Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Stacyhs]

Trust me. I am the biggest sceptic you could hope to meet. I vividly recall the first newspaper reports of this case and over the years I have wrestled to get to the truth of the matter. I have read the Van der Leek, the Follain, the Kercher, the Nadeau, the King and also, Burleigh, Douglas, Hendry, Waterbury and followed the media, all the time looking for a frame-up, falsification of evidence, police misdemeanour or any signs of innocence, and so far, the more and more apparent are the real facts.

I have noticed the deliberate lies peddled by Amanda herself and the PR machine that she was tortured and interrogated for 53 hours, as well as starved and beaten by the police, who would not even let her go to the toilet.

Why the need for such lies, if innocent?

Why did Amanda and Raff refuse to take the witness box over what they did the night of the murder?

Please quote and cite where Amanda or "the PR machine" claimed she was "tortured", "starved" and "beaten by the police".

What they have said is that Amanda was smacked on the back of the head a couple times. That is not a claim of being "tortured" or "beaten". She claims she was given nothing to eat or drink until she had signed those statements. That is not being "starved". Overzealous and exaggerating PIP may have claimed those things but that is not Amanda or G-M.

Now, Lumumba, on the other hand, DID claim he was punched, kicked, slapped on the head, denied food or water, threatened, etc. Hmmmm....

Amanda gave testimony of what she did that night, so why you make that claim, I have no idea.
Defendants often don't take the stand but it has nothing to do with their guilt or innocence. Guilty people often take the stand and testify while innocent people often do not. You are just reading into that what supports your bias.

 

[Stacyhs]

I can't see any swearing there.

Being foul-mouthed doesn't require swearing. Calling people names is also foul-mouthed.

 

[TruthCalls]

Really? I long for you to once, just once, make a sincere and honest argument for the kids' innocence. Instead we get bland platitudes about how Seattle loves 'em and how proud you are of Raff, now he is a crime commentator.

Why should anyone have to make an argument for their innocence. They are entitled to a presumption of innocence. It's up to you to make a sincere and honest argument for their guilt.

In truth, despite the best efforts of the police to destroy it, there was significant evidence that they were at Raffaele's at a time when Meredith was likely dying or dead already. And don't forget Guede himself said Amanda had nothing to do with it.

- An alibi with multiple elements of evidence to support it
- Absolutely no evidence of their involvement
- No motive
- The one person who undeniably was present at the murder stated Amanda had nothing to do with it.

Why is this not good enough for you?

 

[acbytesla]

Really? I long for you to once, just once, make a sincere and honest argument for the kids' innocence. Instead we get bland platitudes about how Seattle loves 'em and how proud you are of Raff, now he is a crime commentator.

I stopped arguing the case with you a very long time ago because you don't argue in good faith. The discussion is inherently dishonest. Your recent post about the menstrual blood is emblematic on how you approach this. You make general citations usually only after prodding. Then you offer a cite like Darkness Descending instead of the court case sometimes but not always you'll provide a specific location. And then others knowing of your deceptive techniques they investigate and find that your cite is a total fabrication. You'll excuse me if I refuse to chase my tail refuting these wild fabrications.

It has been shown that religious insight comes from the higher neo-cortex. IOW it is a recent evolution of the human brain and thus only advanced species have it. Superstition and base 'instinct' (which atheists believe explains the world) is governed by the most ancient part of the brain, near the back of the head.

What kind of absurd nonsense is that? That delusional thinking takes place in another location of the brain does not validate your claims that God exists and that Christian ideology is correct.

It is atheists who adopt circular reasoning, which goes something like this; "It's my opinion...therefore it is so!"

I can't speak for all atheists, but most atheists in fact don't use circular reasoning. No, it's not that there isn't a God but that there is no credible evidence that there is. Most believe that extraordinary claims like there is an all knowing all powerful God that we must believe in or else suffer eternal torture requires extraordinary evidence.
That is not circular reasoning. It's simply a need for arguments to be supported by evidence. It's kind of like how I approach this case. I require evidence of guilt, not intuition.

Circular reasoning is this. We know that Christ was the son of God because it's in the Bible and how do we know that is true? Because it is in the Bible.

There is scant evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ and absolutely none that he was the son of the creator of the Universe. As I said earlier, if you can provide evidence that JC was son of the creator I will change my mind.

 

[Stacyhs]

Van der Leek's books are some of the best on the market. His perspicacity, analytical skills and insight are refreshing and bang on target.

Bwaaaahaaaahaaaahaaaa!

Van der Leek's book is as true to the facts of this case as Disney's Pocahontas is to the true facts of the real Pocahontas.

 

[Stacyhs]

I stopped arguing the case with you a very long time ago because you don't argue in good faith. The discussion is inherently dishonest. Your recent post about the menstrual blood is emblematic on how you approach this. You make general citations usually only after prodding. Then you offer a cite like Darkness Descending instead of the court case sometimes but not always you'll provide a specific location. And then others knowing of your deceptive techniques they investigate and find that your cite is a total fabrication. You'll excuse me if I refuse to chase my tail refuting these wild fabrications.
What kind of absurd nonsense is that? That delusional thinking takes place in another location of the brain does not validate your claims that God exists and that Christian ideology is correct.


I can't speak for all atheists, but most atheists in fact don't use circular reasoning. No, it's not that there isn't a God but that there is no credible evidence that there is. Most believe that extraordinary claims like there is an all knowing all powerful God that we must believe in or else suffer eternal torture requires extraordinary evidence.
That is not circular reasoning. It's simply a need for arguments to be supported by evidence. It's kind of like how I approach this case. I require evidence of guilt, not intuition.

Circular reasoning is this. We know that Christ was the son of God because it's in the Bible and how do we know that is true? Because it is in the Bible.

There is scant evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ and absolutely none that he was the son of the creator of the Universe. As I said earlier, if you can provide evidence that JC was son of the creator I will change my mind.

Well said.
This reminds me of the discussions I had with a Christian friend years ago. When I asked her for proof of God and that JC was the son of God, her response was (as you said) "Because it's in the Bible." When I said that I didn't believe the Bible was written by anyone other than other humans who also had no proof of God, my friend responded with "But how can so many Christians in the world be wrong?" I asked her "How can so many atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc ..which far outnumber Christians...be so wrong?"

 

[acbytesla]

Well said.
This reminds me of the discussions I had with a Christian friend years ago. When I asked her for proof of God and that JC was the son of God, her response was (as you said) "Because it's in the Bible." When I said that I didn't believe the Bible was written by anyone other than other humans who also had no proof of God, my friend responded with "But how can so many Christians in the world be wrong?" I asked her "How can so many atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc ..which far outnumber Christians...be so wrong?"

I like to ask if they believe Islam or Buddhism or the thousand other religions? They almost always answer "of course not"

I then reply that our beliefs are really not that far apart. they are atheists for 999 religions, I'm an atheist for just one more.

The verdict in this case and others offer a similar corollary. Every defendant who stands accused walks into a courtroom with no burden of proof. Neither Amanda or Raffaele need prove they are innocent. They don't actually have to prove anything. It is the one who claims there is a God or claims that Amanda or Raffaele are guilty that must present a case with evidence to support their claim. As an atheist, I'm not the defense in the case, I'm more the jury that determined that the claim did not fulfill the necessary burden of proof. My verdict is not that they are innocent but that they are not guilty. Christians like the PGP are always trying to shift the burden of proof. I'm not arguing there isn't a God, that would put the burden of proof on me. No, I'm simply demanding that those who say that there is one particularly one who's laws they like to integrate into all of society require evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

You should find another source. The paper by an Innocence Project advocate actually complains that the status you claim exists, doesn't.

The presumption only exists during the trial for the express purpose of emphasizing the need of the state to prove BARD.

As it currently works in practise the presumption does not protect against wrongful
convictions as is widely supposed. In fact, it can actually facilitate them. Alternatively,
reflecting on the investigative approach of the University of Bristol Innocence Project, it
is argued that the innocent will be better protected against wrongful conviction only
when all resources and efforts are orientated towards subjecting the evidence claimed to
indicate guilt to critical interrogation to see if it can be substantiated​

Exactly - the paper is arguing precisely that the presumption of innocence does extend in every direction unless/until a person is found guilty in a trial, but that this doctrine is not always being properly followed (including, worryingly, within the law enforcement community and the criminal justice system itself).

Again, the PRESUMPTION of innocence (not a declaration of innocence, remember) is a constant and unchanging state that applies to every person in relation to a particular criminal offence from the time that the offence occurs through to perpetuity, unless/until that person is properly convicted of the crime in a just trial (and post-conviction, the presumption of innocence must be re-established if the person subsequently has the conviction quashed at appeal).

