Hacker News Reader

Hmmm. So using this model, what would the OP say if there were Knox DNA under the victim's fingernails? If her roommate weren't a murder victim (more precisely, that we don't have any reason to think that there's been a murder, since that's what we're imagining to keep ourselves honest) these things aren't even suggestive of murder.

Here's another question: what a friend of the victim had testified that the victim had called sometime around the believed time of death and choked out, "Guede and Knox did it!"? If we're imagining that we don't know if there is a murder, then someone doing that isn't all that damnning, since hey, "it" could be any silly little thing? Yet it sounds pretty bad. Aha! Guede's name there associates something he did with Knox and it's agreed that he only did one thing of note in her apartment that day. OK, can we make a fact that would be more entangled? Yes: what if she said in that dying phone call, "Knox killed me"? Then aren't we saying that we only add the additional evidence of a roommate who isn't thought to be dead uttering that sentence? People say things like that all the time using "killed" as a metaphor for all sorts of innocent things. Yet it seems pretty damning. Can we really untangle the murder from the other evidence? I mean, the probability that the victim would at that moment use the word "killed" to mean something other than "stuck a knife in my throat" seems really low. And I think there is some similar entanglement with the other facts I've mentioned, too. The fact of the murder seems to make this technique faulty.

I think you did, and it's important to say that the Less Wrong OP has just made one of many different cases for why reasonable doubt exists. This approach was not used at the trial because the defense argued the version of the truth that Knox and Solecito tried to create.

Glad to hear it.

The OP would say that his framework is the only rational one.

Probably. If so, I'd like to hear how his idealized Bayesian system of justice works.

The legal system doesn't work on Bayesian analysis. It has a probability system defined based on the meaning of English words... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof#Standards_for_d...

>> The point of the post on lesswrong.com is that since it's agreed that Guede murdered the victim, you have completely explained away the murder. So now you must start over, from scratch, as if the victim were still alive, and ask how likely it is that Knox and Sollecito killed somebody based on the other evidence:

To me, I think this first line should read ".. since it's agreed that Guede was found guilty for his involvement in a murder that, due to extensive crime scene analysis, was clearly committed by multiple assailants". So I'm not sure why we must "start over, from scratch, as if the victim were still alive".

Furthermore, keep in mind that the evidence includes an initial written statement from Knox that implicates her in the murder.

You're right, if the crime was clearly committed by multiple assailants you need to find another killer. But the OP throws out the evidence that indicates multiple assailants.

False written statements are often signed in police stations.

Could you quote the parts of the article that "throws out the evidence that indicates multiple assailants"?

Specifically parts of the article that discredit the body of evidence from the Judge's report (http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/under...) that supports a multiple-assailant theory?

He appears to ignore such evidence, assuming it exists.

I don't know much about the case; I'm interested in the OP's model of thinking about cases.