Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris C]

There is no indication that more than one knife was used. This idea was invented by pro-guilt believers in order to accommodate the fact that the "double-DNA knife" doesn't match the evidence at the scene.

Kinda like Mignini's previous theory in a different case about a double body swap to match the evidence. Yet pro innocence people get called conspiracy theorists when disputing Mignini's wild ideas.

 

[komponisto]

Complete and utter straw man.

Nonsense. You yourself said that you thought 90% certainty was beyond reasonable doubt. A "straw man" would be if I were arguing against something ridiculous that you didn't say. If you said it, it doesn't matter how absurd it is, it's not a straw man.

What percentage certainty do you believe constitutes beyond reasonable doubt?

In a murder case, at least 99%, perhaps 99.9%.

And the slur about your "suspicions about me" is noted. Would you mind elaborating.

I elaborated above. I suspected that you weren't used to thinking in Bayesian terms-- that is, thinking about beliefs in terms of probability theory -- which is quite consistent with your earlier comments that confused findings of a court with one's own subjective belief in a proposition.

 

[lionking]

In a murder case, at least 99%, perhaps 99.9%.
.

Funny definition of "reasonable".

 

[simper]

Complete and utter straw man.

What percentage certainty do you believe constitutes beyond reasonable doubt?

And the slur about your "suspicions about me" is noted. Would you mind elaborating.

If you think that you only have to be 90% sure in order to convict then you have to accept that 10% of people found guilty are actually innocent. Surely thats just basic common sense? Im no expert on probability theory though so perhaps Im missing something.

 

[lionking]

If you think that you only have to be 90% sure in order to convict then you have to accept that 10% of people found guilty are actually innocent. Surely thats just basic common sense? Im no expert on probability theory though so perhaps Im missing something.

The standard is beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond absolute doubt. 10% doubt is reasonable in my opinion.

 

[komponisto]

Funny definition of "reasonable".

What's funny about it?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

TMB testing for blood

How can you possibly assert that the knife wasn't cleaned at either the cottage or RS's flat?

bucketoftea,

If a bloody knife were cleaned to the point where blood were no longer detectable, it would have probably lost all detectable DNA sooner than that. This is according to the Johnson/Hampikian open letter. The prosecution has to resort to magic cleaning fluid that removes blood but not DNA to explain their result. This is the single most problematic aspect of the kitchen knife for me.

 

[lionking]

What's funny about it?

What you have set as a standard is beyond absolute doubt, or extremely close to it.

 

[RoseMontague]

This is very telling, and confirms my suspicions both about you personally and about juries and general.

If you think that 90% certainty is beyond reasonable doubt, then that means that you don't have a problem with an error rate of 10%: that is, 10% of all convictions being wrongful.

Are you aware of the sheer number of innocent people you would be locking up with that kind of error rate?

It also means that if I were on a jury and said "I'm going to vote to acquit, because if I voted to convict under these circumstances, I'd be wrong ten times out of a hundred", you would think I was being unreasonable.

I've long held the suspicion that jurors will often convict simply if they think it's more likely than not (>50%) that the defendant is guilty, just because they're not capable of the kind of abstract thinking required to consider acquitting a defendant they believe is likely guilty.

And indeed, it's also very telling that you "still don't quite get it", which suggests to me that you're not used to thinking this way (i.e. in terms of the mathematics of probability theory).

Of course, most of the above is actually somewhat beside the point here, because I don't believe Knox and Sollecito should be acquitted because they're only 90% likely to be guilty; rather, I think they should be acquitted because they're around 99.9% likely to be innocent.

Wouldn't that be an error rate of 5% rather than 10%? I am not much of a stats person but the 10% doubt part of that equation seems like it could go either way like ½ of that 10% doubt might be in error.

 

[komponisto]

The standard is beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond absolute doubt.

...and thank you for confirming my suspicions about the kind of people who use that as an argument.

"Beyond absolute doubt" is an excellent example of a straw man, by the way.

 

[komponisto]

What you have set as a standard is beyond absolute doubt, or extremely close to it.

What percentage of convictions being wrongful are you willing to tolerate?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

definition of reasonable doubt

The standard is beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond absolute doubt. 10% doubt is reasonable in my opinion.

lionking,

I collected a few definitions of reasonable doubt in comment 3598 of the first thread. The lawyers who are present may wish to add their thoughts. With due respect, your threshold seems lower than the ones I found.

 

[Chris C]

The standard is beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond absolute doubt. 10% doubt is reasonable in my opinion.

Actually, I would say your both wrong.

Beyond reasonable doubt: That no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime.

Thats what beyond reasonable doubt is. The real questions are.
Did the defense give a logical explanation of the facts that the defendants didn't commit the crime?
Did the prosecution give a logical explanation of the facts that the defendants committed the crime and also removed doubt about the defendants version of the facts.

Ask some of the self proclaimed lawyers here if there is reasonable doubt in the Knox/Sollecito case. Also ask them their version of the definition of reasonable doubt.

 

[simper]

The standard is beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond absolute doubt. 10% doubt is reasonable in my opinion.

You either have no understanding of probabilty theory or you are willing to accept that 10% of people convicted of murder are actually innocent. If you were wrongly accussed of murder would you be content that there was a 10% chance that you would be wrongly convicted?

 

[komponisto]

Wouldn't that be an error rate of 5% rather than 10%. I am not much of a stats person but the 10% doubt part of that equation seems like it could go either way like ½ of that 10% doubt might be in error.

It means you would be willing to tolerate an error rate of up to 10%. You may be more certain (e.g. 95%) on some cases; it just means that any confidence level over 90% would get a guilty verdict.

 

[RoseMontague]

lionking,

I collected a few definitions of reasonable doubt in comment 3598 of the first thread. The lawyers who are present may wish to add their thoughts. With due respect, your threshold seems lower than the ones I found.

Those are some nice quotes Chris. One of them reminds me of the points system Machiavelli said the Italians used in their system and it is not an example used as a definition of reasonable doubt. It is more along the lines of a preponderance of evidence, in my opinion.

 

[Antony]

not sure what you mean. the bruising is either consistent with restraint from more than one person or not? In my work I often have to perform control and restraint with dangerous individuals. the bruising that sometimes occurs is very distinctive and recognisable. I would assume that this is the same principle when checking the various injuries on the victim to determine where and how she was held.

as far as trying to paint me as a "guilter" with your sarcasm. dont bother. Unlike you, i am not 100% certain about anything to do with this case apart from posters like you have made your minds up and will attack anyone who puts forward a reasoning for any uneducated assumptions made about one aspect or another.

you keep your beliefs, i want to discuss the evidence.

lxxx

Then please say what the evidence was: i.e. give references to photographs of the bruises and explain exactly why they allegedly prove that the attack could not have been by a lone assailant.

If you just go on asserting that the bruises indicate multiple attackers then I for one will simply dismiss it as another unsupported article of faith - along with the 2-knife scenario, the alleged staging of the break-in, and the ToD of 11:45pm.

 

[Justinian2]

The standard is beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond absolute doubt. 10% doubt is reasonable in my opinion.

I walked down about 15 steps on the side of a sheer cliff on Machu Picchu because it was as certain as walking down a flight of stairs in my house. I was certain beyond a reasonable doubt that I could make it to the bottom without stumbling and going over the side. I was terrified because I am acrophobic.

That's what beyond a reasonable doubt means to me. I was sure beyond a reasonable doubt that I could walk down a flight of stairs without falling.

Anyway, that's an example of the way I would interpret reasonable doubt.

On the other hand, I've spazed out when nervous before... Glad I didn't think about that.

 

[komponisto]

Actually, I would say your both wrong.

Beyond reasonable doubt: That no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime.

Thats what beyond reasonable doubt is. The real questions are.
Did the defense give a logical explanation of the facts that the defendants didn't commit the crime?
Did the prosecution give a logical explanation of the facts that the defendants committed the crime and also removed doubt about the defendants version of the facts.

With all due respect, the language I am using (probability theory) is actually a more precise way to express these issues. You're not wrong in what you argue here, except when you suggest that this kind of language is an improvement over mine, rather than the other way around.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

dollars and sense

Those are some nice quotes Chris. One of them reminds me of the points system Machiavelli said the Italians used in their system and it is not an example used as a definition of reasonable doubt. It is more along the lines of a preponderance of evidence, in my opinion.

RoseMontague,

"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."

Suppose that my pension/401k/whatever advisor says that he thinks I should put my retirement money into investment X and there is only a slight chance that it will go bust. I would want to be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that I will not lose all my retirement money. That is how I like to think about the meaning of the phrase reasonable doubt.