 

[LondonJohn]

I like to ask if they believe Islam or Buddhism or the thousand other religions? They almost always answer "of course not"

I then reply that our beliefs are really not that far apart. they are atheists for 999 religions, I'm an atheist for just one more.

The verdict in this case and others offer a similar corollary. Every defendant who stands accused walks into a courtroom with no burden of proof. Neither Amanda or Raffaele need prove they are innocent. They don't actually have to prove anything. It is the one who claims there is a God or claims that Amanda or Raffaele are guilty that must present a case with evidence to support their claim. As an atheist, I'm not the defense in the case, I'm more the jury that determined that the claim did not fulfill the necessary burden of proof. My verdict is not that they are innocent but that they are not guilty. Christians like the PGP are always trying to shift the burden of proof. I'm not arguing there isn't a God, that would put the burden of proof on me. No, I'm simply demanding that those who say that there is one particularly one who's laws they like to integrate into all of society require evidence.

Absolutely correct IMO. And this is very important. It's not necessary to believe that Knox/Sollecito actually are factually innocent, since that's not the way that law or ethics work.

As an illustration, I would bring up again the hypothetical example of Mr and Mrs Bianchi, a couple in their late 50s who lived in the apartments opposite the girls' cottage in 2007 and who claim they were together in their apartment on the evening/night of the murder with no way to independently verify this alibi. One can easily hold a belief that this couple is not guilty of participation in the Kercher murder, since there's not a shred of evidence that they DID participate - but on the other hand there's no reason (or need) to hold the belief that they must necessarily be factually innocent (it is, after all, feasible and possible in principle that they did participate in the murder).

 

[LondonJohn]

Perhaps an even more vivid example of the "not guilty vs innocent" issue, and the presumption of innocence, would be this:

Mr A shares an apartment with Mr B and Mr C. One night Mr A leaves his wallet in the communal kitchen area with £100 in it, and the following morning he finds that the £100 has been taken from his wallet. Mr B and Mr C were in the apartment all evening/night, and there's a CCTV camera that shows the front door which shows that nobody entered or left the apartment all evening/night (and all the windows are securely locked). Therefore Mr B or Mr C must, singularly or jointly, be the culprit(s). However, there's no evidence to prove - or even indicate - which of the two committed the crime (or whether they committed the crime jointly and split the proceeds etc).

In this scenario, Mr A - and the law - has no choice but to consider both Mr B and Mr C not guilty of the crime. And both must be presumed innocent. Even though one of them at least MUST be factually guilty.

 

[Samson]

Perhaps an even more vivid example of the "not guilty vs innocent" issue, and the presumption of innocence, would be this:

Mr A shares an apartment with Mr B and Mr C. One night Mr A leaves his wallet in the communal kitchen area with £100 in it, and the following morning he finds that the £100 has been taken from his wallet. Mr B and Mr C were in the apartment all evening/night, and there's a CCTV camera that shows the front door which shows that nobody entered or left the apartment all evening/night (and all the windows are securely locked). Therefore Mr B or Mr C must, singularly or jointly, be the culprit(s). However, there's no evidence to prove - or even indicate - which of the two committed the crime (or whether they committed the crime jointly and split the proceeds etc).

In this scenario, Mr A - and the law - has no choice but to consider both Mr B and Mr C not guilty of the crime. And both must be presumed innocent. Even though one of them at least MUST be factually guilty.

Try Kahui twins murder.

 

[Planigale]

This is because the „presumption,‟ in
effect, renders suspects of crime passive, which simultaneously justifies minimal resources to
the defence, whilst the „burden‟ places pressure on, and directs the bulk of the resources to,
the police and prosecution to chip away at the presumed innocent status and construct cases
from only incriminating evidence that might obtain a conviction, rendering innocent
victims vulnerable to wrongful convictions. As a result, the defence side of the adversarial
equation, widely thought to be the key safeguard against wrongful convictions, is largely
ineffectual as it is resource poor and reliant on police and prosecution evidence that is not
suitable for defending against cases constructed from such evidence. Political discourses on
the need to be „tough on crime‟ assist further in overcoming the apparent resistance of the
P.o.I. by facilitating the creation of legislation that removes safeguards against wrongful
convictions so that criminal convictions are easier to obtain.

This paper seems clearly to be a plea for more money for defense.

