What if someone's DNA was at the scene of a crime, but they were there before the crime took place?
That was one of the issues with Amanda Knox's flatmate being murdered. Knox's DNA was everywhere and the Italian police were found not to have followed forensic procedure. The question became, was she involved, or was evidence due to contamination?
My question was based around the premises that 'you're 80% sure', not that there is 80% evidential proof, but now you're raised the concept of gut instinct Molly, I'd be interested if people explored that with respect to being beyond reasonable doubt.
You also outlined the concept of what percentage might indicate beyond reasonable life doubt.
You're making this thread interesting, Molly. Run with it, please.
I've been trying to think of a way to explore this question for some time. I was all set to respond to Frisky's thread with it and it occurred to me it might derail it unfairly.
It then occurred to me, running them concurrently might lead to some interesting contrasts and comparisons.
I didn't find it at all difficult to understand, but either way, Heavensmile is entitled as an adult to make her own decision about organ donation without judgement.
It is standard practise here in the UK. You have to opt out, rather than make arrangements to donate.
I think it might still be standard practice to consult with next of kin, however. I don't think they whip your vitals out on the sly.
My dad received a cadaver kidney transplant over 7 years ago. Kidney failure was killing him and caring for his high needs was killing my mum.
She was too old and too small to carry on with things the way they were and my dad was having life saving surgery every couple of months. He was quite literally falling apart and at one point had mesh implanted to hold his insides together.
So far, that's about 15 years of life free from surgery and suffering from one kidney.
Each of us could potentially provide that 8 times over. That's like 120 years of life, or quality of life from the bits we don't need anymore.
From the present, it would be Clive Stafford Smith, but he'd have to bring his wife along. I've not seen an interview, documentary, seminar, or debate where he hasn't mentioned his wife. I know so much about her, it would be nice to finally meet her. Besides, I'd be rather tongue tied and inclined towards embarrassing obsequiousness in front of the mighty Clive without her.
From the past, it would be the Polish resistance fighter, Jozef Bylicki.
I remember that thread of his - something like, go and be nice to someone, banter with the person serving you in a shop, help someone out, whatever, and report back.
I remember him telling me he'd been diagnosed with late stage cancer and working out from the dates that his reaction to the news was to create that thread.
I think he had quite a big impact on me and others. I think his influence must live on in many, many people.
jac_the_gripper Forum Posts (5,363)
Jury Service...
But does that actually happen in practise, doublefantasy?If you look at the explorations and debate on this thread, would it be reasonable to doubt 12 jurors all having the same understanding of the concept?
How about all lawyers and judges?
Do any of them supplement evidence with 'gut instinct'?