Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #11

[SMK]

In any case, with shaky evidence and prosecution theories which prove to be full of holes, it is chilling to think that Amanda's "quirkiness" was her downfall. Should not be so.

 

[flourish]

REASONABLE DOUBT
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.http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q016.htm

Thanks for the definition! Wow! now how do we define:
"level of certainty"
"common sense"
etc., etc.,

Exactly...."of such a convincing character" or "real doubt based upon reason and common sense?" The very definition includes things that are subjective...so how in the world is someone expected to be completely objective, while still relying on reason and common sense, both of which can be rather subjective....???

And in this case...AK did not act with what I would define as "common sense," which muddles it even more (for me, IMO), as how does one apply common sense to a person/situation where common sense seems not to be present...does that make sense?

 

[Nova]

Do they define "reasonable" for jurors, then, so they know the objective perspective to take? I've been called twice for jury duty, but never actually have gotten to serve

In New York and California--the states where I have both served as juror and prepared jury instructions as a legal secretary--yes, the term is defined for jurors.

But it is defined in an almost comically circular way, something like "reasonable is that which a reasonable person would believe under similar circumstances." Thus, the definition uses the word to define the word in a way we would mark wrong on any undergrad's term paper.

So in my experience a jury can end up spending some time wrestling with the concept.

Reasonable doubt is obviously less than "beyond a shadow of a doubt or beyond all possible doubt" (as the prosecutor will almost certainly tell the jury at some point); it is more than a mere preponderance of the evidence (which is the standard in civil trials).

So it's somewhere more than 51% and less than 100% sure.

 

[sherlockh]

Let me see if I understand this argument right. If a trial lasts 1 day is that the first day or the last day?

It does not matter when the defense requests something. If they had made the request and the judge agreed it would not of been the last day correct?

What is baffling me even more and the real issue is that if I was the prosecutor and the defense makes a request to test something which could potentially seal this case up as a prosecutor I would be jumping all over trying to accommodate that request whether it be the first day last day or middle day

Usually it is the defense objecting; here we have the prosecution not wanting it and the judge stating no reason to test it as she was sexually active and it cannot be date stamped (the fact a judge states that it cannot be date stamped since she is sexually active tells me the possibility this is from someone spitting is ludicrous )

This is not about what day it was requested. This is about an item that if it tested positive for RS's DNA would of changed the entire dynamics of this case. This "timed request argument" makes no sense

If the judge says it can't be dated seems to me that he is considering if it would make any difference to this case even if it were semen. Sounds like the same argument there was about 'Rudy the serial burglar', because the judge said 'Even if we accept RG being the burglar then....' so it was proven because the judge accepted. Right. But again, lets test the darn stain and get it over with

 

[SMK]

E così sono alla stazione di polizia in questo momento, dopo una lunga giornata passata a raccontare come io sia stata la prima persona ad arrivare a casa ea trovare la mia compagna morta. translates from Google as
And so are the police station at this time, after a long day to tell how I was the first person to get home and find my wife dead. And keeps referring to Meredith as "he". Google translate is not the venue, I can see. :waitasec:

 

[sherlockh]

So was this stain actually tested ever for anything ever????
Do we actually know that this stain was semen?
The more I think I know...the more confused I get...

They used the crime scope on the pillow case. With the crime scope they can detect biological traces by putting a different light on it. For the nature of the biological stain you need a different test. I thought there were also some other substances like make-up that would show up under the light but I am not totally sure of that list. So as far as I can tell nobody knows what this stain actually is.

 

[Nova]

Thanks for your thoughts! Curious if you think they could have been so stoned and out-of-it that they were there while it happened but simply did nothing - in other words the drugs made it appear to them it was a dream... then the next morning they realized it wasn't a dream and so they did the cover-up.
By the time they could admit to this, it was too late, they were already accused...

So what I'm getting at is all about the cover up.... I feel either AK/RS did the cover-up, or RG may have done it if he figured people knew he was present that night and wanted to make it appear someone else did it.

I haven't touched marijuana in years, but many sources talk about how it is so much stronger than what we smoked in the 1970s, so I don't know just how stoned it is possible to get nowadays. And I have no experience with ecstasy, crystal meth, heroin or crack. So I don't know what sort of memory lapses may be possible depending on the combination one takes.

But to me, attempting to cover up a crime is an ENORMOUS step to take. Nearly all our movies and TV shows show suspects who attempt such a thing getting caught. After 57 years and more than a decade reading here at WS, it wouldn't occur to me that I could actually fool the police and forensic specialists.

And both RS and AK would have had to agree on such a course, even though it isn't clear they shared a large enough vocabulary in either English or Italian to really discuss it. Pardon my bolding, but this is a point I don't believe I've seen discussed here before.

So personally, I think the break in was genuine, or, if it was staging, it was staged by RG.

 

[SMK]

They used the crime scope on the pillow case. With the crime scope they can detect biological traces by putting a different light on it. For the nature of the biological stain you need a different test. I thought there were also some other substances like make-up that would show up under the light but I am not totally sure of that list. So as far as I can tell nobody knows what this stain actually is.

Can it be that if it did not "rate" for biologic material, that it was presumed lotion or makeup or something?

 

[Nova]

Actually, I do recall once seeing a judge defining 'reasonable doubt' for jurors. I cannot remember if it was on Court TV or what, but I recall him saying something to the effect of "reasonable doubt does not mean any existing doubt, but a doubt which makes it unreasonable to convict"---as I said, this is transposed, but I do recall it clearly. I am sure we can look up legal meaning of reasonable doubt. I will do so in a minute.

BBM: Yep. That's what I mean about using the term to define the term.

 

[Nova]

Well, it is possible. I do recall a case in Florida where some kids attacked a friend, and the ones who witnessed it were arrested, even though they had not actually participated. This would have to be a case where AK and RS heard Rudy and Meredith struggling, but did nothing, and later saw the result. But this then means that they were all 3 there at the cottage when Meredith came home, and then the other questions arise....more confusion....

If the Florida case is the one they made into a pretty decent movie, the kids were charged with various offenses depending on how much they knew before the fact.

I think AK and RS might be culpable if a court ruled they had advance knowledge that should have made them expect RG would kill MK. They wouldn't absolutely have to be in the room at the time.

 

[SMK]

I haven't touched marijuana in years, but many sources talk about how it is so much stronger than what we smoked in the 1970s, so I don't know just how stoned it is possible to get nowadays. And I have no experience with ecstasy, crystal meth, heroin or crack. So I don't know what sort of memory lapses may be possible depending on the combination one takes.

But to me, attempting to cover up a crime is an ENORMOUS step to take. Nearly all our movies and TV shows show suspects who attempt such a thing getting caught. After 57 years and more than a decade reading here at WS, it wouldn't occur to me that I could actually fool the police and forensic specialists.

And both RS and AK would have had to agree on such a course, even though it isn't clear they shared a large enough vocabulary in either English or Italian to really discuss it. Pardon my bolding, but this is a point I don't believe I've seen discussed here before.

So personally, I think the break in was genuine, or, if it was staging, it was staged by RG.

Quite true, but I imagine if they were in a real "haze" from drugs, and unsure of what course to take, they may have investigated, realized they had left their "mark" and tried to cover it up in haste? Slim chance, I suppose....

 

[Nova]

Yes, there is something off about her. If she were not as pretty as she is, I think more people would be put off by her. There is something quasi-autistic about some of her responses to things. To some people, this points to guilt. To others, like myself, it may have made her an easy target for an investigation.

How much of it is the lack of filter young people seem to have these days? They regularly discuss things in detail on Facebook that my generation (the "Let it all hang out" generation, we'll recall) would have repressed.

In fairness to AK, she does seem to recognize that "I'd kill for a pizza" is inappropriate under the circumstances, but rather than keeping it to herself, she discusses how it is inappropriate.

I don't know enough about autism to have an opinion on that, but my partner and I are continually astonished at what my niece and nephew (both really great college kids who are NOT murderers) post openly on Facebook, even knowing that their grandmother reads what they write.

 

[SMK]

Exactly...."of such a convincing character" or "real doubt based upon reason and common sense?" The very definition includes things that are subjective...so how in the world is someone expected to be completely objective, while still relying on reason and common sense, both of which can be rather subjective....???

