• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr.D said:
Note that "beyond reasonable doubt" is the American standard and doesn't apply to an Italian trial.

Wikipedia seems to say that "intimo convincimento" is the standard that applies in Italian law. (There's a section a couple of paragraphs above that uses the phrase "beyond any reasonable doubt," but that appears more likely to be the author(s)' interpretation in English)
Click to expand...

Interesting.

"Internally convinced" versus "convinced beyond reasonable doubt". Are these just two ways of saying the same thing? I would not be internally convinced if I had doubt I deemed reasonable.
 
Juror said:
Interesting.

"Internally convinced" versus "convinced beyond reasonable doubt". Are these just two ways of saying the same thing? I would not be internally convinced if I had doubt I deemed reasonable.
Click to expand...

The very phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" is, at face value, ambiguous enough to cause confusion. To add to that confusion, judges in both the UK and US (and, I suspect, many other countries) are not required to explicitly define the term to juries - although they ARE required to instruct juries to apply the test. Indeed, many trial judges actively AVOID trying to define it in detail, since this can lead to issues at appeal.

The term "beyond reasonable doubt" or equivalent, as accepted in most democratic codes of jurisprudence (including Italy, I believe), is taken to mean: "to the exclusion of any factors that would lead a reasonable person to doubt the guilt of the accused"; or, from the other direction: "to a position where a reasonable person is sure of the guilt of the accused".

In a more casual definition, therefore, jurors are essentially required to be certain of the guilt of the accused before they can convict. If they think something like "I'm pretty sure that the guy committed the crime, but I suppose there's a chance that he didn't", then they must vote to acquit. However, crucially, in this event, the part of the reasoning regarding "I suppose there's a chance that he didn't" must be based on reasonable circumstances/alternatives. In other words, if a juror asserts something like "I'm pretty sure he did it, but there's always a chance that an extraterrestrial did it", that clearly doesn't constitute reasonable doubt. But if a juror says "I'm pretty sure he did it, but I think it's still possible that he was asleep in bed at the time of the crime, as he claimed", then the juror should vote to acquit.
 
LondonJohn,

Have you read any of the motivations report? I have not tried the google translation and anxiously await the full translation but Fulcanelli was kind enough to post the section of the staged break-in back in post 7036 on this thread. I would be interested on your thoughts in the Massei reasoning in context of your comments on reasonable doubt and the rope analogy you described earlier.
 
LondonJohn said:
The very phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" is, at face value, ambiguous enough to cause confusion. To add to that confusion, judges in both the UK and US (and, I suspect, many other countries) are not required to explicitly define the term to juries - although they ARE required to instruct juries to apply the test. Indeed, many trial judges actively AVOID trying to define it in detail, since this can lead to issues at appeal.

The term "beyond reasonable doubt" or equivalent, as accepted in most democratic codes of jurisprudence (including Italy, I believe), is taken to mean: "to the exclusion of any factors that would lead a reasonable person to doubt the guilt of the accused"; or, from the other direction: "to a position where a reasonable person is sure of the guilt of the accused".

In a more casual definition, therefore, jurors are essentially required to be certain of the guilt of the accused before they can convict. If they think something like "I'm pretty sure that the guy committed the crime, but I suppose there's a chance that he didn't", then they must vote to acquit. However, crucially, in this event, the part of the reasoning regarding "I suppose there's a chance that he didn't" must be based on reasonable circumstances/alternatives. In other words, if a juror asserts something like "I'm pretty sure he did it, but there's always a chance that an extraterrestrial did it", that clearly doesn't constitute reasonable doubt. But if a juror says "I'm pretty sure he did it, but I think it's still possible that he was asleep in bed at the time of the crime, as he claimed", then the juror should vote to acquit.
Click to expand...

To have reasonable doubt does one need presentation by the defense of an alternative circumstance based on the facts offered in court or can it be any explanation a juror creates in their mind?
 
christianahannah said:
To have reasonable doubt does one need presentation by the defense of an alternative circumstance based on the facts offered in court or can it be any explanation a juror creates in their mind?
Click to expand...

I would say no.

The burden to prove the case rests with the prosecution. Theoretically, the defense could literally do nothing and still get an acquittal if the prosecution evidence was weak in the minds of the jury. The defense does not have to solve the case or prove the defendent is innocent.

That said, if the defense can point out alternative scenarios, they only increase the doubt and thus chance for acquital.

The system is set up whereby sending an innocent person to jail is viewed worse than letting a guilty person go free.
 
Juror said:
I would say no.

The burden to prove the case rests with the prosecution. Theoretically, the defense could literally do nothing and still get an acquittal if the prosecution evidence was weak in the minds of the jury. The defense does not have to solve the case or prove the defendent is innocent.

That said, if the defense can point out alternative scenarios, they only increase the doubt and thus chance for acquital.

The system is set up whereby sending an innocent person to jail is viewed worse than letting a guilty person go free.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely correct. Essentially, every trial should start with a total and complete presumption of innocence of the defendant by the jury. It is then up to the prosecution to provide the burden of proof of the accused's guilt, and it's not explicitly the defence's job to provide any proof of innocence (or, more strictly, non-guilt).

In practice, interestingly, this is almost never the case - since regardless of any instruction to this effect, juries are almost bound to follow (to some extent) the "no smoke without fire" intuition. In other words, if for example a jury is sworn in to try the case of Mr A, where Mr A is charged with rape, even before opening arguments they are clearly likely to have been influenced subliminally by the very fact that Mr A has been charged with this crime, and that a totally innocent person would most likely not be standing before them in the dock.

This opinion is reinforced by the fact - often explicitly or implicitly known to juries - that prosecuting authorities in must jurisdictions are under instruction only to prosecute those cases where they have a "reasonable chance" of conviction. In other words, the jury is pretty much aware that the person standing before them to be tried has already failed a preliminary test (albeit of no strict legal value) of his/her guilt.
 
Juror said:
That said, if the defense can point out alternative scenarios, they only increase the doubt and thus chance for acquital.
Click to expand...

The defense has done this. But the prosecution has never woven the evidence into a narrative that makes the least bit of sense.

For example, the prosecution says Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood is significant. But they don't explain why all of these samples were found in places where Amanda's DNA might naturally be present, while none were found in the room where Meredith was killed.

They say the luminol footprints were made by Amanda and Raffaele tracking Meredith's blood into the corridor. But they don't explain why there are only three of these footprints, why they form no trail or pattern, and why DNA tests came up negative on all of them.

They say the footprint on the bathmat was made by Sollecito, but they don't explain how he made it, or why he left it there for the police to find and examine. Nor do they explain why the big toe of this footprint looks nothing like the big toe of Sollecito's reference footprint but looks very much like the big toe of Guede's reference footprint.

They say Raffaele's DNA on the bra fastener proves he staged the crime to look like a sexual assault, but they don't explain why Guede's DNA was found inside Meredith's body if the sexual assault was staged by Amanda and Raffaele. Nor do they explain why this single DNA trace is the only physical evidence from the murder room that can be linked to Amanda or Raffaele.

They say the knife from Raffaele's kitchen is the murder weapon, but they are forced to add a second murder weapon to explain some of the wounds, and they can't come up with any plausible reason why Amanda or Raffaele would convey this knife to a place that was already equipped with similar utensils.

The defense can address all of this: The bra fastener is a fluke that happened because of poor handling of evidence, which real-world criminal investigators know is possible. The mixed DNA only proves that Amanda lived there. The luminol footprints are unrelated to the crime. The print on the mat was made by Guede when he cleaned up. The knife was never removed from Raffaele's apartment, and the putative match on the blade was an artifact caused by trace contamination in the lab, which again is a well-documented fact of criminal investigations.

Moreover, the defense can present a plausible scenario that explains all of the evidence. Guede broke in through Filomena's window. He was on the toilet when Meredith arrived home, which is why he didn't flush. He blitzed her and killed her with a small knife in the corner of her room, moved her body, removed most of her clothing, and sexually assaulted her. He cleaned up in the bathroom, and while doing so he removed his right shoe to rinse it off under the bidet, leaving a ring of blood around the drain of the bidet and drops of diluted blood in the basin. While his shoe was off, he put his foot down on the mat and left the print. He put his show on, went back into Meredith's room, spread the quilt over her body, and sat on the edge of the bed with the bloody knife at his side while he went through her purse. He took her money and cell phones, and he exited the room, locking the door behind him and leaving a trail of bloody shoe prints running down the corridor.
 