To remedy this there is a statutory duty of the UK police to seek exonerating evidence. How effective this is I do not know. I do know that defendants have gone to court seeking a court order to require the police to e.g. more fully investigate alibi evidence. I do not know how often a judge grants such an order. often the mere threat would I guess make the police check out something as it may be less onerous than having to appear in court and justify the direction of the investigation.

In the case we are considering the defence could have required the police to more fully investigate the shoe prints and obtain evidence of the print pattern of Guede's shoes, rather than the defence having to search for a pair.

 

[Planigale]

Perhaps an even more vivid example of the "not guilty vs innocent" issue, and the presumption of innocence, would be this:

Mr A shares an apartment with Mr B and Mr C. One night Mr A leaves his wallet in the communal kitchen area with £100 in it, and the following morning he finds that the £100 has been taken from his wallet. Mr B and Mr C were in the apartment all evening/night, and there's a CCTV camera that shows the front door which shows that nobody entered or left the apartment all evening/night (and all the windows are securely locked). Therefore Mr B or Mr C must, singularly or jointly, be the culprit(s). However, there's no evidence to prove - or even indicate - which of the two committed the crime (or whether they committed the crime jointly and split the proceeds etc).

In this scenario, Mr A - and the law - has no choice but to consider both Mr B and Mr C not guilty of the crime. And both must be presumed innocent. Even though one of them at least MUST be factually guilty.

This was a particular problem in child abuse cases. The child was killed, but both parents blamed the other and so neither was convicted, this was part of the reason for bringing in the law on joint enterprise. Now rather than neither being convicted, both would be. One can argue about the justice of this, as it usually occurs where neither parent is co-operative.

 

[Grinder]

Perhaps an even more vivid example of the "not guilty vs innocent" issue, and the presumption of innocence, would be this:

Mr A shares an apartment with Mr B and Mr C. One night Mr A leaves his wallet in the communal kitchen area with £100 in it, and the following morning he finds that the £100 has been taken from his wallet. Mr B and Mr C were in the apartment all evening/night, and there's a CCTV camera that shows the front door which shows that nobody entered or left the apartment all evening/night (and all the windows are securely locked). Therefore Mr B or Mr C must, singularly or jointly, be the culprit(s). However, there's no evidence to prove - or even indicate - which of the two committed the crime (or whether they committed the crime jointly and split the proceeds etc).

In this scenario, Mr A - and the law - has no choice but to consider both Mr B and Mr C not guilty of the crime. And both must be presumed innocent. Even though one of them at least MUST be factually guilty.

I knew one of your famous "examples" was coming.
As I said you have difficulty understanding the concept.

The concept being discussed is only in context of the legal procedure. If a man is seen by multiple witnesses and video taped shooting an unarmed man in the back, the legal process must treat him with the presumption of innocence but there is nothing that prevents the rest of world from "knowing" he is guilty.
When a person is found not guilty, for example O.J., that does not mean outside the legal procedure people are wrong or not allowed to consider him less than innocent.
Black's legal dictionary specifically stated that a not guilty verdict does not equate to a finding of innocent.

The article you linked is a push for more resources for people charged with a crime. It does not deal with the issue of the meaning of the presumption of innocence at different stages. He discusses out-of-bounds behavior by police and prosecutors, which most everyone here and even a few on the other side would agree were not just ignoring the presumption but gross violations of law.

What is VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY?
Definition of VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY: a verdict declaring the case is not proven against the defendant. It does not mean he is innocent.
thelawdictionary.org/verdict-of-not-guilty/​

So after a trial in which the defendant was found not guilty and had the presumption of innocence, although found not guilty he is not found innocent. The presumption is only a mechanism to emphasize how the defendant is to be treated and judged until the trial legal process is completed.

If your oft repeated theft by roommate story had only one roommate and it could be proven BARD the crime occurred (money stolen) and no one but the roommate had access, even with the presumption and no direct evidence of the theft a conviction could occur. OTOH if the jury found the roommate not guilty it would not mean he was innocent.

 

[Grinder]

This was a particular problem in child abuse cases. The child was killed, but both parents blamed the other and so neither was convicted, this was part of the reason for bringing in the law on joint enterprise. Now rather than neither being convicted, both would be. One can argue about the justice of this, as it usually occurs where neither parent is co-operative.

I read that double jeopardy no longer is absolute in the UK. What's that all about?

LJ's article has a section on a death of a child and the smearing of the parents.

 

[Grinder]

To remedy this there is a statutory duty of the UK police to seek exonerating evidence. How effective this is I do not know. I do know that defendants have gone to court seeking a court order to require the police to e.g. more fully investigate alibi evidence. I do not know how often a judge grants such an order. often the mere threat would I guess make the police check out something as it may be less onerous than having to appear in court and justify the direction of the investigation.

In the case we are considering the defence could have required the police to more fully investigate the shoe prints and obtain evidence of the print pattern of Guede's shoes, rather than the defence having to search for a pair.

There is much in LJ's article on the point that during the investigation LE needs to look for ALL evidence both incriminating or exonerating. Here it is often argued by the defense that the police didn't do enough in looking for other possible people.

I'm certainly not asserting that LE acts correctly regarding the presumption or that LE shouldn't do more in aiding the defense by using resources to look for exonerating evidence. I'm not saying P.o.I. is followed correctly but that isn't the point I made.

The P.o.I. doesn't translate into a not guilty verdict being an innocent verdict. The P.o.I. is and should be a reminder to LE on how to treat an investigation and trial.

 

[TruthCalls]

To remedy this there is a statutory duty of the UK police to seek exonerating evidence. How effective this is I do not know. I do know that defendants have gone to court seeking a court order to require the police to e.g. more fully investigate alibi evidence. I do not know how often a judge grants such an order. often the mere threat would I guess make the police check out something as it may be less onerous than having to appear in court and justify the direction of the investigation.

In the case we are considering the defence could have required the police to more fully investigate the shoe prints and obtain evidence of the print pattern of Guede's shoes, rather than the defence having to search for a pair.

I'm not sure why Grinder thought either quote he provided challenged the concept of presumption of innocence.

It's always been the case that the resources available to the prosecution can almost always exceed those of the defense, it's funding is inexhaustible, and it is always the prosecution that has the resources of the investigation team. The accused must fund it's own defense and hire it's own investigators, which then must work within the limitations imposed by the state investigation. Not surprisingly, there is a direct correlation between the wealth of the accused and the rate of acquittal.

To ensure presumption of innocence is realized the investigation & prosecution teams are supposed to pursue the truth, regardless of where that takes them. When investigators and prosecutors exploit their advantage in resource and funding to pursue a conclusion, regardless of whether it's the truth or not, then presumption of innocence is put at risk. This does not, however, alter what presumption of innocence represents. Following the acquittal, Amanda and Raffaele are once again presumed to be innocent. It is not required to prove them innocent. They are every bit as innocent as Mr and Mrs Bianchi.

ETA: Per Grinder's last couple of posts... agreed, the presumption of innocence is only a legal concept, and people who disagree with an acquittal will disregard the presumption. The remaining PGP prove this. However, there are still people who believe the moon landing was staged and the 9-11 attacks were an inside job. Presumption has no bearing on perception.

 

[acbytesla]

Perhaps an even more vivid example of the "not guilty vs innocent" issue, and the presumption of innocence, would be this:

Mr A shares an apartment with Mr B and Mr C. One night Mr A leaves his wallet in the communal kitchen area with £100 in it, and the following morning he finds that the £100 has been taken from his wallet. Mr B and Mr C were in the apartment all evening/night, and there's a CCTV camera that shows the front door which shows that nobody entered or left the apartment all evening/night (and all the windows are securely locked). Therefore Mr B or Mr C must, singularly or jointly, be the culprit(s). However, there's no evidence to prove - or even indicate - which of the two committed the crime (or whether they committed the crime jointly and split the proceeds etc).

In this scenario, Mr A - and the law - has no choice but to consider both Mr B and Mr C not guilty of the crime. And both must be presumed innocent. Even though one of them at least MUST be factually guilty.

While this is absolutely true I'm not sure I'm a big fan of the analogy. It presents a strong probability that at least one of them is guilty.

I think the case itself is as good example as any. One cannot 100 percent prove that either Amanda or Raffaele didn't kill Meredith even though the evidence strongly suggest they didn't. I believe that the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that they are innocent. But that is not my actual burden in court. All that is decided is guilty or not.

This is why I like comparing it to the creationist vs evolution argument. I can conclusively prove evolution.although not all aspects of it. I can show the process of evolution through the breeding of domesticated animals. I can show the famous Russian breeding experiments with foxes. One can show the speciation of wolves and coyotes and show there are now hybrid coyote wolves all over North America now. There are the examples of bacteria and viruses, there is the fusing of human chromosome #2. I could go on and on and on about the science of evolution. OTOH, the argument for creation starts and stops with it. It is "special pleading". One cannot prove any aspect of it. It is simply a catch all for what we don't know. It does not advance the understanding of the natural world in any way.

 

[LondonJohn]

I knew one of your famous "examples" was coming.

I had hoped that the example might have helped you understand the concept more easily. Obviously I was wrong in that hope...

As I said you have difficulty understanding the concept.

Nope. It's you who can't understand it, I'm afraid.

The concept being discussed is only in context of the legal procedure.

No. No it's not. The presumption of innocence doctrine extends from the narrow question of legal procedure right into the heart of jurisprudence, and into the heart of ethics as well. You're wrong again.

If a man is seen by multiple witnesses and video taped shooting an unarmed man in the back, the legal process must treat him with the presumption of innocence but there is nothing that prevents the rest of world from "knowing" he is guilty.

Complete nonsense. What quality are all these alleged "witnesses"? What exactly does the video tape show - can the suspect truly be accurately and reliably identified from it? Only a COURT can decide these sorts of questions. The police cannot decide them, and the public sure as hell can't decide them. And it's only if/when a COURT decides that the evidence is reliable and credible, and that it proves the man's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that the man loses the presumption of innocence. Not before that happens.

Frankly, I'm genuinely astonished that someone like you, especially with your position on the Knox/Sollecito trial, should make such an inane "argument" that the man in your example should be treated by the "rest of the world" as "knowing" that he is guilty before the evidence against him has ever been properly tested (i.e. tested in a trial). Seriously, that's dreadful, dreadful thinking and pretty high ignorance of basic principles of jurisprudence and ethics.

When a person is found not guilty, for example O.J., that does not mean outside the legal procedure people are wrong or not allowed to consider him less than innocent.
Black's legal dictionary specifically stated that a not guilty verdict does not equate to a finding of innocent.

Oh Jesus. It does not equate to a finding of innocence. But it leads to the preservation of the PRESUMPTION of innocence. Can you seriously still not understand the difference between a finding of innocence and a presumption of innocence? If you really cannot, then it's absolutely not worth my while carrying on this part of the debate......

If your oft repeated theft by roommate story had only one roommate and it could be proven BARD the crime occurred (money stolen) and no one but the roommate had access, even with the presumption and no direct evidence of the theft a conviction could occur. OTOH if the jury found the roommate not guilty it would not mean he was innocent.

THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. And of course if there were only one roommate ("Mr B") then Mr B could and should be convicted as per the scenario above - regardless of whether the money could be linked to Mr B. As you correctly say, the very fact that Mr B was provably the only person to have had the opportunity to steal the money would be sufficient in and of itself to prove the guilt of Mr B BARD.

But that's not the scenario I raised, is it? If there were two roommates, Mr B and Mr C, and no actual evidence were found to link either of them to the stolen money, then both of them would necessarily have to be presumed innocent. Even though it's axiomatic that one of them (at least) committed the theft. The fact that we cannot know with any degree of certainty which of the two was the thief means that the presumption of innocence MUST apply to both Mr B and Mr C. In ethics as well as in law.

 

[LondonJohn]

This was a particular problem in child abuse cases. The child was killed, but both parents blamed the other and so neither was convicted, this was part of the reason for bringing in the law on joint enterprise. Now rather than neither being convicted, both would be. One can argue about the justice of this, as it usually occurs where neither parent is co-operative.

Well child abuse can almost always be considered as a pattern of behaviour over a period of time, and the law considers that it would be in practice extremely difficult for one parent in a two-parent household to be the sole inflicter of child abuse without the other parent at the very least allowing the abuse to happen. And that's why it's deemed correct legally and ethically to charge both parents in those circumstances.

But if a child were to die from, say, being smothered with a pillow, had no other signs of systematic child abuse, and both parents denied being the smotherer (and there was no evidence to indicate which of the two parents had committed the crime), then the police and prosecutors would go back to being faced with the problem of being unable to prosecute either parent, since the crime would be considered as an acute, one-time event where it would be clearly possible that one parent could have committed the crime without any form of complicity or knowledge of the other parent.