And in this case...AK did not act with what I would define as "common sense," which muddles it even more (for me, IMO), as how does one apply common sense to a person/situation where common sense seems not to be present...does that make sense?

Yes, it does, and it is true, this is subjective, even though its aim is objectivity. And AK is an unusual person, and it is difficult to grasp her motives and some of her responses.

 

[Nova]

Exactly...."of such a convincing character" or "real doubt based upon reason and common sense?" The very definition includes things that are subjective...so how in the world is someone expected to be completely objective, while still relying on reason and common sense, both of which can be rather subjective....???

And in this case...AK did not act with what I would define as "common sense," which muddles it even more (for me, IMO), as how does one apply common sense to a person/situation where common sense seems not to be present...does that make sense?

In my experience, the law more or less leaves such questions for jurors to define as a group. And I think the juries I was on did a pretty good job of reaching definitions for these terms.

But other posters here have described horror stories where one person on the panel decided he or she would be the sole arbiter of what was "reasonable."

 

[sherlockh]

Can it be that if it did not "rate" for biologic material, that it was presumed lotion or makeup or something?

No idea if you could rate anything. I saw it discussed that it could be for example Vaseline as well, and there was a jar of Vaseline found at the crime scene. So I don't really know about the details of the crime scope, but seems like a cool device to me

 

[flourish]

In New York and California--the states where I have both served as juror and prepared jury instructions as a legal secretary--yes, the term is defined for jurors.

But it is defined in an almost comically circular way, something like "reasonable is that which a reasonable person would believe under similar circumstances." Thus, the definition uses the word to define the word in a way we would mark wrong on any undergrad's term paper.

So in my experience a jury can end up spending some time wrestling with the concept.

Reasonable doubt is obviously less than "beyond a shadow of a doubt or beyond all possible doubt" (as the prosecutor will almost certainly tell the jury at some point); it is more than a mere preponderance of the evidence (which is the standard in civil trials).

So it's somewhere more than 51% and less than 100% sure.

RBBM
Totally! I almost said that in my earlier post--that my second-grade teacher pounded it into our heads that definitions CANNOT and MUST NOT ever contain the words you are defining.
*Sigh*

 

[SMK]

No idea if you could rate anything. I saw it discussed that it could be for example Vaseline as well, and there was a jar of Vaseline found at the crime scene. So I don't really know about the details of the crime scope, but seems like a cool device to me

It does indeed. Ah, OK, perhaps this is why in her email home Amanda says the police asked if Meredith used vaseline. And Amanda said, "what, on her lips?"--LE may not have been hinting at anything sexual at all: they may have really thought it was used cosmetically, as in taking off makeup, which would leave traces on the pillow while sleeping...:waitasec:

 

[Nova]

If the judge says it can't be dated seems to me that he is considering if it would make any difference to this case even if it were semen. Sounds like the same argument there was about 'Rudy the serial burglar', because the judge said 'Even if we accept RG being the burglar then....' so it was proven because the judge accepted. Right. But again, lets test the darn stain and get it over with

Amen. If the stain is semen and belongs to the boyfriend, then the judge is right: there's no date and the stain doesn't cancel the boyfriend's alibi.

But if the stain belongs to RS or some unknown John Doe who had no other reasonable opportunity to be MK's room, that would be another matter.

 

[SMK]

RBBM
Totally! I almost said that in my earlier post--that my second-grade teacher pounded it into our heads that definitions CANNOT and MUST NOT ever contain the words you are defining.
*Sigh*

Seriously, right? And yet the legal lexicon does just this!!!:banghead:

 

[Nova]

RBBM
Totally! I almost said that in my earlier post--that my second-grade teacher pounded it into our heads that definitions CANNOT and MUST NOT ever contain the words you are defining.
*Sigh*

In the case of the law, I believe lawmakers are aware of the apparent contradiction. But the thinking is that the jury is 12 women and men (in most states in the U.S./different in Italy, I know) who are "reasonable people" (the mentally deficient and biased having been excused). And those 12--working together--are the best judges of what is "reasonable."

But I am not exaggerating when I say that on the murder trial where I was a juror, we spent a good half a day on the term, because different levels of murder and manslaughter depend on what are "reasonable" beliefs and what a "reasonable" person would do.