Charlie you may have explained this in prior posts and I missed it but if Rudy had his shoe on during the attack and then went into the bathroom to remove his shoe and clean it how and where did the blood transfer on the bottom of his foot so as to leave a print on the bath mat?
 
LondonJohn said:
....The situation is further clouded by the very real issue of reactionary behaviour within the judiciary (and that applies to pretty much any country). By this I mean that appellate courts are instinctively inclined to "side" with rulings made by their lower court colleagues - since to overrule them clearly implies a failing at some level withing the justice system as a whole (even though, paradoxically, correct appeals rulings are obviously a key facet of a well-functioning system). The failures of appellate courts to overturn or refer lower court verdicts despite clear indications to the contrary have been well-documented over many years, resulting in many wrongly-convicted people spending far more additional time in prison than they ought to have done.
Click to expand...

EDIT: I realise that references to the word "jury" are strictly incorrect when applied in Italian criminal cases. However, the principles are still exactly the same (although I suspect the trial judge would not really need to issue much instruction to the judicial panel).
Click to expand...

Apparently these principles do not apply in Italy. I have not been able to find the exact statistics, but it has been claimed (on tjmk, no less) that the Italian courts modify up to two-thirds of verdicts on appeal and overturn up to half. It seems to be a given in their system that modifications and overrulings do not imply a failing at a previous level, but rather that such modifications have come to be expected.

The courts appear to look upon the first trial more as the first step in a many-step process. The effect this reality has on the attitudes of the people involved in trying cases must be enormous, particularly those of the jury panel. What is at stake in the first trial simply does not have the urgency it has in other countries.

Perverse as it may be, these arrests, trials and convictions have been extremely rewarding for the Italian media, their consumers and the careers of all of the professionals involved, not just in terms of their futures but also in terms of their livelihoods. As an interconnected system, they could get this case out of their country as fast as they could -- if they wanted to.
 
Danceme said:
That being said, I can say that if all I had at my disposal to base my decision on is the material that has been made public and therefore available to me then yes, I would acquit.

However, there are thousands of pages of testimony and evidence I will never get to see and thousands of articles I will never get to read because I don't speak Italian and/or because they were not made public. I didn't get to hear the testimony the jurors did, or see the faces and body language of those testifying, I didn't see the gruesome pictures to understand the wounds and how they may have been inflicted, or the charts and graphs and explanations. All this makes a vast difference in whom a juror believes and what makes sense. The Italian jury and judges who convicted Amanda and Rafaelle did get this opportunity and therefore I believe it was compelling and convincing. They voted unanimously to convict. That in itself makes me believe in the evidence presented.
Click to expand...

If it were that simple, this thread wouldn't be as long as it is. Along with the material that is available to the jury panel, as well as their access to faces and body language, come cultural biases and a legal system in need of a major overhaul (yes, even according to Italians).

These are aspects we must be skeptical of and try to analyze in order to prevent additional wrongful convictions.
 
Mary_H said:
If it were that simple, this thread wouldn't be as long as it is. Along with the material that is available to the jury panel, as well as their access to faces and body language, come cultural biases and a legal system in need of a major overhaul (yes, even according to Italians).

These are aspects we must be skeptical of and try to analyze in order to prevent additional wrongful convictions.
Click to expand...

And yet you are unable to provide evidence of these aspects prompting the conviction in this case. It is wrongful in your mind only because you choose to ignore any evidence to the contrary. That does not, in any way, support your position that the entire Italian Judiciary is corrupt and needs to be changed.

It's somewhat of a given that every judiciary could always be improved upon. But that is, again, a generalized argument in regards to this case.
 
christianahannah said:
Charlie you may have explained this in prior posts and I missed it but if Rudy had his shoe on during the attack and then went into the bathroom to remove his shoe and clean it how and where did the blood transfer on the bottom of his foot so as to leave a print on the bath mat?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, but I can throw out a couple of possibilities. One is that he was wearing a sock that had some blood on it. Another is that he stepped on a towel that was soaked with bloody water and transferred the impression of his foot to the mat. A third is that he started to rinse his shoe while wearing it, water ran inside the shoe, so he removed it, and then made the print.

Leaving aside the question of Raffaele vs. Rudy, I have to think it was made when the killer, whoever one believes him to be, cleaned up in the bathroom. I can't think of an alternative explanation for it that makes any sense.
 
