Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Stacyhs]

I like to ask if they believe Islam or Buddhism or the thousand other religions? They almost always answer "of course not"

I then reply that our beliefs are really not that far apart. they are atheists for 999 religions, I'm an atheist for just one more.

The verdict in this case and others offer a similar corollary. Every defendant who stands accused walks into a courtroom with no burden of proof. Neither Amanda or Raffaele need prove they are innocent. They don't actually have to prove anything. It is the one who claims there is a God or claims that Amanda or Raffaele are guilty that must present a case with evidence to support their claim. As an atheist, I'm not the defense in the case, I'm more the jury that determined that the claim did not fulfill the necessary burden of proof. My verdict is not that they are innocent but that they are not guilty. Christians like the PGP are always trying to shift the burden of proof. I'm not arguing there isn't a God, that would put the burden of proof on me. No, I'm simply demanding that those who say that there is one particularly one who's laws they like to integrate into all of society require evidence.

No one can prove there is no God. But no one can prove there is a God, either. No evidence of God exists except that of how a person perceives an event. "Miracles" are no proof as they are never proven not to have a logical explanation. Just because one is not found does not mean there isn't one. We just may not understand what it is yet. Faith in any religion is not based on scientific evidence, it is always based on personal acceptance, perception, and psychological/emotional needs.

Personally, I find that people who are religious need to have answers to life's most unanswerable questions. They are not comfortable with not knowing. Religion's greatest attraction is that it provides those answers, whether true or not. Atheists are comfortable with not having all the answers and admitting it.

 

[Planigale]

I read that double jeopardy no longer is absolute in the UK. What's that all about?

LJ's article has a section on a death of a child and the smearing of the parents.

Yes this is true. But in very limited circumstances. One of the drivers was the development of DNA testing. It both exonerated, and provided evidence for conviction. In England and Wales or NI. To bring a second case there must be compelling new evidence not available at the time of the original case. The case has to be serious e.g. murder or rape. The director of public prosecutions (the head of the crown prosecution service) has to apply to the court of appeal for permission to proceed with a prosecution. It does happen but very rarely. There is I think there is a similar process in Scotland, but Scottish law is Roman not common law (actually a mix of the two).

 

[Grinder]

I'm not sure why Grinder thought either quote he provided challenged the concept of presumption of innocence.

It's always been the case that the resources available to the prosecution can almost always exceed those of the defense, it's funding is inexhaustible, and it is always the prosecution that has the resources of the investigation team. The accused must fund it's own defense and hire it's own investigators, which then must work within the limitations imposed by the state investigation. Not surprisingly, there is a direct correlation between the wealth of the accused and the rate of acquittal.

To ensure presumption of innocence is realized the investigation & prosecution teams are supposed to pursue the truth, regardless of where that takes them. When investigators and prosecutors exploit their advantage in resource and funding to pursue a conclusion, regardless of whether it's the truth or not, then presumption of innocence is put at risk. This does not, however, alter what presumption of innocence represents. Following the acquittal, Amanda and Raffaele are once again presumed to be innocent. It is not required to prove them innocent. They are every bit as innocent as Mr and Mrs Bianchi.

ETA: Per Grinder's last couple of posts... agreed, the presumption of innocence is only a legal concept, and people who disagree with an acquittal will disregard the presumption. The remaining PGP prove this. However, there are still people who believe the moon landing was staged and the 9-11 attacks were an inside job. Presumption has no bearing on perception.

Please point to anywhere I disagree with the P.o.I. during the investigation or trial. You either misunderstand the issue or misrepresent what I'm saying. Many here not only LJ posit that since a person is presumed innocent during the legal process if they are not found guilty that translates into being innocent. As I have demonstrated the definition in Black's legal dictionary specifically states that a not guilty isn't equivalent to being found innocent.

Bringing in 9-11 and the moon landing is a red herring or a fallacy of false equivalence. First of all my point is a general point not case specific. Secondly even if specific to this case the presumption of innocence does not carry on beyond the ISC ruling. If there was the possibility of further legal action over the murder in civil court the verdict could not be used as proof of innocence.

Why do you think that Black's specifically states not guilty is not equal to innocent?

 

[Grinder]

No. No it's not. The presumption of innocence doctrine extends from the narrow question of legal procedure right into the heart of jurisprudence, and into the heart of ethics as well. You're wrong again.

