaloso is a real scumbag: ordering her to basically stitch up the whole operation. he's also an idiot, who clearly doesn't understand the science of earthquakes.

what I find disturbing in the implication that the scientists were basically there to make the whole thing look legitimate, rather than a meaningful investigation: a show of giving a shit, rather than risking (in his mind's eye) the panic of the population. There is little implication that the scientists themselves were bribed--simply that they're going to be in this meeting to "reassure the public". considering they were largely forbidden to speak to the public, this would not have been difficult to do. without a full transcript of the conversation with the seismologist, I cannot infer much more (it would reveal if he were indeed bribed).

[MrBogosity]

I agree that the behavior ALONE cannot possibly be considered evidence. But if it fits into a larger narrative

Then it's STILL bullshit. Narratives ARE NOT EVIDENCE. Juries might THINK they are, but more's the pity.

that is (crucially) ALSO supported by physical evidence,

By PHYSICAL evidence, of which--again--there is NONE.

I edited my posting to include a link which lists all the evidence brought forth.

Yes, let's take a look...alibi...interrogation...phone calls...wow, more than halfway down the page to get to actual physical evidence.

And what's the first? The knife which YOU YOURSELF admitted was bogus evidence. And the rest is just as false. NONE of Amanda's DNA was found on or near the victim, there was NONE of Amanda's blood, etc. They THOUGHT there was at one time, but they turned out to be contaminated samples. So if this is what you're going on, no wonder you're confused about it!

And what about Guede? TONS of his DNA on AND IN the victim, and convicted which was upheld on ALL appeals...I mean, WHAT???

Okay, let's think about this: given that nothing's impossible (p(H)>0), we have to consider it a nonzero possibility that Knox somehow cleaned up all of her DNA while leaving a LOT of Guede's, AND the police basically ended up fingering her out of blind luck; not bloody likely, to say the least.

OR, Guede killed her after all, which is extremely probable given what all of the evidence says.

Not bloody likely ÷ extremely probable = a completely shitty Likelihood Ratio!

I really don't see how that would follow. If you have an independent judge analyzing whether new evidence justifies a re-trial, how does that lead to relatively more innocent people in prison?

How would it not? Government gets more cracks at it whenever they want. And there's no such thing as an "independent judge." Judges are just politicians in black robes.

Quite frankly, I'd take the Italian legal system over the American one every day of the week. Despite my own prejudices regarding the Italian political system and the corruption within it, their legal system seems to be one of the most trustworthy ones.

I guess if rampant corruption and injustice is "trustworthy" by you...

[thalamay]

And the rest is just as false. NONE of Amanda's DNA was found on or near the victim, there was NONE of Amanda's blood, etc. They THOUGHT there was at one time, but they turned out to be contaminated samples. So if this is what you're going on, no wonder you're confused about it!

Well, that's the gist of it. I agree, if all those samples were bogus, then there isn't much of a case left. On the other hand, if all those samples are legit, then she sure as hell was in on it.

I don't know how you can assess that it's all bogus. I mean, I even agree with you, but it's not open and shut, merely that the doubts regarding the samples are too big for me personally. I have the feeling that you're approaching this from a very biased position. I mean how do you explain those two guilty verdicts then? Are the Italians too stupid to weigh the evidence and apply the law? Are they corrupt (and if so, why, and who paid them)? Do they simply want to stick it to the US and Amanda was their proxy? Or did they actually believe that they had a solid case against her and for good reason? Do I have to explain to you how conspiracy theories work? Try to take one step back from your American-centric perspective, from the American media with their axes that they grind and the biases they have. You like to apply Bayesian mathematics, so why don't you do it by taking everything into account, rather than only after you decided to throw out all the evidence?

You sound like one of this creationists who dismiss all the evidence for evolution after reading on their favorite website that it's all bogus anyway. Ok, that was mean, I'm sorry, it's not THAT bad. 

How would it not?

Because the same rules as with any trial apply. So the chances of someone innocent being convicted should be the same.
However, if we apply strict standards, the chance would in fact decrease, as only solid evidence could justify a re-trial.

Government gets more cracks at it whenever they want.

No they would not. They'd have nothing to do with it. It would be firmly located within the judiciary branch, just as the court system should be anyhow...(unfortunately in the US there are many overlaps, but that doesn't mean that there have to be...again, maybe you should take a step back from your American-centric perspective).

And there's no such thing as an "independent judge." Judges are just politicians in black robes.

That's what I thought. Sorry, but if that's what you think, then you should be advocating to get rid of courts altogether. Either judges are biased by definition, then they're no good no matter if it's a first or a second trial.

Or judges can at least in theory be impartial, then again it doesn't matter if we're talking about a first or a second trial.

I guess if rampant corruption and injustice is "trustworthy" by you...

Certainly more trustworthy than the US system. I'm pretty sure that the "rampant" corruption and injustice (citation needed) in the Italian judiciary system are far lower than in the US...I mean you guys elect your prosecutors which opens up the entire system to abuse, guys who are "tough on crime" get elected and individual rights suffer (hooray, who can achieve more death sentences?), then the jury system opens it up to storytelling being more important than facts, etc.
At least in Italy, even Berlusconi was unable to bribe his way out of the courts...oh yeah, and they don't have capital punishment either. If Amanda was an Italian student in front of an American jury, she'd probably be on death row right now, whereas in real life, she can do interviews from the comfort of her home.

Of course the Italian judiciary system isn't prefect. Wherever humans are at work, mistakes happen. But the safeguards within it seem to be much better than in the US. So yeah, if I was falsely accused of being a murderer and I could choose between the US and Italy, I'd definitely stand trial in Italy.

[thalamay]

OK, I'm listening to the transcript: it shows me that Bartaloso is a real scumbag: ordering her to basically stitch up the whole operation. he's also an idiot, who clearly doesn't understand the science of earthquakes.

what I find disturbing in the implication that the scientists were basically there to make the whole thing look legitimate, rather than a meaningful investigation: a show of giving a shit, rather than risking (in his mind's eye) the panic of the population. There is little implication that the scientists themselves were bribed--simply that they're going to be in this meeting to "reassure the public". considering they were largely forbidden to speak to the public, this would not have been difficult to do. without a full transcript of the conversation with the seismologist, I cannot infer much more (it would reveal if he were indeed bribed).

Most of my information stems from that detailed radio program I told you about. I even tracked it down, unfortunately, they only make their programs available for a couple of months on their website, so I couldn't re-listen to it.

It's been a while but I think it was pretty clear from the wire taps that the scientists knew what they were getting into, they weren't just there in the background in order to give the press conference and the bogus claims made a more sciency feel.
Though I don't remember if money was promised or if it was about grants for their research, or simply a case of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."

In any case, as you can see, it wasn't about "not predicting an earthquake", but about misleading the public due to political pressure.

[MrBogosity]

I mean how do you explain those two guilty verdicts then?

1) Don't have to; that's not actual primary evidence of her guilt

2) It's easily explained by the judge and jury not having any more knowledge of what constitutes primary evidence than you've displayed here. DNA is all sciencey and esoteric; we're social creatures who respond more to the psychological things you've pointed out and that the website you linked to than actual physical evidence. The physical evidence is just there to shore up the conclusion made from the social cues.

It's human nature, but it's a huge problem: if you start with the conclusion and come up with evidence to justify it, nothing matters. You were either right or wrong before you even started, and no amount of evidence and arguments you come up with after that can change that fact.

You like to apply Bayesian mathematics, so why don't you do it by taking everything into account, rather than only after you decided to throw out all the evidence?

I have been. And the Bayesian conclusion points to an extremely high probability of Guede being the murderer and an extremely low probability of Knox/Sollecito.

No they would not. They'd have nothing to do with it. It would be firmly located within the judiciary branch,

The judiciary branch is PART of government! Not just in America, but EVERYWHERE!

I mean you guys elect your prosecutors which opens up the entire system to abuse,

Prosecutors who are appointed do no better. Mike Nifong, the disbarred prosecutor behind the false accusations in the Duke Lacrosse case, was appointed.

[AnCap Dave]

Schiff  gives his side of the story in video form.

[yt]F9LNP-yXXUc[/yt]

[MrBogosity]

Schiff  gives his side of the story in video form.

[yt]F9LNP-yXXUc[/yt]

It'd still be better if TDS would just release the uncut interview.

EDIT: "They don't think there's anything wrong with theft, so why should they think there's anything wrong with lying?"* Wow, so many things just clicked into place now that he's put it that way!

*(Paraphrase, but I think that's close.)