Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fiona]

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.


It's not clear to me what you're asking evidence of, Fiona.

I am asking for evidence that Knox did not ask to make this statement: she says she did

 

[Fiona]

What makes you come to that conclusion when you have just posted two accounts that indicate it is what he said in court?

The direct quote of his testimony from Corriere del'Umbria coupled with the fact that the english papers do not agree in what was said.

 

[Fulcanelli]

“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

Wherever you look, you'll find different definitions. There is no universal legal standard definition. And judges certainly don't impose the standard via a definition from a dictionary. In fact, many courts don't even bother with a 'reasonable doubt', instead instructing the juries 'what seems most true to you'. And that's just within the US. Those standards also differ from country to country.

It's a bit like the matter of sequestered juries...rather old fashioned and rarely done any more, but many are under the mistaken impression that it's still the norm.

 

[stilicho]

Interesting. It is not what he said in court so far as I am aware.
Corriere del'Umbria report of testimony 8/2/09 translated by Nicki at PMF

I didn't think so either. There's a quotation mark around things that Battistelli seems not to have said. It certainly isn't the first time in journalistic history that they've gotten it wrong.

------------

Welcome to the continuing stream of new posters to the JREF. There are a variety of topics here that may strike your fancy.

Or just this one...we'll see.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

Exactly.

 

[Fiona]

I do not know what you are getting at here, Fulcanelli. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is certainly the standard of proof for criminal cases in the US, UK and in Italy. There is some debate in legal journals as to whether there should be a specific definition but in the UK and in Italy that has not so far been introduced: I do not know about the US

The judge instructs the jury as to what it means in this country: the best instruction I heard was

"not a metaphysical doubt, but the kind of doubt which would give you pause in your ordinary affairs"

 

[Matthew Best]

the fact that the english papers do not agree in what was said.

Daily Mail: "I had some idea of how she died because I could see the marks on her neck and the blood but I didn't speak to anyone about it."

Telegraph: "I had some idea of how she died because I could see the marks on her neck and the blood but I didn't speak to anyone about it."

On a superficial reading, they appear to be in agreement.

 

[Fiona]

Daily Mail: "I had some idea of how she died because I could see the marks on her neck and the blood but I didn't speak to anyone about it."

Telegraph: "I had some idea of how she died because I could see the marks on her neck and the blood but I didn't speak to anyone about it."

On a superficial reading, they appear to be in agreement.

And at odds with The Times and The Sunday Times, yes

 

[stilicho]

Wherever you look, you'll find different definitions. There is no universal legal standard definition. And judges certainly don't impose the standard via a definition from a dictionary. In fact, many courts don't even bother with a 'reasonable doubt', instead instructing the juries 'what seems most true to you'. And that's just within the US. Those standards also differ from country to country.

It's a bit like the matter of sequestered juries...rather old fashioned and rarely done any more, but many are under the mistaken impression that it's still the norm.

Another thing that's been bugging me about the self-described legal experts plugging for AK is the concept of "presumed innocent". Yes, you are legally presumed innocent but you may still be prosecuted, investigated, in some cases put under surveillance, and so on.

This is particularly so in the AK/RS case where they can make up any old alibi, change it, revert to a previous one, name a third-party as murderer, say they're going to the victim's memorial but go have pizza instead, be found at the portal of a home with a body locked in one of the rooms, invent psychological maladies to explain huge holes in her story (...)

You get the idea.

At some point you lose your credibility and no longer will be "presumed innocent". Jails are full of people who couldn't get their stories straight and lost the protection of "presumed innocent" because of it. It's anecdotal, but I attended a court case of an acquaintance once where the judge summed up his decision by saying: "I don't believe you." There was, of course, supporting evidence as there is in this case but a judge and jury are fully within their right to disbelieve the accused's stories.

It certainly happened in this case.

 

[Matthew Best]

And at odds with The Times and The Sunday Times, yes

So you take the view that unless the exact same words are quoted in all accounts they likely were not spoken? That seems .... odd.

 

[stilicho]

I do not know what you are getting at here, Fulcanelli. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is certainly the standard of proof for criminal cases in the US, UK and in Italy. There is some debate in legal journals as to whether there should be a specific definition but in the UK and in Italy that has not so far been introduced: I do not know about the US

The judge instructs the jury as to what it means in this country: the best instruction I heard was

"not a metaphysical doubt, but the kind of doubt which would give you pause in your ordinary affairs"

But not something like 100% certain. I don't even know how you would measure percentage of doubt.

It's like the list of the things you said you know about this case. No sooner had the ink dried on it when some posters began to attack pieces of it based on what they themselves had defined as not being beyond reasonable doubt.

How would an unreasonable person define reasonable doubt? Spooky!

 

[stilicho]

So you take the view that unless the exact same words are quoted in all accounts they likely were not spoken? That seems .... odd.

Were they spoken in court and do we have the transcripts?

Moreover, Ghirga was reported to be contemplating perjury charges last February. How did that go? Did he have any evidence that Battistelli lied?

If not, it's safe to say your sources are in agreement only in their disagreement.

 

[Fiona]

So you take the view that unless the exact same words are quoted in all accounts they likely were not spoken? That seems .... odd.

No, I don't think I said that. But once again one must make a judgement and the exchange reported in Corriere dell'Umbria is much fuller. As with many things in this case it is unlikely we will reach any agreement. And I cannot see why it matters.

So let me give you it for the sake of argument, if you really want it: let us say that Battistelli did go into the room and did lift the duvet. What diffference does that make to anything?

 

[Matthew Best]

Were they spoken in court and do we have the transcripts?.

Perhaps Nick Pisa and Nick Squires just made them up? Yes, that's probably what happened.

 

[Matthew Best]

So let me give you it for the sake of argument, if you really want it: let us say that Battistelli did go into the room and did lift the duvet. What diffference does that make to anything?

I suppose the defence might argue that it would provide an avenue for contamination of the DNA evidence, since Battistelli was in contact with Sollecito moments before he was in the room and apparently in contact with Meredith.

 

[Fiona]

Perhaps Nick Pisa and Nick Squires just made them up? Yes, that's probably what happened.

Maybe they did: it is unlikely that he said he saw the marks on her neck AND said he did not enter the room. Even if he is a very incompetent liar indeed, that would have been obvious self-contradiction and I would have thought any competent journalist would have noticed that. I think I would certainly have included such telling evidence in a report, rather than some of the less interesting stuff which is actually there. Maybe that is just me, but I think that is quite exciting stuff for a court report.

 

[Fiona]

I suppose the defence might argue that it would provide an avenue for contamination of the DNA evidence, since Battistelli was in contact with Sollecito moments before he was in the room and apparently in contact with Meredith.

Yes I am sure that the defence might try that: in fact I think they probably did

How plausible do you think it is, and why?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I suppose the defence might argue that it would provide an avenue for contamination of the DNA evidence, since Battistelli was in contact with Sollecito moments before he was in the room and apparently in contact with Meredith.

Except Sollecito's DNA wasn't found anywhere on Meredith's body - only on the clasp that was beneath her body.

Again, not a reasonable explanation for Sollecito's DNA to be on the clasp.

 

[Matthew Best]

I think I would certainly have included such telling evidence in a report, rather than some of the less interesting stuff which is actually there. Maybe that is just me, but I think that is quite exciting stuff for a court report.

But just a moment ago you said you couldn't see why it matters. Now it's exciting? Which is it?

 

[Fiona]

But just a moment ago you said you couldn't see why it matters. Now it's exciting? Which is it?

It is all relative: in terms of the daily report of an ongoing trial it is exciting: in terms of what it means for the outcome of the case not so much

Court reporting is dull: that is why they spin it sensational where they can