• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
preponderance

She's guilty. The preponderance of evidence leaves no reasonable doubt.

tsig,

The phrase "preponderance of the evidence" is "The level of proof required to prevail in most civil cases. The judge or jury must be persuaded that the facts are more probably one way (the plaintiff's way) than another (the defendant's)." http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p076.htm

The term "reasonable doubt" implies a higher standard than this. However, I infer that your position to be that the evidence against Ms. Knox rises to this more stringent standard as well. Fair enough.

Chris
 
Oh dear. Every little thing?

There are two very very big lies that lead to their arrests, katy_did: (1) lying about being at a party while Meredith was being murdered and (2) falsely naming Patrick as the murderer.

Everything else they lied about stems from those two rather 'not little' things.

When a suspect establishes himself as a liar then his statements have to be viewed with scepticism. There is no way around this.


So Kate Mansey was in court testifying for the Prosecution with the Sunday Mirror's audio-recording of Sollecito? Damning indeed, but I can't find a reference anywhere. Can you help me out, Stilicho?
 
So Kate Mansey was in court testifying for the Prosecution with the Sunday Mirror's audio-recording of Sollecito? Damning indeed, but I can't find a reference anywhere. Can you help me out, Stilicho?

Does it really matter if she did or didn't (not that I understand why she should have)? Her interview is a matter of public record, published even before Raffaele's arrest. Is she then a part of the 'conspiracy' against Amanda and Raffaele?
 
tsig,

The phrase "preponderance of the evidence" is "The level of proof required to prevail in most civil cases. The judge or jury must be persuaded that the facts are more probably one way (the plaintiff's way) than another (the defendant's)." http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p076.htm

The term "reasonable doubt" implies a higher standard than this. However, I infer that your position to be that the evidence against Ms. Knox rises to this more stringent standard as well. Fair enough.

Chris

Which standard are you talking about, those set in American court rooms?
 
The standard of proof in criminal proceedings is "beyond reasonable doubt" in the US, the UK and in Italy.
 
In the eyes of a mere spectator to this debate like me, i must say that this kind of grasping for imaginary straws really hurts the argument for AK:s innocence. It makes me think that the opposite argument must be overwhelming.

I don't quite understand what imaginary straw you're referring to. If Battistelli testified that he could see the marks on Meredith's neck while her body was covered by a duvet which he didn't move, how would you explain that?
 
I don't quite understand what imaginary straw you're referring to. If Battistelli testified that he could see the marks on Meredith's neck while her body was covered by a duvet which he didn't move, how would you explain that?

Where did he testify that?
 
Originally Posted by lane99
///QUOTE///Indeed that poster likes to present the picture of Amanda Knox "DEMANDING", over the vociferous objections of the authorities, that she must be heard until she finally broke down their resistance and they accepted her statement in spite of their objections and reluctance.

I wondered if that was true or not, but never would have taken the time to check into it since it's not crucial to the issues at stake even if it is.

But having run across these posts, it's at least somewhat interesting to see it's apparently *not* true. And certainly to have painted the picture he does based on, it would seem, little other than the statement having been classified as "voluntary" for court purposes, shows an eagerness on his part to stretch the truth that people looking for an unbiased source of information should be warned about.
///UNQUOTE///



Evidence?


It's not clear to me what you're asking evidence of, Fiona. If it's of Funnacello's habit of stretching the truth, one recent example can be see at the Amanda Knox thread on the Insessions message board.

Wherein he admits continuing to pass along a report (regarding the issue of the mop) that he knows to be false. But uses a none too original excuse along the lines of "I never said it was a TRUE report, so it's not my responsibility if people assume it is".
 
IIRC, "reasonable doubt" is the standard in both countries.

Aye, but define it. What is 'reasonable doubt'? And is the universal definition the same?

You see, these sound just like words to me. And words mean nothing unless defined.
 
lane99 said:
one recent example can be see at the Amanda Knox thread on the Insessions message board. Wherein he admits continuing to pass along a report (regarding the issue of the mop) that he knows to be false.

I've no idea who Funnacello is, but perhaps you are referring to these posts:

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showpost.php?p=13869689&postcount=334

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showpost.php?p=13873282&postcount=343

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showpost.php?p=13873285&postcount=344

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showpost.php?p=13873291&postcount=346

All can be found on this page here: http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?p=13874492&posted=1#post13874492

I'm just guessing, deductive skills and all that, but would that be what you were talking about?


Now, tell us about all about the 'lies' about the mop again...if you would?
 
Last edited:
Aye, but define it. What is 'reasonable doubt'? And is the universal definition the same?

You see, these sound just like words to me. And words mean nothing unless defined.
When I was on a jury in the UK it was made clear to us that that was something we were to decide for ourselves. It's more certain than 50/50 and less certain than 100%, but more than that.... It's whatever value the, hopefully reasonable, people on the jury find acceptable and will vary quite a bit from juror to juror, or in this case from judge to judge.

The cases I was on were both fairly minor, so nobody was getting sent down for that long, but it still felt like a huge responsibility to hold so much power over somebody's life. Other jurors took it less seriously and took more of a "well, you know what these people are like.... if he didn't do it this time he probably will sooner or later" attitude and seemed quite relaxed about sending people to prison.
 
Last edited:
beyond a reasonable doubt

Aye, but define it. What is 'reasonable doubt'? And is the universal definition the same?

You see, these sound just like words to me. And words mean nothing unless defined.

“Reasonable doubt”
The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q016.htm

“Beyond reasonable doubt”
adj. part of jury instructions in all criminal trials, in which the jurors are told that they can only find the defendant guilty if they are convinced "beyond a reason- able doubt" of his or her guilt. Sometimes referred to as "to a moral certainty," the phrase is fraught with uncertainty as to meaning, but try: "you better be damned sure." By comparison it is meant to be a tougher standard than "preponderance of the evidence," used as a test to give judgment to a plaintiff in a civil (non-criminal) case.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=59

“Beyond a reasonable doubt”
The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubt
 

Interesting. It is not what he said in court so far as I am aware.

From Richard Owen in The Times (quoted at PMF 6/2/09)

Mr Battistelli said that Ms Kercher's body lay beneath a duvet, with one foot sticking out. There was "blood everywhere", he said. He had not entered the room in order not to contaminate the evidence and had ushered everyone out of the house.




Daily Mail: is as you quote (same source: same date)



Michele Battistelli, the first police officer to arrive at the scene, denied he had entered Kercher’s bedroom after the door was kicked in.

But a witness, Luca Altieri, said he had seen Battistelli bend down to lift a duvet that was covering Kercher’s body.

Sunday Times 8/2/09
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5683711.ece

Inspector Battistelli had firmly stated he has not entered Meredith's room. Luca Altieri -one of the friends of Filomena, Amanda's and Meredith's rommate (he doesn't want to be called a "friend of Amanda", he gets upset when he hears that)- says he did. Altieri says " I saw the Inspector bending over in order to lift the duvet corner at the level of the victim 's head, but while he was doing that I rushed outside. No, I didn't see him lifting the duvet actually, only when he was lowering in order to do it. No, I have not entered. I kicked the door open though. No, I didn't set foot inside the room, when the door was going down, I withdrew my foot"

Battistelli says: “I absolutely did not enter. I confirm what I said yesterday. I was always outside. Altieri says: “Then why didn't you call an ambulance, but the doctors instead? If you hadn't got inside, how could you know that the girl was dead?" (Defense agrees on the observation). Battistelli replies: “I have no reason to say one thing for another. I repeat: I didn't go inside. I loooked if the duvet was moving, I noticed the blue color of the foot that was visible from under the duvet, I saw the blood streaks on the floor and on the wall and I exited the room. It was enough for me to understand"

Right after it was the time of Battistelli-Grande confrontation: " I didn't see him entering the murder room. I heard him saying he had noticed the girl was dead, that she lost much blood, that he saw blood on the walls. I only saw the foot, the room was dark. I cried and run toward the doorway".

Corriere del'Umbria report of testimony 8/2/09 translated by Nicki at PMF
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom