All posts by George Barwood

I campaign for the wrongly convicted.

Who Killed Laci Peterson?

Wrongly Convicted Group Website

Many people have been re-examining the case of Scott Peterson and coming to the conclusion that he did not murder his wife Laci Peterson in December 2002.

This blog post addresses the question : “If Scott did not murder Laci, who did?”.

There is no way to be certain, but nevertheless, there are reasons to suspect the involvement of serial killer Edward Wayne Edwards. The main evidence in support of this theory are anonymous messages, and evidence which suggests Edwards was the Zodiac Killer.

The first anonymous message, shown below, was sent to the Modesto Bee on May 4, 2003. ( Note that the bodies of Conner and Laci were discovered on April 13 and 14, Scott was arrested on April 18, Easter Day was Sunday 20 April ).EdwardsLetterAMessageFromGod

This appears to be a confession that the writer framed Scott Peterson.

Then, from March 22, 2005 through August 6…

View original post 844 more words

Advertisements

Jurors, proof and the death penalty

The problem seems to be that many jurors just do not have a proper conception and understanding of proof, and appeal courts show extreme deference to the judgement of jurors. So somebody can be convicted of murder based entirely on speculation rather than proof.

One sign is a trial of extreme length. That happens when there is no proof and it’s all guesswork what really happened, or worse it’s clear a person is innocent but they are still found guilty.

There is also evidence that jurors who are in favour of the death penalty are precisely those jurors who will convict when evidence of guilt is lacking, so the death penalty compounds the problem.

Originally posted as a comment on this post

What on earth happened to poor Tommy Robinson? 10 Things You Should Know.

The Secret Barrister

It can now be reported that Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the English Defence League, convicted fraudster, sometime-football hooligan and self-reinvented free speech advocate, was on Friday 25 May 2018 imprisoned for 13 months for contempt of court after livestreaming a broadcast, including footage of participants in a criminal trial, outside Leeds Crown Court.

Some people will have seen reference to this on social media; others may have had the plight of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – to use his real name – drawn to their attention by the hordes of protestors storming London over the May bank holiday weekend. But there has not, until today, been mainstream coverage of the case due to a reporting restriction – what is known as a “postponement order” – that forbade publication of these facts until after the conclusion of the trial (and subsequent related trial) upon which he was purporting to “report”.

While…

View original post 3,963 more words

Jodi Arias – guilted?

Some notes about the testimony of Alyce LaViolette about entries in Jodi’s journal just before her road trip. 37:00 May 27 journal entry. JA talks about meeting Ryan Burns, trip to Utah. Evidence she is leaving TA, she says “great news”. Talks about making plans to go to Utah. 38:00 May 30 journal entry. JA making […]

via Journal entries just before trip — Jodi Ann Arias – Innocent in Arizona

Donna Elvira

“That ungrateful soul betrayed me, O God, how unhappy he made me! But, though betrayed and abandoned, I still know pity for him. When I feel my suffering, my heart speaks of vengeance; but when I see the danger he’s in, my heart beats for him.”

Pamina’s opera puts it this way:

“So often not only in opera, but in all types of fiction written by men in past centuries, women are either shamed and vilified, or, more often, idealized and put on a pedestal. Fully human, complex female characters can be hard to find. Yet in Elvira, we find one. A female character with both comic and tragic elements; who has genuine dignity yet makes a fool of herself; who’s no shrinking violet, but no pillar of strength either; who has blazing anger, but too much love to maintain it, and great capacity for compassion, but too much anger to maintain it; whose faithful, passionate love has both positive and negative effects; whose humiliations are sometimes played for laughs but never portrayed as justified; and who remains morally gray throughout the opera, with neither the other characters nor the creators ever judging her.”

Donna Elvira is I think a character far ahead of her time, a betrayed woman who forgives the most damning faults in Don Giovanni, who feels the desire for vengeance, but who still has empathy for the danger he is in. This is the great puzzle of men like Don Giovanni, why women keep come back to them and feel for them, even as they are terribly betrayed.

The aria is I think a masterpiece, coming towards the end of the opera where Don Giovanni refuses to repent and is carried down to hell.

Libretto
In quali eccessi, o umi, in quai misfatti orribili, tremendi è avvolto il sciagurato!
Ah no! non puote tardar l’ira del cielo, la giustizia tardar. Sentir già  parmi la fatale saetta, che gli piomba sul capo! Aperto veggio il baratro mortal! Misera Elvira!
Che contrasto d’affetti, in sen ti nasce! Perchè questi sospiri? e queste ambascie?

Mi tradì, quell’alma ingrata, infelice, o Dio, mi fa.
Ma tradita e abbandonata, provo ancor per lui pietà .
Quando sento il mio tormento, di vendetta il cor favella,
Ma se guardo il suo cimento, palpitando il cor mi va.

Recitative in English
In what abysses of error, into what dangers, Thy reckless path pursuing, Have guilt and folly brought thee! The wrath of heaven will surely overwhelm thee, It is swift to destroy.
The lightning flash of retribution impendeth, It will soon be upon thee! Eternal ruin at last will be thy doom. Wretched Elvira! What a tempest within thee, thy heart divideth!
Ah, wherefore is this longing? These pangs of sorrow?

 

Why do women kill?

Interesting article on why women kill.

“Of the 532 offenders identified from those incidents, 453 (85 per cent) were male and 79 (15 per cent) were female, which are figures typical of what we observe both in Australia and internationally. ”

“In particular, homicides driven by concealment and jealousy were all committed by males”

“So why do women kill?

Although homicide is predominantly male perpetrated, of the cases investigated women most often killed for gain or what they perceived as “love”, and for the most part targeted those closest to them.

Gain homicides are those committed for personal benefit, such as money or business and personal advantage. The homicides committed by women for gain in the sample were mostly carried out for insurance payouts, assets, or due to being removed from a will following a divorce, and generally involved the partners of the women.”

Full article here:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-05/female-murderers-more-likely-motivated-by-love-financial-gain/9378404

Reporting crime

The large scale abuse of the women gymnasts by Larry Nasser has exposed a flaw in the way crimes are reported. Nasser was able to exploit a weakness to abuse a large number of young gymnasts without being arrested or prosecuted, even though many of the victims had complained to their parents and to authorities.

The issue is that a single complaint may not be sufficiently credible for law enforcement action to be taken, but if there are multiple reports which corroborate each other, then it is possible to bring a prosecution.

What would an ideal system look like? To encourage truthful reporting, I suggest an automated system where humans are not given access until a defendant is identified by the system, based on multiple independent reports. The reporting system should be programmed to prompt for relevant details, to allow the computer system to automatically see if there are independent reports which corroborate each other. When the computer system holding the reports identifies a probable crime and a defendant, this information should be automatically published (without identifying information) and police should consider the report and obtain a court order for further investigative action to be taken, and ultimately for a prosecution to be brought.

See also
https://www.ted.com/talks/jessica_ladd_the_reporting_system_that_sexual_assault_survivors_want

 

Complex problems

A long trial, intended to establish a truth about the natural world “beyond a reasonable doubt” may be a complex problem.

By “complex problem” I mean some kind of puzzle where you need to be quite organised to keep a large number of details under control, where the solution is not obvious, where a problem needs to be broken down into smaller components, and each component needs to be carefully examined and considered separately. We have to do this with large problems, because the human brain simply cannot think about very many bits of information at one time.

Most people, in most jobs, will never or hardly ever encounter complex problems they are required to solve. I am not sure what you should call the required skill, perhaps analytical skill, although I am not sure that captures it.

This skill is needed in mathematics, where the proof of a non-trivial mathematical theorem has to be constructed from “lemmas” (which are minor theorems used during the proof construction ).

Mathematics  is similar to justice in that proof is the central concept, although of course mathematical proof has a different kind of certainty to it – mathematical certainty rather than legal certainty, which is usually built around the somewhat fuzzy concept of “reasonable doubt”, which is more akin to probability theory* than mathematical certainty.

But although mathematical proof is different to legal proof, there are still similar errors that can be made. False assumptions, clerical errors and errors that arise from our imperfect understanding of the extremely complex natural world, including human behaviour.

Analytical skill is also needed in engineering and computer programming. For example, software to control a large aircraft needs to be broken down into small components, there may be many thousands of such components in a large project.

People with very good “analytical skills” (for want of a better word) may be quite rare, and rarer still in jury pools where employers of people with very good analytical skills may be reluctant to release employees for long periods of time.

So there is a strong chance of serious error when a group of unskilled people are asked to analyse a complex problem.

There is no way to independently test if the jury solution to a criminal problem is correct. While aircraft can be carefully tested, to see if the solution works, there is no way to test the verdict of a jury. If it is wrong, the error may take decades to discover, or the error may never be discovered ( at least in a court of law ).

This could perhaps help explain why there are many wrongful convictions.

* It is reasonable to view the job of a juror as calculating a probability of innocence ( while incorporating uncertainties about the calculation itself into their reasoning in a conservative way ). A typical jury instruction would state “If you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you must find him/her guilty”. If a juror concludes the probability of innocence is very small, say less than 1% then it would be reasonable and rational to be “firmly convinced” of guilt, even though the required level of certainty is never made explicit in jury instructions, it is left to the personal interpretation of each juror.

 

Inductive reasoning and confirmation bias

In a criminal trial, the prosecution may offer circumstantial evidence which is less than conclusive, and suggest that an innocent explanation is unlikely, even though an innocent explanation is quite reasonable, and is not excluded by reliable evidence

People sometimes say “I don’t believe in coincidences”. The universe of potential suspicious circumstances may be very large, and we often cannot even say if a coincidence is likely or unlikely.

This is “inductive reasoning”. From the wikipedia article on inductive reasoning:

“As with deductive arguments, biases can distort the proper application of inductive argument, thereby preventing the reasoner from forming the most logical conclusion based on the clues. Examples of these biases include the availability heuristic, confirmation bias, and the predictable-world bias.”

Confirmation bias may set in when inductive arguments are made (whether implicitly as evidence is presented, or explicitly in closing arguments), and evidence that shows the prosecution case is improbable may be ignored as a result of confirmation bias.

I believe wrongful convictions can easily occur when ambiguous evidence is presented. It is quite natural for jurors to reason inductively, as inductive reasoning often produces good results, even though it is not reliable.

Prior Discussion which led to this post.