The following is part of an Internet discussion. It seems plausible. Check it out yourself. Please leave a comment in the comments section if this discussion is in any way incorrect.
Lince wrote: They have very own version of logic and common sense. I have no doubt that their version of probability theory is equally inventive. For example, maybe in their osmosis approach they simply add probabilities of such extremely unlikely claims together. Even if single probabilities are quite/very low, sheer number of such statements can bring the total sum close to 100% (i.e., probability 1). Ergo, “beyond reasonable doubt” is soundly demonstrated.
Francisco wrote: There is no maybe about it. This was the tactic Crini took in his appeal and Cassation completely agreed, as was written in their motivation. I fully expect Nencini’s report will be more of the same… took rulings from previous trials not involving Amanda and Raffaele as rulings of fact against them and then did the osmosis thing to make all those irrelevant tidbits add up to something they consider meaningful.
Justinian wrote: Probability theory is taught in high school in America. Usually grade 10. It’s hard to believe that the entire prosecution team, the appeals courts and the ISC missed these courses that are/were required by high school students in the USA!
At the epicenter for my total disgust of civilization today is the abomination of legal remedies for the causation of harm and injury. (A.K.A. Justice.) No where is this judicial malfeasance more obvious than with the case of Amanda Knox. It’s much worse to incarcerate an innocent person than to let a guilty person go free (as they have frequently in Florida). The reason is that it is the sole purpose and job of government to protect the rights of their citizens. A government, our government, should, bottom line, protect our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Absolutely from the malfeasance of external governments like Italy!