"Presumption of innocence" serves to emphasize that the prosecution has the obligation to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt (or some other level of proof depending on the criminal justice system) and that the accused bears no burden of proof.[22] This is often expressed in the phrase innocent until proven guilty, coined by the English lawyer Sir William Garrow (1760–1840).[23] Garrow insisted that accusers be robustly tested in court. An objective observer in the position of the juror must reasonably conclude that the defendant almost certainly committed the crime.[24]
The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal instrument created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals.[25] It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial.[26] It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion.[25] To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means:[22]
With respect to the critical facts of the case—whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime—the state has the entire burden of proof.
With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them.
The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial.
​

It is a legal concept.

Complete nonsense. What quality are all these alleged "witnesses"? What exactly does the video tape show - can the suspect truly be accurately and reliably identified from it? Only a COURT can decide these sorts of questions. The police cannot decide them, and the public sure as hell can't decide them. And it's only if/when a COURT decides that the evidence is reliable and credible, and that it proves the man's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that the man loses the presumption of innocence. Not before that happens.

He loses his presumption of innocent for most people.

 

[Stacyhs]

Her testimony was strictly limited to specific issues only, such as the calunnia.

And yet she gives testimony to what she and Raffaele did on the night of Nov 1 and on Nov 2, her relationship (or non-relationship) with Guede, her Nov 5/6 interrogation, etc. This was heard by Massei and she was cross-examined by Maresca, Mignini and Comodi, so please don't tell us her testimony was limited to the calunnia charge.

 

[Grinder]

And yet she gives testimony to what she and Raffaele did on the night of Nov 1 and on Nov 2, her relationship (or non-relationship) with Guede, her Nov 5/6 interrogation, etc. This was heard by Massei and she was cross-examined by Maresca, Mignini and Comodi, so please don't tell us her testimony was limited to the calunnia charge.

Here - http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/2009-06-12_Eng.pdf

Vixen this is day one and includes Maresca's questions - nothing to do with callunia.

 

[acbytesla]

No one can prove there is no God. But no one can prove there is a God, either. No evidence of God exists except that of how a person perceives an event. "Miracles" are no proof as they are never proven not to have a logical explanation. Just because one is not found does not mean there isn't one. We just may not understand what it is yet. Faith in any religion is not based on scientific evidence, it is always based on personal acceptance, perception, and psychological/emotional needs.

Personally, I find that people who are religious need to have answers to life's most unanswerable questions. They are not comfortable with not knowing. Religion's greatest attraction is that it provides those answers, whether true or not. Atheists are comfortable with not having all the answers and admitting it.

Very good explanation. I just find "filling" in the blanks with beliefs, emotions or intuition to be inherently dishonest and doesn't advance knowledge. I also think it is dangerous. It is an appeal to ignorance. We don't get anywhere saying God is the cause. Instead of saying thunder is God speaking to us we investigate, hypothesize testable ideas and go about proving or disproving them.

Declaring that God or the devil or any supernatural reason is the cause for anything is surrendering. Admitting that we don't know something is an honest assessment of the state of knowledge. As opposed to an imaginary and arbitrary assignment which is inherently false.

 

[Bill Williams]

Very good explanation. I just find "filling" in the blanks with beliefs, emotions or intuition to be inherently dishonest and doesn't advance knowledge. I also think it is dangerous. It is an appeal to ignorance. We don't get anywhere saying God is the cause. Instead of saying thunder is God speaking to us we investigate, hypothesize testable ideas and go about proving or disproving them.

Declaring that God or the devil or any supernatural reason is the cause for anything is surrendering. Admitting that we don't know something is an honest assessment of the state of knowledge. As opposed to an imaginary and arbitrary assignment which is inherently false.

I couldn't let that highlighted part go by - I feel a need to stick up for science!!!

Put religion aside for a second - CBC radio last week had a program on the great scientists of the last 200 years, where was pondered was this: if they'd had a choice between two and only two things:

1) empirical data
2) intuitions and hunches​

They would choose #2 every day of the week, and twice on Sundays - pun intended.

I know what you mean, though, in the religious urge to ascribe "the gaps" to God, which is in and of itself a bankrupt way to go regardless....

But do not ever discount the role of beliefs, intuition and emotion, not to mention hunches, in the role they play in science, and be damned with religion for the time being. Regardless of the fact he was dead wrong, Einstein himself was expressing a belief based on (then) science dogma that, "God does not play dice with the universe."

Of course Einstein cited God as a euphemism, and did not mean God literally. But Einstein was defending what he believed was a key element of science-dogma and never really came around to accepting tenets of quantum physics. So your criticisms, acbytesla, apply on both sides, really.

Then there was Stephen Hawkins' famous line when his Ph.D. thesis was on blackholes and the role they played in space-geometry.... his line was that he was going to devote his post-grad life to disproving his own thesis.

From what I read, his impetus for going that route was that he "felt" his Ph.D. thesis could not be that simple. It was an intuition.

As such there is tremendous room and common ground in a good-faith science-religion dialogue. If one side goes into it seeking to disprove the other, then it's no wonder only the loudest voices remain.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yes this is true. But in very limited circumstances. One of the drivers was the development of DNA testing. It both exonerated, and provided evidence for conviction. In England and Wales or NI. To bring a second case there must be compelling new evidence not available at the time of the original case. The case has to be serious e.g. murder or rape. The director of public prosecutions (the head of the crown prosecution service) has to apply to the court of appeal for permission to proceed with a prosecution. It does happen but very rarely. There is I think there is a similar process in Scotland, but Scottish law is Roman not common law (actually a mix of the two).

I think that is a very reasonable change in the law.

 

[acbytesla]

I couldn't let that highlighted part go by - I feel a need to stick up for science!!!

Put religion aside for a second - CBC radio last week had a program on the great scientists of the last 200 years, where was pondered was this: if they'd had a choice between two and only two things:

1) empirical data
2) intuitions and hunches​

They would choose #2 every day of the week, and twice on Sundays - pun intended.

I know what you mean, though, in the religious urge to ascribe "the gaps" to God, which is in and of itself a bankrupt way to go regardless....

But do not ever discount the role of beliefs, intuition and emotion, not to mention hunches, in the role they play in science, and be damned with religion for the time being. Regardless of the fact he was dead wrong, Einstein himself was expressing a belief based on (then) science dogma that, "God does not play dice with the universe."

Of course Einstein cited God as a euphemism, and did not mean God literally. But Einstein was defending what he believed was a key element of science-dogma and never really came around to accepting tenets of quantum physics. So your criticisms, acbytesla, apply on both sides, really.

Then there was Stephen Hawkins' famous line when his Ph.D. thesis was on blackholes and the role they played in space-geometry.... his line was that he was going to devote his post-grad life to disproving his own thesis.

From what I read, his impetus for going that route was that he "felt" his Ph.D. thesis could not be that simple. It was an intuition.

As such there is tremendous room and common ground in a good-faith science-religion dialogue. If one side goes into it seeking to disprove the other, then it's no wonder only the loudest voices remain.

I think you misunderstood my meaning. I ABSOLUTELY feel that emotion and intuition and hunches are valuable in the process. The answer certainly may come by the way of them. But they are of marginal use without verification. Theoretical Physicists ponder this stuff forever. They are constantly making hunches about the universe but those hunches are of limited value until we can begin testing aspects of the hypothesis.

Tesla, my hero is said to get flashes of clarity and see the things he built in his mind, but only in building and testing do we know that they work.

That Einstein occasionally referred to God does not mean he gave the concept much validity. Yes, Einstein in his criticism of Niels Bohr and quantum mechanics said "that God doesn't play with dice" since Bohr said that we could describe electrons locations only through probability.

Offering an intuitive explanation is not the same as saying God did it. How can we test for that?

 

[Stacyhs]

I couldn't let that highlighted part go by - I feel a need to stick up for science!!!

Put religion aside for a second - CBC radio last week had a program on the great scientists of the last 200 years, where was pondered was this: if they'd had a choice between two and only two things:

1) empirical data
2) intuitions and hunches​

They would choose #2 every day of the week, and twice on Sundays - pun intended.

I know what you mean, though, in the religious urge to ascribe "the gaps" to God, which is in and of itself a bankrupt way to go regardless....

But do not ever discount the role of beliefs, intuition and emotion, not to mention hunches, in the role they play in science, and be damned with religion for the time being. Regardless of the fact he was dead wrong, Einstein himself was expressing a belief based on (then) science dogma that, "God does not play dice with the universe."

Of course Einstein cited God as a euphemism, and did not mean God literally. But Einstein was defending what he believed was a key element of science-dogma and never really came around to accepting tenets of quantum physics. So your criticisms, acbytesla, apply on both sides, really.

Then there was Stephen Hawkins' famous line when his Ph.D. thesis was on blackholes and the role they played in space-geometry.... his line was that he was going to devote his post-grad life to disproving his own thesis.

From what I read, his impetus for going that route was that he "felt" his Ph.D. thesis could not be that simple. It was an intuition.

As such there is tremendous room and common ground in a good-faith science-religion dialogue. If one side goes into it seeking to disprove the other, then it's no wonder only the loudest voices remain.

Arguing with someone about religion is a fruitless task. It's akin to trying to persuade a hard core Trump supporter that his rhetoric has little practicality in the real world. As Trump himself stated, he "could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and (he) wouldn't lose voters". It's the same with true believers.

 

[acbytesla]

Arguing with someone about religion is a fruitless task. It's akin to trying to persuade a hard core Trump supporter that his rhetoric has little practicality in the real world. As Trump himself stated, he "could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and (he) wouldn't lose voters". It's the same with true believers.

I would agree and disagree with your post. It depends on what you mean by arguing. Talking past each other or simply opposing them, yes that is useless. I've learned that there is a way to discuss the questions of religion that sometimes they cannot justify their beliefs even to themselves. This of course is with a small minority that actually keep their minds open. You don't argue that there is no God but through questions they come to Jesus on their own. It is more of an epistemological conversation as much as anything.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think you misunderstood my meaning. I ABSOLUTELY feel that emotion and intuition and hunches are valuable in the process. The answer certainly may come by the way of them. But they are of marginal use without verification. Theoretical Physicists ponder this stuff forever. They are constantly making hunches about the universe but those hunches are of limited value until we can begin testing aspects of the hypothesis.

Tesla, my hero is said to get flashes of clarity and see the things he built in his mind, but only in building and testing do we know that they work.

That Einstein occasionally referred to God does not mean he gave the concept much validity. Yes, Einstein in his criticism of Niels Bohr and quantum mechanics said "that God doesn't play with dice" since Bohr said that we could describe electrons locations only through probability.

Offering an intuitive explanation is not the same as saying God did it. How can we test for that?

All true. I just felt a need to stick up for science, if only not to leave misunderstanding.....

 

[TruthCalls]

Please point to anywhere I disagree with the P.o.I. during the investigation or trial. You either misunderstand the issue or misrepresent what I'm saying. Many here not only LJ posit that since a person is presumed innocent during the legal process if they are not found guilty that translates into being innocent. As I have demonstrated the definition in Black's legal dictionary specifically states that a not guilty isn't equivalent to being found innocent.

Bringing in 9-11 and the moon landing is a red herring or a fallacy of false equivalence. First of all my point is a general point not case specific. Secondly even if specific to this case the presumption of innocence does not carry on beyond the ISC ruling. If there was the possibility of further legal action over the murder in civil court the verdict could not be used as proof of innocence.

Why do you think that Black's specifically states not guilty is not equal to innocent?

After careful consideration I've concluded you're actually playing a game of semantics.

Not Guilty equals Innocent because we are all Innocent until proven Guilty. That, of course, is the point of P.o.I. But nothing can be used as proof of innocence except for actual, undeniable physical evidence that proves innocence beyond ANY doubt. And, in fact, it is also true that a guilty verdict does not PROVE guilt. Only actual, undeniable physical evidence can do that.

All things being equal, a verdict of Guilty is no more proof of guilt than a verdict of Not Guilty is proof of innocence. Unfortunately this isn't how it works in most legal systems. In a criminal court it is the prosecution that has to prove guilt BARD. That is the burden, but if they meet that burden in the eyes of the court then guilt becomes a judicial truth. Once guilt has become a judicial truth, the burden to reverse it is far more difficult than BARD. Unfortunately the defense does not have the option of proving innocence BARD and turning that into a judicial truth which, of course, would still not be PROOF, but within the legal system is almost as good.

 

[Bill Williams]

Arguing with someone about religion is a fruitless task. It's akin to trying to persuade a hard core Trump supporter that his rhetoric has little practicality in the real world. As Trump himself stated, he "could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and (he) wouldn't lose voters". It's the same with true believers.

I would rephrase it to make the insight of the post more general; because arguing with ANYONE who:

1) is a fundamentalist (of religion or of science)
2) claims special authority which is, by definition, unavailable to the other​

Makes it a fruitless task. Then again, I cannot - not really - know what an African American experience is in the USA, given that I am neither American nor African American. Someone from Detroit from an African-American background simply does have "special authority" to speak on some subjects.

But I agree - if someone would say to you, "You need to be a Christian to understand," is part of a fruitless dialogue. And it is something yet again when the dialogue is not a dialogue, but an attempt to prove someone else wrong. That tends to be fruitless, too.

 

[TruthCalls]

There is a reason why so many people are agnostic. It is foolish to insist God does not exist as it's impossible to prove one way or another. Agnostics are actually atheists who admit they could be wrong.

 

[Bill Williams]

There is a reason why so many people are agnostic. It is foolish to insist God does not exist as it's impossible to prove one way or another. Agnostics are actually atheists who admit they could be wrong.

Truth be told - I need atheists or I'd have no friends at all!

 

[acbytesla]

There is a reason why so many people are agnostic. It is foolish to insist God does not exist as it's impossible to prove one way or another. Agnostics are actually atheists who admit they could be wrong.

No. In fact you've got it wrong. ( I hate the term agnostic) people misunderstand these terms. An atheist does not say there is no God only that he doesn't accept any of the claims that there is a god. If you can provide proof of Bhudda, Allah, Zeus or any other God I would be willing to accept it but until you do I will operate under the assumption that there isnt.

An agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.This term just confuses people.

I consider myself to be an atheist and an antitheist. Not only do I not believe in a God but believe that theism in all of its incarnations to date is a destructive force.

 

[LondonJohn]

After careful consideration I've concluded you're actually playing a game of semantics.

Not Guilty equals Innocent because we are all Innocent until proven Guilty. That, of course, is the point of P.o.I. But nothing can be used as proof of innocence except for actual, undeniable physical evidence that proves innocence beyond ANY doubt. And, in fact, it is also true that a guilty verdict does not PROVE guilt. Only actual, undeniable physical evidence can do that.

All things being equal, a verdict of Guilty is no more proof of guilt than a verdict of Not Guilty is proof of innocence. Unfortunately this isn't how it works in most legal systems. In a criminal court it is the prosecution that has to prove guilt BARD. That is the burden, but if they meet that burden in the eyes of the court then guilt becomes a judicial truth. Once guilt has become a judicial truth, the burden to reverse it is far more difficult than BARD. Unfortunately the defense does not have the option of proving innocence BARD and turning that into a judicial truth which, of course, would still not be PROOF, but within the legal system is almost as good.

Yep. Though I would argue that in a properly-functioning justice system, a finding of guilt in a fair trial really should constitute factual proof of guilt - since this is in effect what the BARD standard is intended to guarantee. It's only when the system fails that factually-innocent people get found guilty in a trial process (and hopefully a just appeals process will capture and correct most of these errors, and thus also restore the presumption of innocence).

And I don't know how Grinder gets off (not for the first time) totally misrepresenting my position. In this instance he incorrectly states my position to be that "since a person is presumed innocent during the legal process if they are not found guilty that translates into being innocent". I said nothing of the sort. Ever. I stated clearly and unequivocally that if a person is found not guilty at trial then they preserve the PRESUMPTION of innocence. Not that this "translates into being innocent". It translates into nothing more or less than the presumption of innocence - Grinder appears to have enormous difficulty understanding and recognising the word (and the concept behind the word) "presumption".

I'm as baffled as you are by the goings on. But I know that I'm now weary with toil as far as interaction with one particular participant is concerned. Now where's that button....?

 

[Grinder]

After careful consideration I've concluded you're actually playing a game of semantics.

Not Guilty equals Innocent because we are all Innocent until proven Guilty. That, of course, is the point of P.o.I. But nothing can be used as proof of innocence except for actual, undeniable physical evidence that proves innocence beyond ANY doubt. And, in fact, it is also true that a guilty verdict does not PROVE guilt. Only actual, undeniable physical evidence can do that.

No we are not all innocent until proven guilty. That's why in Black's legal dictionary it explicitly says a not guilty verdict does equate to innocent.

All things being equal, a verdict of Guilty is no more proof of guilt than a verdict of Not Guilty is proof of innocence.

Well a verdict of guilty BARD is more proof of guilt than a not guilty is proof of innocence. Not guilty doesn't mean innocent legally at all, once again as Black's makes clear. The P.o.I. in fact is used to insure only those shown to be guilty BARD are convicted. Of course, it is clear that LE doesn't fully respect P.o.I. during many trials and investigations.

se·man·tics
səˈman(t)iks/
noun
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning​