Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I haven't thought about it very hard. There was a challenge a while back. I put 10 seconds thought into it and posted a scenario. People didn't like it.


The evidence uniquely determines a single scenario?


The defence are supposed to have access to people who can tell them what the single "true" scenario is supposed to be. Where they can't rely on them things are harder. Tell me the single true scenario for how the dna reading on the bra clasp occurred, or do you allow yourself multiple scenarios there?


None that you will accept exist. The thing about believing they are innocent is that you don't accept scenarios where they are guilty as plausible, though clearly others do. In any case, the prosecution and the "guilters" don't have to provide a scenario. There just has to be enough space for a scenario to exist.


And why shouldn't he?

To find a criminal defendant guilty of the charges brought against him/her, the court must be satisfied that the defendant has been proven to have committed the crimes beyond all doubt that any reasonable person might hold.

To find a criminal defendant not guilty of the charges brought against him/her, the court must be satisfied that the defendant has not been proven to have committed the crimes beyond all doubt that any reasonable person might hold. This means that if the court has any reasonable doubt whatsoever as to the guilt of the defendant, then there must be an acquittal.

There are extremely good and proper reasons why the burden of proof in criminal cases lies entirely on the side of those seeking to prove the charges, and why it doesn't lie with the defendant to prove that he/she didn't commit the crimes. Often (and in nearly all cases that make it as far as a trial) the defendant cannot prove his/her innocence. Proof of innocence is a very nice luxury to have as a defendant - just ask Patrick Lumumba. But for those who can't prove their innocence, a trial is all about the prosecution trying to prove its case to the court, and about the defence seeking to show that there is reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case.

If somebody cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (to the court's satisfaction) of having committed a criminal offence, then that person should be acquitted and the presumption of innocence should remain intact. That's one of the bedrocks of modern jurisprudence. In the eyes of the criminal law, "not guilty" equates to "innocent", and rightly so.

So, as this relates to the Knox/Sollecito case, it's critically important to understand this asymmetry. In order to believe that Knox and Sollecito should be found guilty of these crimes, one ought to be certain beyond all doubts that a reasonable person might hold that they did commit these crimes. But in order to believe that they should be found not guilty, one does not need to be certain that they did not commit these crimes. In fact, one only needs to have the smallest element of doubt over whether they committed the crimes in order to believe they should be found not guilty.

I realise there are some here who have long had certainty that Knox and Sollecito had absolutely nothing to do with the murder and associated crimes. I am not one of them, but I strongly tend to believe they were not involved. Ultimately, unless Knox and Sollecito can ever prove their innocence, I don't think anyone will ever be able to be 100% certain. But the whole point is that people don't need to be certain of their innocence: if there's not enough evidence to convict, then that essentially equates to innocence.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I haven't thought about it very hard. There was a challenge a while back. I put 10 seconds thought into it and posted a scenario. People didn't like it.

Care to post a link?

The evidence uniquely determines a single scenario?

Of course not, we can always postulate (like Fuji did) multitude of accomplices that all either left no traces or left traces that were missed by ILE and are not in the photos to be found by anyone else. What makes me reject such scenarios in favor of the sufficient one is rationalism and common sense. I don't think introducing postulates that doesn't explain anything but demand explaining on their own is valid.

The defence are supposed to have access to people who can tell them what the single "true" scenario is supposed to be. Where they can't rely on them things are harder. Tell me the single true scenario for how the dna reading on the bra clasp occurred, or do you allow yourself multiple scenarios there?

I don't consider it part of the scenario (scenario of the night of murder) but random noise that was introduced by incompetent investigation. The sufficient explanation for me is that it was introduced during the trashing of the crime scene, some time of the one and half month between the visits of the Scientifica. Of course there are many other plausible possibilities. I don't see a sensible way of introducing it into the scenario, tough.

None that you will accept exist. The thing about believing they are innocent is that you don't accept scenarios where they are guilty as plausible, though clearly others do.

I will gladly swap the scenario I'm currently leaning towards for an even more simple one, unless it doesn't leave any evidence unaccounted for.

In any case, the prosecution and the "guilters" don't have to provide a scenario. There just has to be enough space for a scenario to exist.

If there is so much space, I guess it's not a problem to produce a few that won't require too much suspension of disbelief?
Unfortunately the one Mignini produced ( empty duodenum long hours after meal, "now we will make you have sex" ) or that Massei gave (kitchen knife carried for protection) don't qualify.

And why shouldn't he?

Which of his narratives you find compelling and believable?

 

[shuttlt]

Definitely.

In my opinion keeping this case afloat and in the media spotlight is the only thing that can save Amanda and Raffaele. I wholeheartedly welcome recent own goals by the prosecution - the CNN interview, Frank Sfarzo's harassment and the affair with perugia-shock. There's a visible change of tide in the media that is encouraging.

People say the tide of public/media opinion is changing. They also say there is some new evidence that is going to prove Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. Both things have been getting said pretty much the whole time I've been involved in the thread. I don't think posting on the JREF is going to make any difference at all to the case.

As for the Kerchers, I'm afraid they can only thank Perugian authorities for their ordeal. The whole thing could've been over in 2008 with Guede's sentence. And I hope they will see and make them pay.

No. Them being wrongly imprissioned is, possibly, the fault of the authorities. I chose to post here and interestedly talk about how their daughter was brutally murdered and so do you. I don't see that either of us are doing anything in any way productive by doing that.

 

[LondonJohn]

Rolfe,

It's not strictly speaking an argument about guilt or innocence, but it's always seemed like an interesting distinction between the two sides how evidence is presented. PMF is a fantastic resource because one of the main activities of the most hated pro-guilters is collecting and translating material on the case. The pro-innocence camp said they were translating the motivations report, PMF did it. The amount of material is impressive. You can seperate off the data collection function from the position taken on the case by the pro-guilters and it is impressive. The pro-innocence camp sites are advocacy sites. Material is presented in order to make their case, not to make all the material available so that you can judge for yourself. The pro-innocence camp has always had lots of material available to them and they pick and chose what to show. I don't mean to say that there is something desperately significant being hidden. But it is a distinction that has always struck me about the two camps and probably why I feel more at home with the pro-guilters.

I agree that those on PMF have done a laudable job translating key documents. I'd also argue that whoever's doing this work must have an awful lot of available time to devote to this hobby - time that most of the rest of us don't have. I think that this reflects a certain very high level of..... shall we say..... commitment to this case amongst certain people on the pro-guilt side, many of whom also seem to think that they are on some sort of quasi-evangelical mission to "honour the memory of Meredith". This huge time-sink effort is further reflected in the enormous (and enormously pompous) "open letters" that this group is fond of composing and sending.

The ironic* thing about the large translation efforts undertaken by those members of PMF is that the translated documents have consistently tended to undermine the argument for guilt. And one of the sociologically-interesting factors in all this is to watch those involved in the translations (and their pro-guilt supporters) trying to ex-post rationalise all this: "See: the documents we translated show just how guilty Knox and Sollecito are!" All I can say is that I am especially looking forward to their customary zeal in translating Judge Hellmann's appeal report......


* Apologies if this word is foreign to American readers

 

[shuttlt]

To find a criminal defendant guilty of the charges brought against him/her, the court must be satisfied that the defendant has been proven to have committed the crimes beyond all doubt that any reasonable person might hold.

OK

To find a criminal defendant not guilty of the charges brought against him/her, the court must be satisfied that the defendant has not been proven to have committed the crimes beyond all doubt that any reasonable person might hold. This means that if the court has any reasonable doubt whatsoever as to the guilt of the defendant, then there must be an acquittal.

OK

There are extremely good and proper reasons why the burden of proof in criminal cases lies entirely on the side of those seeking to prove the charges, and why it doesn't lie with the defendant to prove that he/she didn't commit the crimes. Often (and in nearly all cases that make it as far as a trial) the defendant cannot prove his/her innocence. Proof of innocence is a very nice luxury to have as a defendant - just ask Patrick Lumumba. But for those who can't prove their innocence, a trial is all about the prosecution trying to prove its case to the court, and about the defence seeking to show that there is reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case.

OK

If somebody cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (to the court's satisfaction) of having committed a criminal offence, then that person should be acquitted and the presumption of innocence should remain intact. That's one of the bedrocks of modern jurisprudence. In the eyes of the criminal law, "not guilty" equates to "innocent", and rightly so.

The court were satisfied. Perhaps the next one won't be.

So, as this relates to the Knox/Sollecito case, it's critically important to understand this asymmetry. In order to believe that Knox and Sollecito should be found guilty of these crimes, one ought to be certain beyond all doubts that a reasonable person might hold that they did commit these crimes. But in order to believe that they should be found not guilty, one does not need to be certain that they did not commit these crimes. In fact, one only needs to have the smallest element of doubt over whether they committed the crimes in order to believe they should be found not guilty.

No. It is not all possible doubt. It is reasonable doubt. Some doubt is allowed.

I realise there are some here who have long had certainty that Knox and Sollecito had absolutely nothing to do with the murder and associated crimes. I am not one of them, but I strongly tend to believe they were not involved. Ultimately, unless Knox and Sollecito can ever prove their innocence, I don't think anyone will ever be able to be 100% certain. But the whole point is that people don't need to be certain of their innocence: if there's not enough evidence to convict, then that essentially equates to innocence.

Perhaps I should clarify/rephrase. You believe, I think, that, had you been in on the jury (and sufficiently fluent in Italian) you would have found them innocent?

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't think a long considered pro-guilt argument is possible on this forum. Not unless it was delivered as an essay. The case took the better part of a year (admittedly they by no means sat every day). The argument for guilt might not be easy to sum up.

Judge Massei's sentencing report was supposed to contain both a summary and full reasoning behind the court's decision to find Knox and Sollecito guilty in the first trial. The only trouble is, Massei seemingly encountered the same problems you describe: his report is littered with extraordinarily poor reasoning, contradictions, inaccuracies and logical fallacies.

 

[Alt+F4]

I don't believe you.

Good for you. Not my fault you haven't read my 500+ posts in this thread.

Someone with genuine answers would either post links to the messages where they could be found, or simply repeat the earlier content.

I've given my answers, not my fault you're to lazy to find them.

Those on the pro-innocent side have no hesitation in repeatedly posting what the facts are, and why they support our position.

Yes, we know all your points, over, and over again. When Judge Hellmann excepts them as "facts" get back to me.

 

[shuttlt]

Care to post a link?

Every comment from annonymous on PerugiaShock.

Of course not, we can always postulate (like Fuji did) multitude of accomplices that all either left no traces or left traces that were missed by ILE and are not in the photos to be found by anyone else. What makes me reject such scenarios in favor of the sufficient one is rationalism and common sense. I don't think introducing postulates that doesn't explain anything but demand explaining on their own is valid.

That's your view of the case. Others think accomplices explain other bits of evidence and hence simplify the case.

I don't consider it part of the scenario (scenario of the night of murder) but random noise that was introduced by incompetent investigation. The sufficient explanation for me is that it was introduced during the trashing of the crime scene, some time of the one and half month between the visits of the Scientifica. Of course there are many other plausible possibilities. I don't see a sensible way of introducing it into the scenario, tough.

And I don't see any sense in providing a scenario of the murder.

I will gladly swap the scenario I'm currently leaning towards for an even more simple one, unless it doesn't leave any evidence unaccounted for.

Are you counting the bra clasp and so on here, or do you get to decide what bits of evidence your scenario needs to cover?

If there is so much space, I guess it's not a problem to produce a few that won't require too much suspension of disbelief?
Unfortunately the one Mignini produced ( full duodenum long hours after meal, "now we will make you have sex" ) or that Massei gave (kitchen knife carried for protection) don't qualify.


Which of his narratives you find compelling and believable?

I haven't thought about it and it doesn't interest me. In fact, I never said there was space. You are putting words into my mouth.

 

[shuttlt]

Judge Massei's sentencing report was supposed to contain both a summary and full reasoning behind the court's decision to find Knox and Sollecito guilty in the first trial. The only trouble is, Massei seemingly encountered the same problems you describe: his report is littered with extraordinarily poor reasoning, contradictions, inaccuracies and logical fallacies.

Has Rolfe read it? It also proves my point in some ways. How long is the Massei report? The argument for guilt seems to be quite long. Not really suitable for posting.

 

[NewtonTrino]

I don't know what that question is supposed to mean. I said I was just lurking on the thread. (Partly it's out of jealousy, jealousy of the existence of the guilters. I can't get even a semblance of a rational argument for Abdelbaset al-Megrahi being "the Lockerbie bomber", such is the illusory nature of the case against him, and the threads just sink. So I come hear to see what happens when there's at least a degree of discussion.)

On these threads there are a number of people who make cogent arguments suggesting there is genuine, serious, credible doubt about the safety of the Knox/Sollecito convictions. Nobody arguing against them has been able to make a credible case for guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" - and that is the standard it has to be proved to.

It doesn't matter who the people are on either side, it's the quality of their discussion that matters.

Rolfe.

Very nicely said and I agree.

 

[Alt+F4]

If what I have read about Meredith's intestinal contents is correct...

How do you know it's correct? Where are you getting your information from? Rolfe, do you know that except for Amanda, none of the verbatim trial testimony is available to the public?

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe,

It's not strictly speaking an argument about guilt or innocence, but it's always seemed like an interesting distinction between the two sides how evidence is presented. PMF is a fantastic resource because one of the main activities of the most hated pro-guilters is collecting and translating material on the case. The pro-innocence camp said they were translating the motivations report, PMF did it. The amount of material is impressive. You can seperate off the data collection function from the position taken on the case by the pro-guilters and it is impressive. The pro-innocence camp sites are advocacy sites. Material is presented in order to make their case, not to make all the material available so that you can judge for yourself. The pro-innocence camp has always had lots of material available to them and they pick and chose what to show. I don't mean to say that there is something desperately significant being hidden. But it is a distinction that has always struck me about the two camps and probably why I feel more at home with the pro-guilters.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't accept a scenario where the case for guilt is so complex it can't be succinctly explained, at least to a first approximation. And when I say, "case for guilt", I'm talking "beyond reasonable doubt" proof. Accumulating reams of evidence by itself is no guarantee of virtue. It's how that evidence is interpreted that's the important thing.

As a pathologist who does forensic work, I'm convinced by what I have heard about the findings in relation to Meredith's intestinal contents. I cannot see any way in which that evidence can support a time of death much later than about 9pm. When one of the guilt-advocates tried to address that point, he descended to preposterous speculation and allegation almost immediately.

And it seems to go on like that. What does the guilt side have to counter the time of death evidence, just for starters?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

How do you know it's correct? Where are you getting your information from? Rolfe, do you know that except for Amanda, none of the verbatim trial testimony is available to the public?

I don't. I told you I was lurking. If you think that evidence is not correct, then you could always explain why you think so.

Rolfe.

 

[shuttlt]

How do you know it's correct? Where are you getting your information from? Rolfe, do you know that except for Amanda, none of the verbatim trial testimony is available to the public?

Absolutely. The hated Steffanoni who knows nothing about forensics and whose arguments have all been shown to be false testified for 3 days I think. How many paragraphs do we have of her testimony?

 

[Rolfe]

Has Rolfe read it? It also proves my point in some ways. How long is the Massei report? The argument for guilt seems to be quite long. Not really suitable for posting.

No, I haven't read it. I have much, much bigger fish to fry and much more important legal documents to read in the time I have available.

I told you, I'm lurking, trying to see which side is "winning" if you like. At the moment it's fairly clear.

Rolfe.

 

[Alt+F4]

I said I was just lurking on the thread. (Partly it's out of jealousy, jealousy of the existence of the guilters. I can't get even a semblance of a rational argument for Abdelbaset al-Megrahi being "the Lockerbie bomber", such is the illusory nature of the case against him, and the threads just sink. So I come hear to see what happens when there's at least a degree of discussion.)

Why? Perhaps folks on the JREF forums either agree with you or just don't care. Your seem to want to pick a fight.

 

[shuttlt]

I don't. I told you I was lurking. If you think that evidence is not correct, then you could always explain why you think so.

Rolfe.

We don't have direct access to lots of the evidence. The pro-innocence advocacy groups supposedly do via the Knox family, some of it, mainly photographs has been released via the advocacy blogs. Everthing else is from newspaper clippings, some of which have turned out to be untrue, one pro-innocence blogger who has been in court every day and the judges summary explanation of the decision.

 

[Rolfe]

Unfortunately the one Mignini produced ( full duodenum long hours after meal, "now we will make you have sex" ) ....

I thought it was 500ml stomach contents and an empty duodenum.

Rolfe.

 

[Alt+F4]

If you think that evidence is not correct, then you could always explain why you think so.

I don't like posting my same responses over and over again but since you are somewhat new to this thread and I have respected your opinions in threads on other subjects I will state again:

Except for the testimony of Amanda Knox, there is no other testimony evidence that was presented in court that is available to the public to see/read. Everything else has come through the media and/or the families.

 

[shuttlt]

As a pathologist who does forensic work, I'm convinced by what I have heard about the findings in relation to Meredith's intestinal contents. I cannot see any way in which that evidence can support a time of death much later than about 9pm. When one of the guilt-advocates tried to address that point, he descended to preposterous speculation and allegation almost immediately.

Not a clue. Good question though. I know it's been discussed a number of times before. Like so much of the evidence, I wish I had access to the transcript of this being discussed in court so I knew what the arguments were. The motivations report will have it in if you're interested.