Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

To me the reasonable doubt comes into play here with a lot of the important evidence. The knife makes no sense that Amanda would carry it, it makes no sense that they would clean it and put it back in the drawer and the prosecution has failed to prove to me from a forensic standpoint that it has Meredith's DNA on the blade.
The bra clasp makes no sense that Raffele would help Rudy with the sexual part of an assault and leave no traces of himself anywhere else in that room. He did not know Rudy, Amanda didn't even know him by name, and Meredith was her flat-mate and there has been no evidence presented that they were not on good terms.
All I am seeing that is certain on the guilty side is that they either lied, didn't remember the details, or were in error on some of the things they remembered. I am not going to put someone away for 25 years based on that.

 

[Chris C]

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.

Yes but your trying to put a number to reasonable doubt and logical conclusions. Yet thats not how reasonable doubt works.

In this case against Knox/Sollecito it is the prosecutions jumps outside of logical conclusion that establishes reasonable doubt. I believe most people could accept one or two non logical jumps and go on faith to help explain those jumps. Yet nearly every piece of evidence the prosecution presented against Knox/Sollecito are leaps of faith for the prosecutions explanation. You literaly have to ignore every logical conclusion the defense presents and choose non logical. If just one logical conclusion the defense presents is accepted there is no case against them.

 

[Antony]

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

The irony is that the standard actually applied, by Mignini, Massei, and the PMF forum, is that being innocent beyond reasonable doubt isn't enough. So any assumption they choose to make that isn't disproved beyond absolute doubt, is one they can treat as fact.

 

[RoseMontague]

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.

Yet they still managed to talk me into selling my 73 Cougar rag-top despite all the reasonable doubt I had that I would live to regret it. You make a decision like that and you look back on it and you can either try to justify it (yeah right) or you can say what a dumb thing you did you stupid idiot. This usually involves some really convincing stuff like Amanda had a large bag and Quintavllle helped the court discover that the police inspector didn't ask him about Amanda. Yeah, right.

 

[Amazer]

To me the reasonable doubt comes into play here with a lot of the important evidence. The knife makes no sense that Amanda would carry it, it makes no sense that they would clean it and put it back in the drawer and the prosecution has failed to prove to me from a forensic standpoint that it has Meredith's DNA on the blade.
The bra clasp makes no sense that Raffele would help Rudy with the sexual part of an assault and leave no traces of himself anywhere else in that room. He did not know Rudy, Amanda didn't even know him by name, and Meredith was her flat-mate and there has been no evidence presented that they were not on good terms.
All I am seeing that is certain on the guilty side is that they either lied, didn't remember the details, or were in error on some of the things they remembered. I am not going to put someone away for 25 years based on that.

It doesn't need to make sense. Sticking knifes in other peoples bodies doesn't make sense either, yet it happens every single day. So what makes sense to you is a pretty poor yard-stick to evaluate a case like this.

 

[komponisto]

lionking,

I collected a few definitions of reasonable doubt in comment 3598 of the first thread.

As I recall, the law seems to acknowledge that "preponderance of evidence" means >50% probability ("more likely than not"). I said above that 99% was my threshold for "beyond reasonable doubt". As for the other standard, "clear and convincing evidence"; I'd put the threshold for this at about 80%.

Hypothesis: most people don't grasp the distinctions between these standards.

Prediction: your fellow jurors will balk if you try to argue that there is indeed clear and convincing evidence against the defendant, but that they should be acquitted anyway.

 

[RoseMontague]

It doesn't need to make sense. Sticking knifes in other peoples bodies doesn't make sense either, yet it happens every single day. So what makes sense to you is a pretty poor yard-stick to evaluate a case like this.

I disagree. I think the standard of proof in this case also needs to show and prove motive as the forensics is in doubt. In some cases you can say we don't need to know why they did it because we know with certainty that they did. I don't believe that applies in this case. The appeals point out that this standard exists in the system of justice that Italy goes by as well.

 

[hariseldonsr]

In Doug Preston’s book “The Monster of Florence” which he co-authored with Mario Spezi, he mentions in the afterword that the night of the murder (November 1st/2nd 2007) a male individual was seen by several witnesses washing himself of blood in a public fountain and screaming “I killed her…I killed her” over and over. Police and an ambulance were called, statements were taken, one article appeared the next day or the day after in the local newspaper. The person was held in a drug rehab hospital for apparently several weeks during which the Knox ‘story’ was developing. Then, nothing – nothing ever appeared about it again. I can’t believe Preston and Spezi just dreamed this up, so what happed…?

 

[bucketoftea]

So, bucketoftea, you would send someone to prison for 26 years because her lawyers who had very little notice that the test were being preformed couldn't make it? I know it's Italian law, however, is it morally correct?

Straw man. Yawn. You're not even trying.

 

[Jungle Jim]

When we look at the long list of false convictions here in the US, we notice the most if not all of them were also the result of a unanimous jury verdict. The dirty secret is that all too often our juries accept false testimony, logical fallacies, and bogus science when it's presented in a courtroom. This case has shown that Italian juries have the same problem.

The reason for this is that in the U.S. all jurisdictions, Federal and State, require a unanimous guilty verdict to convict. The two exceptions are Oregon (10-2) and Louisiana (9-3).

With respect to the meaning of "reasonable doubt" here is a common definition used in U.S. courts:

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.

I would caution against trying to apply percentages to determine reasonable doubt. A juror could find a piece of evidence proposed by the prosecution lacking and yet vote guilty based on the totality of the other evidence presented.

As I noted above, the questions of jury unanimity and reasonable doubt I addressed apply only to U.S. law. I do not know how they apply to Italian law.

 

[komponisto]

It doesn't need to make sense. Sticking knifes in other peoples bodies doesn't make sense either, yet it happens every single day. So what makes sense to you is a pretty poor yard-stick to evaluate a case like this.

Please tell that to all the people on your side who are so incredibly confident that Amanda "would never have" done various things (like mention a mop in her e-mail) if she were innocent.

 

[Justinian2]

There are some things about this case that are statistical absurdities. For example, if one in a million would murder during a break-in attempt, what is the probability of finding two that would? Is it a million squared ( one in a trillion?). And what of the probablilty of finding three such people? (one in a million trillion?)

Ok, there are cults and cells that brain-wash each other. However, this was no such cult as Guede had no long and close contact with either of the other two.

 

[komponisto]

The irony is that the standard actually applied, by Mignini, Massei, and the PMF forum, is that being innocent beyond reasonable doubt isn't enough. So any assumption they choose to make that isn't disproved beyond absolute doubt, is one they can treat as fact.

Well said!

 

[komponisto]

There are some things about this case that are statistical absurdities. For example, if one in a million would murder during a break-in attempt

The rate is surely not that low.

 

[komponisto]

I would caution against trying to apply percentages to determine reasonable doubt. A juror could find a piece of evidence proposed by the prosecution lacking and yet vote guilty based on the totality of the other evidence presented.

The second sentence does not support the first.

 

[Jungle Jim]

The second sentence does not support the first.

It depends on what the lacking evidence was. If for instance the prosecution' evidence for motive was not strong the juror may well be convinced of guilt by the totality of other evidence presented.

 

[bucketoftea]

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.

Not at all. Washing with water and friction you could remove all the organic components and diminish the Fe to the point that it's indistinguishable from the ferrous content of the blade. All that scouring might in fact be what forced particulate (not 4 random cells, but a tiny piece of tissue; made up of 4 or more cells) matter into a deformity on the blade's surface.

Does that help?

 

[RoseMontague]

In Doug Preston’s book “The Monster of Florence” which he co-authored with Mario Spezi, he mentions in the afterword that the night of the murder (November 1st/2nd 2007) a male individual was seen by several witnesses washing himself of blood in a public fountain and screaming “I killed her…I killed her” over and over. Police and an ambulance were called, statements were taken, one article appeared the next day or the day after in the local newspaper. The person was held in a drug rehab hospital for apparently several weeks during which the Knox ‘story’ was developing. Then, nothing – nothing ever appeared about it again. I can’t believe Preston and Spezi just dreamed this up, so what happed…?

Welcome to the discussion hariseldonsr. I am not familiar with any news stories that relate this particular event in the early days of this case. It is possible that I may have missed it. Regardless, my opinion is that Rudy killed Meredith and he acted alone in doing so.

 

[lionking]

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.

As these links provide no percentage of uncertainty, you have no basis to say my threshold is lower. They do point out that the standard is not absolute certainty.

 

[komponisto]

It depends on what the lacking evidence was. If for instance the prosecution' evidence for motive was not strong the juror may well be convinced of guilt by the totality of other evidence presented.

But what does that have to do with expressing confidence levels as percentages?