Amanda Knox murder conviction overturned

[Admiral Shran]

That depends on what you had to say. A single eye witness is often far better than many murder cases.

That also ignores the fact that said person might be, you know, lying.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

That also ignores the fact that said person might be, you know, lying.

That is why they invented lineups.

 

[MNM]

So she gave conflicting stories. That in and of itself isn't evidence of guilt. It's circumstantial evidence that points toward possible guilt.

Though I never said otherwise.

Her changing her stories multiple times doesnt mean she did it, but I merely find it difficult to think someone who changes their story multiple times, and not just changes it to vague stuff, but detailed descriptions, which can be proved to be factually incorrect, can be 100% innocent.

She was interrogated for 55 hours without a lawyer, interpreter or access to food, water or a bathroom. And there is no video of her interrogation.

One could ask, if there is no video of her interrogation, how can you be certain it went how you say it did? did she or lawyers acting on her behalf claim it? I mean, she has already proven to not be completely truthful in all aspects of this case.

There is no DNA evidence implicating her, the murder weapon was never found (that kitchen knife wasn't it-- too big) and Guede apparently jacked Meredith Kercher's cell phones.

Great, none of which means she is completely innocent though, it means there are many unanswered questions about the case.

Personally, as I have said, I dont necessairly think she did it. I do think she knows more about it than she has let on. Why she hasnt let on, that's a question....

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Great, none of which means she is completely innocent though, it means there are many unanswered questions about the case.

Nor is there any compelling reason to attempt to resolve any of what you call "unanswered questions" by the conclusion that Knox is guilty in any way of any crime at all.

The prosecution here just flat-out fucked up - let's not let them off the hook for that, not even an inch.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

That depends on what you had to say. A single eye witness is often far better than many murder cases.

That also ignores the fact that said person might be, you know, lying.

Which is something juries typically determine, no? Based on that logic, we should exclude all eye witness testimony. There are cases proven with no witnesses or other direct evidence. While I personally feel even honest witnesses should be considered unreliable, it's very rare for people to feel that way.

Look at it this way. People assumed Casey Anthony was guilty. There were exactly zero witnesses in that case.

I haven't seen you address the improper behavior by the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case, nor have I seen you address any of the clear facts in the article I linked. I don't think you'd really condone that, would you?

I did not address it because my point was a little broader (as I understand it, he was disbarred because of the case, but many people would condemn his actions simply because he brought charges against popular people). The majority of rape cases are he said she said (this is especially true if the defense is consent). Many victims are reluctant to go to the police because they feel no one will believe them absent some other proof.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Her changing her stories multiple times doesnt mean she did it, but I merely find it difficult to think someone who changes their story multiple times, and not just changes it to vague stuff, but detailed descriptions, which can be proved to be factually incorrect, can be 100% innocent.

It's not unusual at all. Police interrogations can even result in people confessing to crimes they didn't commit in extraordinary detail with amazing frequency based on being nervous and intimidated, having a desire to please/to help, wanting to end the interrogation(s) as soon as possible, and being asked leading questions.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

This video is a good example. This guy confesses to a murder. Oh, by the way, turns out he didn't do it (as in they later caught and convicted someone else).

 

[Admiral Shran]

That depends on what you had to say. A single eye witness is often far better than many murder cases.

That also ignores the fact that said person might be, you know, lying.

Which is something juries typically determine, no? Based on that logic, we should exclude all eye witness testimony.

So, you're fine with a jury deciding who's telling the truth in a situation were it's just one person's word against another's? Something like that shouldn't even be brought before a jury. Some kind of corroborating evidence is necessary.

And I didn't say we should exclude all eye witness testimony. I'm saying that said testimony can sometimes be inaccurate, especially if the person has a reason to lie.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I realize that, but you realize you're excluding a significant number of cases. A mugger robs someone at gun point. Thankfully, he's caught later. However, the only evidence against him is the word of the people who were mugged. Would you let the case go forward? Someone is shot in the middle of a park. Normally, this might be a difficult case. However, there was a jogger who saw the whole thing. Should you file charges based on the word of the jogger?

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

One would expect the proper procedure to be to thoroughly investigate the person who is implicated--and you seem to have missed the fact that I did say such a careful, good-faith investigation ought to be conducted rather than automatically blowing off somebody who has made an accusation--and then decide if there is ample basis to press charges.

 

[Admiral Shran]

Exactly. You don't just blow off an accusation or an eyewitness; you conduct an investigation.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

And if there's no physical evidence? Do you let a murder or a robber go free? Do you never return the money of the person robbed?

The overwhelming amount of cases have no physical evidence. Actually, the overwhelming number of serious crimes beg to have an eye witness to go with their absence of physical evidence.

If you're OK with not accepting uncorroborated eye witnesses in all cases, I'll let this slide. You're just in the extreme minority.

 

[Admiral Shran]

I'm not saying that all eyewitness testimony is inaccurate or that all uncorroborated eye witnesses should be dismissed.

All I'm saying is that they need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Are you saying that if I accuse someone of a crime, that my word is all that is necessary to obtain a conviction?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

One argument in favor of there being ubiquitous surveillance in public that might, I say might, have merit is that it could provide authenticated photographic evidence in cases of street crime. As technology advances, one should expect the amount of evidence in cases of crime, in aggregate, to increase. That aggregate increase of evidence should in practice alleviate many of these problems, by reducing the frequency of the more difficult issues (such as how to establish the reliability of eyewitness testimony), even if those more difficult issues themselves go unsatisfactorily resolved.

I say this with the caveat that how we decide to apply big brother style public surveillance will and should be determined under consideration of how its potential benefits weigh against its potential minuses.

 

[clint g]

I'm not saying that all eyewitness testimony is inaccurate or that all uncorroborated eye witnesses should be dismissed.

All I'm saying is that they need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Are you saying that if I accuse someone of a crime, that my word is all that is necessary to obtain a conviction?

While it MIGHT not be all it takes for a conviction, it is all that is needed for an arrest. Whether a conviction comes from it depends on what the accusation is. Alot will also depend on if the Assistant District Attorney wants to go forward with it or not.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Corroborating evidence does not always have to mean DNA or blood left at the scene, or a matched murder weapon. There are many other types of evidence ranging from statements of others who saw the victim or the target of the investigation at various times of interest, financial transactions, ISP records, phone records, and a whole multitude of other things I don't have time to list here. But these things should be checked into thoroughly before simply pressing charges the second someone makes an accusation--both to avoid accusing someone wrongly, and to make sure the state has a strong case so that if someone is rightfully accused, their chances of getting the full penalty are the highest. Due diligence is a must. Simply accepting an accusation without further question is reckless at best; immoral at worst.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I'm not saying that all eyewitness testimony is inaccurate or that all uncorroborated eye witnesses should be dismissed.

All I'm saying is that they need to be taken with a grain of salt.

I'm trying to figure out the practical application here. Do you allow charges to be filed or no? You said that they should not necessarily be dismissed. When should they be and when shouldn't they be?

Let's say someone says they were mugged. He knows the person from the neighborhood and says who it was. Assume there is no physical evidence or really circumstantial evidence. You ask the accused and he either invokes his Constitutional right to be silent or he says he was home alone. His cell phone has no GPS. No one else knows where he was. The alleged victim was walking alone that night. His wife confirms he went for a walk and told her when he returned that he had been mugged and who did it.

File a criminal complaint and arrest the suspect?

Are you saying that if I accuse someone of a crime, that my word is all that is necessary to obtain a conviction?

That would be up to a jury if they believe you. I think it's enough to bring someone to trial. A prosecutor shouldn't do this unless he believes the person, of course, but, if he does, I think it's sufficient.

 

[Admiral Shran]

I'm trying to figure out the practical application here. Do you allow charges to be filed or no? You said that they should not necessarily be dismissed. When should they be and when shouldn't they be?

The practical application is that an accusation would trigger an investigation, not an immediate arrest and certainly not a trial. If that investigation turns up no supporting evidence, then it is dismissed. Otherwise, you put WAY to much weight on the word of one person.

Let's say someone says they were mugged. He knows the person from the neighborhood and says who it was. Assume there is no physical evidence or really circumstantial evidence. You ask the accused and he either invokes his Constitutional right to be silent or he says he was home alone. His cell phone has no GPS. No one else knows where he was. The alleged victim was walking alone that night. His wife confirms he went for a walk and told her when he returned that he had been mugged and who did it.

File a criminal complaint and arrest the suspect?

Let the "victim" file a complaint? Yes, go right ahead. Arrest the "suspect"? No. There's no evidence to support an arrest. What if that "victim" wasn't actually mugged but was just trying to get someone else into trouble with the law? Without evidence to support the allegation, you have no way of knowing that.

Are you saying that if I accuse someone of a crime, that my word is all that is necessary to obtain a conviction?

That would be up to a jury if they believe you. I think it's enough to bring someone to trial. A prosecutor shouldn't do this unless he believes the person, of course, but, if he does, I think it's sufficient.

That is actually pretty scary, IMO. You're saying that you would be perfectly fine with turning a person's life upside down and possibly putting him or her in prison for who knows how long, all based on the word of someone who might not be trustworthy.