Leah wrote:But that's kind of the point, Glaucon. It isn't actually about whether Knox is innocent or not - at least, not in the US courts. In the US courts, it's about reasonable doubt. Every fuckup and mistake that the State makes while processing a scene, every test that doesn't match the state's theory, etc, goes towards reasonable doubt. If the fuckups are bad enough, the judge can simply throw the case out, because the Prosecution has essentially shot themselves in the foot.
Odd, that. I guess that, to Americans, it is a game. You'd think that it would be about finding out whether the accused was guilty of the charges, not about foot-shooting or the number of mistakes made by the State. But hey, different system... the USA has juries and all that. In Smurfistan, we have judges (Papa Smurf, usually). I'll take your word for it when it comes to the criminal justice system in the USA.
But while you may be right about that system, that really doesn't matter, because the crime didn't take place in the USA. And so the finer points of whether or not someone is legally guilty from a peculiarly American perspective are not relevant. If you want to argue the principles of justice from a legal standpoint, you'd have to argue that with reference to an Italian perspective. Lex Terrae
and all that.
So, for us, it makes no sense to speculate whether or not they would have been found guilty in the USA. All we can really do is speculate whether she was 'guilty' or not in the 'normal people' sense. The 'moral sense', if you will. Whether we think it is quite certain that she was involved, or not.
It is not, and never has been, on the shoulders of the Defendant to prove their innocence. It is, and always has been, on the shoulders of the Prosecution to prove guilt.
Agreed, of course (that holds in Italy as well).
All the Defendant is supposed to have to do is provide reasonable doubt. This is why we have something called "innocent until proven guilty," which I think you referenced in the Woody Allen thread?
Thanks for explaining. But you clearly have another meaning in mind when it comes to that. You seem to think (and you might be right that this is actually a thing in the USA) that 'reasonable doubt' is an entity in itself, and that mistakes made by the State/prosecution 'add' to reasonable doubt. But 'reasonable doubt
' is the tail of 'proven guilty beyond a...'
And that means (or at least, is generally taken to mean, here in Europe) that the evidence placed before the court must leave no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. It does not refer to mistakes made by the State. Mistakes made by the state do not create 'reasonable doubt' directly. They only do so in so far as they detract from the evidence, potentially weakening it to the point where doubt about the guilt can exist. So, if 1 chunk of evidence is rendered questionable (because of such mistakes), this will only lead to reasonable doubt if the remaining evidence made such reasonable doubt possible.
In other words, if the evidence is strong enough, the State could make a complete mess out of part of it and there could still be a fair conviction, with guilt being established beyond a reasonable doubt. In Europe, at least.
At the moment, I will admit that I am no longer sure the rest stands up as sufficient evidence without the DNA, in this case. Then again, I got my info from some articles and stuff around the internet. The Italian court had the full thing in front of them, spend a lot of time on it and they are experts in criminal law.)
While it is true that there is some circumstantial evidence in this case, and that Knox gave conflicting testimony at the time, the fact that the DNA points straight away from her would be pretty damning of the Prosecution's case in the US system.
I don't see how the DNA points 'away' from her. It doesn't point directly AT her., directly, but it does, indirectly, because of her own testimony and other evidence. IF the DNA evidence (that you say is tainted, which you might well be right about) IS to be taken as truth, then it is certain Knox is guilty. Her account (including the later versions) ties her firmly to her then boyfriend, so if he is taken to have been there (because of his DNA on the bra-clasp at the scene) and the murdered girl's blood on a knife found at his home, then she, at the very least, knew about it (and didn't say anything).
But without the DNA... I am not so sure anymore. Starting to change my mind for the appeal. Might change it back later on.