LondonJohn said:
By this I mean that appellate courts are instinctively inclined to "side" with rulings made by their lower court colleagues - since to overrule them clearly implies a failing at some level withing the justice system as a whole (even though, paradoxically, correct appeals rulings are obviously a key facet of a well-functioning system).
Click to expand...

My (entirely nonprofessional) understanding is that American jurisprudence is setup so the presumption is that the lower court got it right and it's the burden of the appealing party to demonstrate otherwise. It's my (unfounded) impression that the American criminal appeals process tends to be more about procedures than merits of the case.

The Wikipedia article is rather thin on the subject, but it seems the Italian criminal appeals court is effectively a retrial (and it's been reported on this thread that it is so). What's not clear to me is if the appeals court MUST accept an appeal or if there's some process by which the appeal can be denied.

In any case it's pretty clear to me that at the appeals stage the Italian system starts to really diverge from the American system (no value judgment, just an observation).

Aside: Does anyone know if statements made during the first trial can be used in the appeal?
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
I'm not sure, but I can throw out a couple of possibilities. One is that he was wearing a sock that had some blood on it. Another is that he stepped on a towel that was soaked with bloody water and transferred the impression of his foot to the mat. A third is that he started to rinse his shoe while wearing it, water ran inside the shoe, so he removed it, and then made the print.

Leaving aside the question of Raffaele vs. Rudy, I have to think it was made when the killer, whoever one believes him to be, cleaned up in the bathroom. I can't think of an alternative explanation for it that makes any sense.
Click to expand...
Alternate scenarios have been presented. You choose not to accept them based on the premise that Amanda is innocent regardless of whether the entirety of the evidence agrees with you or not.
 
Amazer said:
I think that the family of Amanda should grow a thicker skin (their supporters too). The family of Amanda has made it a point to involve themselves in a very public way in this case. The same cannot be said for Raffaele's family, the Kerchers and Rudy's family.
Click to expand...

Rudy's family knows better than to stick their necks out. Raffaele's family would no doubt be slapped with slander suits if they did. If Amanda's family didn't get involved, it would take twice as long, if not forever, to get her out of there. Amanda's family is doing everyone a favor by putting themselves on the hot seat.

They wouldn't have to grow a thicker skin at all if nasty, hateful people with no involvement in the case would butt out and keep their mouths shut.
 
Mary_H said:
They wouldn't have to grow a thicker skin at all if nasty, hateful people with no involvement in the case would butt out and keep their mouths shut.
Click to expand...

Hello Pot.


I find it interesting that you idolize the Knox/Mellas family's choice of involvement in this matter. One would think a wise family would adhere to the advice of the Attorney...
 
BobTheDonkey said:
And yet you are unable to provide evidence of these aspects prompting the conviction in this case. It is wrongful in your mind only because you choose to ignore any evidence to the contrary. That does not, in any way, support your position that the entire Italian Judiciary is corrupt and needs to be changed.

It's somewhat of a given that every judiciary could always be improved upon. But that is, again, a generalized argument in regards to this case.
Click to expand...


Every reference Mignini made to Amanda's sexuality and sexual history is evidence of a cultural bias. The prosecution may legitimately, albeit falsely, claim they have a modicum of circumstantial evidence of Amanda's involvement in the crime, but they can't claim to have one iota of her being involved sexually. That is completely the product of Mignini's imagination and the other judges' willingness to be persuaded to agree.

You knowingly misrepresent me when you write: "...your position that the entire Italian Judiciary is corrupt...."
 
Mary_H said:
Every reference Mignini made to Amanda's sexuality and sexual history is evidence of a cultural bias. The prosecution may legitimately, albeit falsely, claim they have a modicum of circumstantial evidence of Amanda's involvement in the crime, but they can't claim to have one iota of her being involved sexually. That is completely the product of Mignini's imagination and the other judges' willingness to be persuaded to agree.
Click to expand...
There is a valid reason to discuss Amanda's sexuality. Given the posing of the scene and that there is/was suspected to be a sexual element to the attack, Amanda's sexuality was necessarily involved. You may try to decry it all you wish, but Amanda brought all this pain and suffering on herself.

You knowingly misrepresent me when you write: "...your position that the entire Italian Judiciary is corrupt...."
Click to expand...

No, that certainly appears to be your belief. Or is it only the Perugian Judiciary that is corrupt? Or just in this one case? Do you have any actual evidence of corruption?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom