Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I’ve followed this case quite closely since the trial began. I read a ton of articles on it, I’ve looked through most of the web sites for and against and I’ve read 3 books on it and I’ve tried to have an open mind about all this and finally I’ve come to a conclusion:

It doesn’t matter what evidence either side brings forward, there is a counter side to it. I believe this is true in most cases as well. I believe we will never find out exactly what happened that night either. Regardless of the trials and appeals outcome, there will always be two sides on this case, neither side admitting defeat.

In fact, I don’t believe I’ve ever read of a single person who actually changed their mind from one side to the other. I’ve heard guys say they originally thought one way but changed their mind once they got further into the case but no one who knows the case has ever been converted, that I've seen.

I’ve tried to base my opinion on hearing both sides and trying to deduce which side is more likely. Here is what they are:

a) I’m not even sure RS was present during the murder – but he was there afterwards

b) Amanda was not in the room during the murder, but she was in the house and was the initial cause of it.

c) Rudy didn’t lock the door; therefore the broken window was staged.

d) The luminal footprints and the one on the mat all belong to Amanda after she got out of the shower.

e) The shower didn’t happen at 11:00 AM

f) The E-Mail to friends was Amanda’s alibi/story that she wanted to stick to.

g) The double DNA knife wasn’t used in the murder, but likely was after (cut the bra off)

h) All the alibi’s/confessions at some point hold some truth in them, even Rudy’s.

i) Amanda was cuffed on the back of the head a couple of times and called a stupid lyre but that is not the reason she accused Patrick.

I’m not going to argue any of my points here, I still think there is about a 25 to 30% chance Amanda is innocent but like everyone else here, I’ll just have to go with however the courts rule and I’ll be happy with that. Well, maybe not, Rudy’s sentence, which could be further reduced and then off for good behaviour, just doesn’t seem quite fair.

Hi Sherlock.

Of course I respect your views, and in many instances I agree with your analysis. But I'd make a few points:

First - as I said once before - if you're still thinking in terms of 25%-30% doubt, then logically you ought to believe that AK should NOT have been convicted*. And it's important to state at this point that you can still think that she PROBABLY was involved in the crimes. But I'm afraid that the burden of proof placed upon the prosecution in any criminal case is to prove the guilt of the defendant BEYOND ALL DOUBT (i.e. any doubt that comes from a reasoned perspective).

Second, are you basing your opinion that AK was in the house but not Meredith's room at the time of the murder upon AK's "confession" of the 5th/6th November?

Third, do you think that AK will win her slander case against the Perugia police, if you believe that she was indeed cuffed on the back of the head during her interrogation? (Incidentally, I smiled when I thought of AK being accused by the police of being a classical Greek stringed instrument )

* Although an important caveat to what I've said here is that I'm assuming you're referring to 25%-30% doubt in AK's guilt, looked at in TOTALITY of the evidence. If, instead, you're saying that you think that 25%-30% of the evidence against AK is not convincing, then of course it's very possible for the remaining 70%-75% to add up to guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But I think that the context of your statistics suggests that you're referring to an overall assessment, rather than a piece-by-piece one.

 

[Mary_H]

There are fewer unanswered questions if we allow that maybe, just maybe, Guede wasn't alone. And that leads us to Amanda and Raffaele - amazingly enough, all those unanswered questions are answered when those two are included. Whodathunkit...

Maybe the semen on the pillow case belongs to an accomplice of Rudy's who is not Raffaele.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

But that's hardly sufficient grounds to convict beyond reasonable doubt.......

Sure it is. That's precisely how it works. We leave the realm of reasonable doubt as soon as we have evidence that not only supports but requires the involvement of an individual (or individuals) - in this case, Amanda and Raffaele.

The key is 'reasonable'. Is it reasonable to simply allow the leaps in logic that are required to believe Amanda and Raffaele had nothing to do with the murder? Is it reasonable to ignore all the evidence pointing to the involvement of Amanda and Raffaele, claiming conspiracy/Police incompetence, while at the same time believing those same inside-men/women and Police Officers were able to track down and capture the real criminal? Why, oh why, would a reasonable person believe a conspiracy occurred? Why keep searching for Rudy after Amanda and Raffaele were arrested? The same inside-men/women who planted the evidence of Amanda/Raffaele's involvement could just as easily ignored the evidence of a 3rd party's involvement.

This didn't happen. So is it reasonable to cry "conspiracy"? No.

Is it reasonable to claim the Forensics team/Police were out to get Amanda? No (well, no more than to claim that the Police were out to get those responsible for the murder).

Is it reasonable to ignore whatever evidence doesn't support the conclusion that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty? No.

It would be unreasonable to ignore all the unanswered questions merely to arrive at a desired conclusion.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Maybe the semen on the pillow case belongs to an accomplice of Rudy's who is not Raffaele.

Yes, but does that remove any of the evidence concerning these 3?

And what about the staged burglary? What about Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood? What about the bloody footprints, not shoeprints, in the cottage? What about the false alibis/stories from Amanda and Raffaele?

I agree with Sherlock (I believe it was he) when he stated that these 3 have told us what happened that night -

Guede was invited in, got sick from his kabobs, using the restroom he heard a scream, attempted to staunch the blood flow, found he couldn't so he high-tailed it out of the cottage.

Amanda was in the kitchen while Raffaele and/or Rudy were abusing Meredith. Perhaps she stayed there while Meredith was being murdered, perhaps she went to the room - regardless, she was in the cottage when it happened.

Raffaele suggests that Amanda handed the knife to whomever actually did the killing.


That can all be found in the writings/testimonies/etc of the 3 convicts. And, surprisingly enough, it fits the evidence. Amanda didn't leave any prints in Meredith's room because she wasn't in there. But that doesn't mean she isn't culpable. Raffaele, perhaps, actually murdered Meredith, not leaving tracks in the bedroom because he split from there as soon as he delivered the fatal blow to the neck.

(I could go on, but that's good for now)

 

[LondonJohn]

Sure it is. That's precisely how it works. We leave the realm of reasonable doubt as soon as we have evidence that not only supports but requires the involvement of an individual (or individuals) - in this case, Amanda and Raffaele.

The key is 'reasonable'. Is it reasonable to simply allow the leaps in logic that are required to believe Amanda and Raffaele had nothing to do with the murder? Is it reasonable to ignore all the evidence pointing to the involvement of Amanda and Raffaele, claiming conspiracy/Police incompetence, while at the same time believing those same inside-men/women and Police Officers were able to track down and capture the real criminal? Why, oh why, would a reasonable person believe a conspiracy occurred? Why keep searching for Rudy after Amanda and Raffaele were arrested? The same inside-men/women who planted the evidence of Amanda/Raffaele's involvement could just as easily ignored the evidence of a 3rd party's involvement.

This didn't happen. So is it reasonable to cry "conspiracy"? No.

Is it reasonable to claim the Forensics team/Police were out to get Amanda? No (well, no more than to claim that the Police were out to get those responsible for the murder).

Is it reasonable to ignore whatever evidence doesn't support the conclusion that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty? No.

It would be unreasonable to ignore all the unanswered questions merely to arrive at a desired conclusion.

I still think that you misunderstand the meaning of "reasonable doubt".

It's not enough - in ANY criminal case - that the evidence supports a scenario which requires/demonstrates/supports the involvement of the defendant(s). It also has to be shown conclusively that NO OTHER INTERPRETATION of the evidence can reasonably be made that might - however marginally - imply the non-involvement of the defendant(s).

The burden of proof upon the prosecution in a criminal case is incredibly high - and rightly so. This is because jurisprudence theory argues that it's more desirable to acquit culpable people than to convict non-culpable people.

 

[Mary_H]

Sure it is. That's precisely how it works. We leave the realm of reasonable doubt as soon as we have evidence that not only supports but requires the involvement of an individual (or individuals) - in this case, Amanda and Raffaele.

The key is 'reasonable'. Is it reasonable to simply allow the leaps in logic that are required to believe Amanda and Raffaele had nothing to do with the murder? Is it reasonable to ignore all the evidence pointing to the involvement of Amanda and Raffaele, claiming conspiracy/Police incompetence, while at the same time believing those same inside-men/women and Police Officers were able to track down and capture the real criminal? Why, oh why, would a reasonable person believe a conspiracy occurred? Why keep searching for Rudy after Amanda and Raffaele were arrested? The same inside-men/women who planted the evidence of Amanda/Raffaele's involvement could just as easily ignored the evidence of a 3rd party's involvement.

Not so fast. Claudia Matteini's report from November 9th said the killers were in custody and Patrick Lumumba killed Meredith with Raffaele's flick knife. Case closed, or so certain officials told the press.

Lo and behold, forensics comes up with a whole new set of evidence around the 12th, and by the 13th or 14th the police not only have identified Rudy, but they also know where he is. Were they doing any tracking down or searching from the 9th-13th? No.

They weren't incompetent when they arrested the killer, but they were incompetent when they hurriedly arrested three non-killers just because they couldn't wait patiently for the actual evidence to be processed. Human beings are inconsistent and they make mistakes.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I still think that you misunderstand the meaning of "reasonable doubt".

It's not enough - in ANY criminal case - that the evidence supports a scenario which requires/demonstrates/supports the involvement of the defendant(s). It also has to be shown conclusively that NO OTHER INTERPRETATION of the evidence can reasonably be made that might - however marginally - imply the non-involvement of the defendant(s).

The burden of proof upon the prosecution in a criminal case is incredibly high - and rightly so. This is because jurisprudence theory argues that it's more desirable to acquit culpable people than to convict non-culpable people.

When one must ignore evidence to provide that doubt, then it becomes unreasonable doubt.

That is the essence of those who defend Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

Just because you can provide doubt does not mean it's reasonable doubt. Arguing that turnip juice reacts with luminol (or the other substances that react) does not add reasonable doubt as it's not reasonable to believe these kids were walking around in turnip juice (or any of the other substances that react to luminol, aside from blood).

Likewise, while contamination of DNA evidence is possible in any crime scene, it is not reasonable to believe it happened here. Regardless of what Halides has claimed, to find a significant amount of DNA in a room the suspect never visited and yet in no other place in the cottage where he was known to have been, and then claim contamination is not reasonable - none of his linked studies attempting to prove the contrary.

There is no reasonable scenario that eliminates the knife, aside from an again general argument concerning contamination. However, there is no reason to believe contamination occurred given the testimony of Stefanoni. This in conjunction with Raffaele's lie about cooking with Meredith (or was he astute enough concerning DNA secondary transfer to attempt to claim Meredith's DNA was riding on Amanda and thus brushed off onto the knife when he touched her hand with it? - note that Raffaele mentions the tip of the knife, not the flat where the DNA sample was found...whoops). Therefore, it is again unreasonable to doubt this piece of evidence.

To believe the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is insufficient requires unreasonable leaps of logic. Therefore, the case passes the "reasonable doubt" test.

 

[Mary_H]

Yes, but does that remove any of the evidence concerning these 3?

And what about the staged burglary? What about Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood? What about the bloody footprints, not shoeprints, in the cottage? What about the false alibis/stories from Amanda and Raffaele?

I agree with Sherlock (I believe it was he) when he stated that these 3 have told us what happened that night -

Guede was invited in, got sick from his kabobs, using the restroom he heard a scream, attempted to staunch the blood flow, found he couldn't so he high-tailed it out of the cottage.

Amanda was in the kitchen while Raffaele and/or Rudy were abusing Meredith. Perhaps she stayed there while Meredith was being murdered, perhaps she went to the room - regardless, she was in the cottage when it happened.

Raffaele suggests that Amanda handed the knife to whomever actually did the killing.

That can all be found in the writings/testimonies/etc of the 3 convicts. And, surprisingly enough, it fits the evidence. Amanda didn't leave any prints in Meredith's room because she wasn't in there. But that doesn't mean she isn't culpable. Raffaele, perhaps, actually murdered Meredith, not leaving tracks in the bedroom because he split from there as soon as he delivered the fatal blow to the neck.

(I could go on, but that's good for now)

Your arguments take tiny bits and pieces of the defendants' writings and put together a scenario to use against them. Anyone else could take ten times as many bits and pieces of their writings and put together a different story to use in their favor.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

First - as I said once before - if you're still thinking in terms of 25%-30% doubt, then logically you ought to believe that AK should NOT have been convicted*. And it's important to state at this point that you can still think that she PROBABLY was involved in the crimes. But I'm afraid that the burden of proof placed upon the prosecution in any criminal case is to prove the guilt of the defendant BEYOND ALL DOUBT (i.e. any doubt that comes from a reasoned perspective).

<snip>

I still think that you misunderstand the meaning of "reasonable doubt".

It's not enough - in ANY criminal case - that the evidence supports a scenario which requires/demonstrates/supports the involvement of the defendant(s). It also has to be shown conclusively that NO OTHER INTERPRETATION of the evidence can reasonably be made that might - however marginally - imply the non-involvement of the defendant(s).

The burden of proof upon the prosecution in a criminal case is incredibly high - and rightly so. This is because jurisprudence theory argues that it's more desirable to acquit culpable people than to convict non-culpable people.

I think you misrepresent the meaning of "reasonable doubt".

In spite of the 'back door' phrases you have stuck in to allow a means to deny that you are saying what you are really saying, the text you have put in caps (shouted) makes your intent clear. You are insisting that "reasonable doubt" means "any doubt at all".

It doesn't.

 

[LondonJohn]

When one must ignore evidence to provide that doubt, then it becomes unreasonable doubt.

That is the essence of those who defend Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

Just because you can provide doubt does not mean it's reasonable doubt. Arguing that turnip juice reacts with luminol (or the other substances that react) does not add reasonable doubt as it's not reasonable to believe these kids were walking around in turnip juice (or any of the other substances that react to luminol, aside from blood).

Likewise, while contamination of DNA evidence is possible in any crime scene, it is not reasonable to believe it happened here. Regardless of what Halides has claimed, to find a significant amount of DNA in a room the suspect never visited and yet in no other place in the cottage where he was known to have been, and then claim contamination is not reasonable - none of his linked studies attempting to prove the contrary.

There is no reasonable scenario that eliminates the knife, aside from an again general argument concerning contamination. However, there is no reason to believe contamination occurred given the testimony of Stefanoni. This in conjunction with Raffaele's lie about cooking with Meredith (or was he astute enough concerning DNA secondary transfer to attempt to claim Meredith's DNA was riding on Amanda and thus brushed off onto the knife when he touched her hand with it? - note that Raffaele mentions the tip of the knife, not the flat where the DNA sample was found...whoops). Therefore, it is again unreasonable to doubt this piece of evidence.

To believe the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is insufficient requires unreasonable leaps of logic. Therefore, the case passes the "reasonable doubt" test.

Oh pleeeeeeeease. Not the turnip juice again. This really demonstrates a paucity of thinking to me.

I agree that doubt has to be "reasonable" to qualify as doubt. I disagree that many areas of doubt in this case are "unreasonable".

I agree that if reasonable doubt over a certain piece of evidence requires unreasonable doubt in another area of evidence, then by definition the original doubt also becomes unreasonable as well. I disagree that this situation ever arises in this case.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Not so fast. Claudia Matteini's report from November 9th said the killers were in custody and Patrick Lumumba killed Meredith with Raffaele's flick knife. Case closed, or so certain officials told the press.

Lo and behold, forensics comes up with a whole new set of evidence around the 12th, and by the 13th or 14th the police not only have identified Rudy, but they also know where he is. Were they doing any tracking down or searching from the 9th-13th? No.

They weren't incompetent when they arrested the killer, but they were incompetent when they hurriedly arrested three non-killers just because they couldn't wait patiently for the actual evidence to be processed. Human beings are inconsistent and they make mistakes.

If this was all a conspiracy to set up Amanda, why would the Forensics/Police not ignore the later evidence or tweak it so it indicates Raffaele and Amanda, instead of another seemingly random person the Police missed the first time? The logic just doesn't work.


Let's run through it:

The Police were out to get Amanda.
Forensics evidence was tampered with to achieve this.
The Police arrest Amanda.
More evidence is revealed indicating that Rudy was involved, this evidence was not tampered with.
The Police don't want to admit they were wrong about Amanda, but they go after Rudy anyway (in essence, admitting that they didn't arrest all the guilty parties as they'd thought).
The Police admit they were wrong about Patrick (even though at the time they had no reason not to arrest him/believe Amanda's story).

So, you're saying the Police were wrong 100% of the time (at least at the start) - and yet they've been willing to admit that on at least two occasions, they were wrong about who the suspects/murderers were (missed Rudy at first, Patrick had nothing to do with it). But, I thought they didn't want to admit they were wrong?

If they were so adamant about putting Amanda away that they were willing to tamper with the forensics evidence, why would the Police/Forensics team not have tampered with the evidence against Rudy? They easily could have, they'd already done so, and you accuse them of having done so later.

See, the logic behind this being a conspiracy against Amanda doesn't work.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Oh pleeeeeeeease. Not the turnip juice again. This really demonstrates a paucity of thinking to me.

I agree that doubt has to be "reasonable" to qualify as doubt. I disagree that many areas of doubt in this case are "unreasonable".

I agree that if reasonable doubt over a certain piece of evidence requires unreasonable doubt in another area of evidence, then by definition the original doubt also becomes unreasonable as well. I disagree that this situation ever arises in this case.

Ahh, but see, it's not that each piece must be reasonable. In fact, only one, single piece of evidence need be beyond reasonable doubt.

For instance - if, by some chance, there were to arise a picture of Amanda killing Meredith (it won't, but if it did and was verifiable) - it would not matter how much reasonable doubt could be cast on the entire rest of the evidence - that one piece of evidence is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore, a conviction is the logical conclusion

 

[Mary_H]

When one must ignore evidence to provide that doubt, then it becomes unreasonable doubt.

That is the essence of those who defend Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

Just because you can provide doubt does not mean it's reasonable doubt. Arguing that turnip juice reacts with luminol (or the other substances that react) does not add reasonable doubt as it's not reasonable to believe these kids were walking around in turnip juice (or any of the other substances that react to luminol, aside from blood).

In the end, the footprints are irrelevant, because there are no footprints of Raffaele at the scene, and Amanda lives in the house.

Likewise, while contamination of DNA evidence is possible in any crime scene, it is not reasonable to believe it happened here. Regardless of what Halides has claimed, to find a significant amount of DNA in a room the suspect never visited and yet in no other place in the cottage where he was known to have been, and then claim contamination is not reasonable - none of his linked studies attempting to prove the contrary.

There is no reasonable scenario that eliminates the knife, aside from an again general argument concerning contamination. However, there is no reason to believe contamination occurred given the testimony of Stefanoni. This in conjunction with Raffaele's lie about cooking with Meredith (or was he astute enough concerning DNA secondary transfer to attempt to claim Meredith's DNA was riding on Amanda and thus brushed off onto the knife when he touched her hand with it? - note that Raffaele mentions the tip of the knife, not the flat where the DNA sample was found...whoops). Therefore, it is again unreasonable to doubt this piece of evidence.

Not on any planet, not in any other dimension, not even in Crazy World (as someone here put it), would you be able to find a majority of people who, when given all the facts, would buy that those two specific pieces of evidence were found the way they were found and managed to fit so precisely and conveniently into the prosecution's scheme of things.

To believe the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is insufficient requires unreasonable leaps of logic. Therefore, the case passes the "reasonable doubt" test.

To believe that the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is sufficient to find them guilty requires a deep and fervent devotion to a belief that is seemingly impervious to logic and reason.

 

[capealadin]

How does it make sense that Rudi would go to the bathroom, clean his shoe, go back into Meredith's room, walk in blood again, and this time not bother to clean his shoe? AND, there is no dna of Rudi in the bathroom, or Filomena's room.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think you misrepresent the meaning of "reasonable doubt".

In spite of the 'back door' phrases you have stuck in to allow a means to deny that you are saying what you are really saying, the text you have put in caps (shouted) makes your intent clear. You are insisting that "reasonable doubt" means "any doubt at all".

It doesn't.

It does.

It means any doubt that comes from a reasoned, plausible analysis. It excludes, therefore, any and all doubt that arises from unreasonable or implausible analysis.

Here's an example of doubt that is not reasonable: Imagine a person is murdered via a brutal and bloody stabbing. The police suspect a man who (let's say) lives alone in a 5th-floor apartment. The police visit the suspect's apartment, and recover a t-shirt that's caked in blood from the bathroom floor of the suspect. The blood tests positive for the victim's DNA, for the suspect's DNA, and for nobody else's DNA. The suspect has five deep cuts on his hands. CCTV from the doorway of the suspect's apartment building shows the suspect entering shortly after the murder, wearing a bloody t-shirt. All other entries/exits from the apartment block from the time of the murder to the arrest of the suspect can be accounted for.

The suspect goes on trial for murder. The t-shirt and CCTV are the prosecution's major pieces of evidence. At the time of jury deliberation, one juror thinks the following: "Hmmm, I'm guessing that the t-shirt caked in the victim's/defendant's blood that was found in the defendant's apartment is pretty indicative of his guilt. But isn't it also possible that the defendant wasn't involved in in the murder? Maybe another person - the real killer - happened to look exactly like the defendant. Maybe this other person had a separate knife fight with the defendant shortly after (or even during) the murder, thereby getting the defendant's blood onto the t-shirt. Maybe this other person then made his way to the defendant's apartment (being captured on CCTV), let himself in somehow, removed the t-shirt, then got out of the 5th-floor apartment without being seen on CCTV in the lobby on his way out. Maybe the defendant then came home himself, and also managed to enter the apartment building without being caught on camera."

Now this would clearly constitute unreasonable doubt. But I'd argue that this example is nowhere near the quality/"reasonableness" of doubt in the Meredith Kercher murder case.

By the way, do you prefer italics? The caps were meant for emphasis, not for shouting.

 

[Mary_H]

If this was all a conspiracy to set up Amanda, why would the Forensics/Police not ignore the later evidence or tweak it so it indicates Raffaele and Amanda, instead of another seemingly random person the Police missed the first time? The logic just doesn't work.

I have not said it was a conspriacy. I have said it unfolded naturally within the culture of Perugia's system of police and magistrates.

BtheD: Let's run through it:

BtheD: The Police were out to get Amanda.

MH: The police were out to get somebody.

BtheD: Forensics evidence was tampered with to achieve this.

MH: Not until later.

BtheD: The Police arrest Amanda.

MH: Agreed.

BtheD: More evidence is revealed indicating that Rudy was involved, this evidence was not tampered with.

MH: Agreed.

BtheD: The Police don't want to admit they were wrong about Amanda, but they go after Rudy anyway (in essence, admitting that they didn't arrest all the guilty parties as they'd thought). The Police admit they were wrong about Patrick (even though at the time they had no reason not to arrest him/believe Amanda's story).

MH: Agreed.

BtheD: So, you're saying the Police were wrong 100% of the time (at least at the start) - and yet they've been willing to admit that on at least two occasions, they were wrong about who the suspects/murderers were (missed Rudy at first, Patrick had nothing to do with it). But, I thought they didn't want to admit they were wrong?

MH: They don't want to admit they're worng. They were pretty much forced into it, though, by Patrick's lawyer and Rudy's forensic evidence.

BtheD: If they were so adamant about putting Amanda away that they were willing to tamper with the forensics evidence, why would the Police/Forensics team not have tampered with the evidence against Rudy? They easily could have, they'd already done so, and you accuse them of having done so later.

MH: They had no need to tamper with the evidence against Rudy.

I think from Mignini's point of view, it wasn't so much about the people he had in custody as it was about his imaginary scenario of the crime. He (and the bigwigs who called the press conference) basically announced to the whole world that the case was based on a sex fantasy that they had virtually no evidence for. As early as the 6th, they were describing the physical positions the three "players" took during the crime.

It was one thing to let one black guy go and replace him with a different black guy. It would have been quite another to say "just kidding" about the graphic images they had conjured in millions of people's brains. How embarrassing!

See, the logic behind this being a conspiracy against Amanda doesn't work.

See above.

 

[capealadin]

I think reasonable doubt takes into consideration: Motive, means and motivation. There was no love lost between Meredith and Amanda. Mentioning the questions about anal sex, the menstruation blood was completely unnecessary as to what had transpired. Simply mena spirited and a way to demean Meredith. There was opportunity and the means.

 

[capealadin]

correction: Motive, means and opportunity.

 

[LondonJohn]

Ahh, but see, it's not that each piece must be reasonable. In fact, only one, single piece of evidence need be beyond reasonable doubt.

For instance - if, by some chance, there were to arise a picture of Amanda killing Meredith (it won't, but if it did and was verifiable) - it would not matter how much reasonable doubt could be cast on the entire rest of the evidence - that one piece of evidence is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore, a conviction is the logical conclusion

I agree, if one piece (or even a small number of pieces) of evidence is in and of itself proof beyond reasonable doubt, then everything else becomes moot. But, in this instance, the relative weight of the evidence is crucial. You've provided a hypothetical example of a single piece of evidence that's overwhelming proof of culpability. But the same logic wouldn't apply to another single piece of evidence that was only marginal proof of culpability.

And, with regard to the relative weight of evidence, I'd go back again to the old "rope" analogy: Some pieces of evidence carry more weight of guilt than others. Therefore they constitute thicker "strands" of the "rope". Conversely, other pieces of evidence are less indicative of guilt, and therefore constitute thinner, weaker "strands".

If there's reasonable doubt over any one piece of evidence, then its "strand" is removed from the rope. When all the pieces of evidence are weighed up in this way (i.e. firstly for the "thickness" of the "strand", and then whether the "strand" can become part of the "rope"), there is a resultant rope - which now comprises strands of varying thickness representing pieces of evidence which remain proven beyond reasonable doubt. The jury then "pulls" on the "rope". If it holds firm, then they should vote to convict.

To apply the rope metaphor to your scenario: Any photo/video of AK stabbing Meredith would, on its own, supply a massively thick single strand to the rope. All the other strands would pale into insignificance alongside it. The jury could disregard all of the other strands of the rope - the single hugely thick strand representing the murder video/photo would ensure of its own accord that the rope would not break when tested.

But, as you say, that's purely a hypothetical in this case. There's no "smoking gun" here.

 

[stilicho]

Well, maybe not, Rudy’s sentence, which could be further reduced and then off for good behaviour, just doesn’t seem quite fair.

It doesn't seem right, does it?

However, here in Canada, we have a 'faint hope' clause for people like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_hope_clause

Two of the highest profile cases are those of Colin Thatcher and John Schaefler:

http://www.canada.com/news/Ottawa+w...le+under+faint+hope+clause/3004128/story.html

and

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/thatcher_colin/

Both of these people, as with Amanda Knox, have vigorously argued their innocence and were convicted with far less physical evidence than she was. In Schaefler's case, there was no direct evidence at all, and in Thatcher's case the jury was directed to convict even if they knew he was not in the garage when his wife was killed.

Amanda has even joked with her Seattle friends that it's not so bad because she'll be out of prison with plenty of happy memories to create for herself after some portion of the 26 years she'll have to spend behind bars.

It isn't all bad, though. There are convicted killers who can learn from their incarceration. Warren Glowatski, one of the two tried in Canada as an adult for the murder of Reena Virk, admitted his involvement and was even supported in his parole hearing by the parents of the girl that he and Kelly Ellard drowned:

The couple went to the parole hearing Thursday to show their support. When the board made its decision in just 25 minutes, Suman hugged Glowatski tightly, while Manjit shook his hand.


(Source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/06/22/glowatski-parole.html )

How long do you think it will be before the parents of Meredith Kercher will be able to warmly accept Rudy, Amanda, and Raffaele as rehabilitated?
​