I completely disagree. As an obvious example, consider the situation where a girl turns up brutally murdered and her husband has no coherent explanation for his whereabouts or actions at the time of the murder. Under those circumstances, one can be reasonably confident that the husband is the killer. This may not be sufficient evidence to convict the guy, but it’s still very likely that he is the killer.
WTF.
Seriously: It means nothing. There must be positive evidence before the thought should even cross your mind.
If you’d said “suspect” that would have been one thing (and still wrong IMO but not as wrong). But “reasonably confident”?! You’re not just wrong in a rational sense. What you’re doing in making this judgment is wrong wrong. Like you’re-a-bad-person wrong.
Sample link: Yahoo Search - Web Search
As a general matter of logic, if B follows from A, then you can infer the absence of A from the absence of B.
In this case, if someone was doing something other than being involved in a murder (A) it would follow that they would be able to elucidate this (B). If they can’t, it would suggest that they were in fact involved.
Of course, this is all theorical - I have no idea if they have in fact not come up with another alibi in the end.
As a matter of general logic, if B follows from A, you can infer the negation of A from the negation of B.
So you’d have to be saying something like this:
“If Knox is innocent, then she can provide an account of her whereabouts during the crime. She can’t provide that account. So she’s not innocent.”
This is a valid argument, but it starts from a massively faulty premise. It is simply not true that “If X is innocent of a particular crime, then X can provide an account of X’s whereabouts during that crime.”
It’s not always true, but it would generally tend to follow.
That’s not a proof, but it definitely changes the probabilities.
Out of curiosity, what is the standard of review for appeals of this type in Italy.
It changes the probabilities by a small amount, not an amount that would justify “reasonable confidence” even by a long shot.
I would say that depends on the details.
I agree–which is why I told Brazil that a lack of coherent story is not, in and of itself, sufficient for “reasonable confidence” of guilt.
This is so obviously, clearly, tragically wrong in so many ways I’m not even sure where to start.
I really really hope you’re never allowed anywhere close to a jury trial.
Where were you on September 11, 2001?
FYI, he’s referring to a Sherlock Holmes story, Silver Blaze:
Definitely better if you can hear Jeremy Brett as the voice of Holmes.
OK, it sounds like we probably don’t disagree here. (Your initial comments seemed more emphatic.)
I don’t think it’s one bit reasonable.
On that day, I’m pretty sure Perugia had at least a few dozen people who had spent the night bickied out of their minds (like Knox and Sollecito did) and couldn’t give a coherent account of their actions. Does that mean it’s reasonable to conclude that they were all involved in the murder? Was it a satanic cult?
Like I said, I really don’t know whether they were involved (although I don’t know of any real reason to think that they were) - but, while this might make me think of them as potential suspects, no WAY would it be enough to make me think they were guilty.
brazil84: I’m the husband and I was fucking another woman at the time. I don’t want to admit this because a lot of people don’t like adultery.
Same situation, but I want to protect the woman’s reputation.
I was robbing a bank at time and I don’t want to admit to a serious crime. I’m funny that way.
I was as drunk as a skunk and doing some good drugs. Of course, I’m incoherent.
Just because someone can’t give a good excuse doesn’t mean they’re very likely a killer.
I don’t see why. It’s just a matter of statistical reasoning. If the night a girl is murdered just happens to be the night that her husband cannot provide a coherent explanation for his whereabouts, it’s a pretty amazing coincidence.
I disagree. Unless they happen to be living in the Kingdom of Saudia Arabia, most people will admit to an adulterous affair in order to get out of a charge of murder.
I agree that your scenarios might explain why a person’s story didn’t make sense at first, but the problem is that even today, there doesn’t seem to be a coherent explanation for Knox’s actions and whereabouts on the night in question and the day after.
No it’s not probative of anything. It might mean that the husband needs to be looked at more closely, but as an indicator of guilt, it is worthless.
Is anybody else in this thread thinking of “The Long Black Veil”- for several reasons?
Fun fact, people routinely make stupid and inexplicable as well as unreasonable decisions. That does not make them murderers.
Also, what you state is with respect bullshit. People have admitted to crimes they did not, could not have committed. People have lied to protect others, even if it means a far worse fate for themselves. People have maintained lies even when it is in their interests to stop doing so.