You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

prase comments on Knox and Sollecito freed - Less Wrong Discussion

26 Post author: komponisto 03 October 2011 08:24PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (114)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: byrnema 04 October 2011 02:53:57AM *  4 points [-]

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?

Comment author: prase 04 October 2011 11:11:23AM 2 points [-]

how can such two 180 degree verdicts even happen?

This isn't so rare, is it? That's what appeals are for.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 04 October 2011 12:41:09PM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: komponisto 04 October 2011 10:37:32PM 2 points [-]

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.

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.)