With regards to “bayesian” analysis in question, as dilaudid said, the fact that a body was found makes for a fairly high probability that one out of a fairly small number of people connected to the victim has committed or participated in the murder. Even more so for a staged break-in.
The reason why we shouldn’t imprison people based on things such as apparently weird behaviour has little to do with it’s impact on probability, and everything to do with the potential for the abuses that a subjective criterion would create, as well as discrimination against “weird people” such as borderline autistic. We have to think what is going to happen on the bigger scale if we start using “weirdness” as evidence in the court.
The issue in this case is that the narrative presented by the police seems incredibly improbable even given all the facts, and there are far more probable narratives where she committed a lesser crime (such as being an accessory after the act). People who would commit murder are much rarer than people who may act as an accessory.
As well as a wholesome looking WHITE college student, which makes so many other people with latent homicidal tendencies from the same background feel viciously protective of her innocence!
As well as a wholesome looking WHITE college student, which makes so many other people with latent homicidal tendencies from the same background feel viciously protective of her innocence!
Why do we need latent homicidal tendencies to feel protective? That’s bizarre.
Amanda Knox acquitted.
Justice is finally served.
Or at least injustice has stopped being served.
Overturned, though.
With regards to “bayesian” analysis in question, as dilaudid said, the fact that a body was found makes for a fairly high probability that one out of a fairly small number of people connected to the victim has committed or participated in the murder. Even more so for a staged break-in.
The reason why we shouldn’t imprison people based on things such as apparently weird behaviour has little to do with it’s impact on probability, and everything to do with the potential for the abuses that a subjective criterion would create, as well as discrimination against “weird people” such as borderline autistic. We have to think what is going to happen on the bigger scale if we start using “weirdness” as evidence in the court.
The issue in this case is that the narrative presented by the police seems incredibly improbable even given all the facts, and there are far more probable narratives where she committed a lesser crime (such as being an accessory after the act). People who would commit murder are much rarer than people who may act as an accessory.
That took a while.
BTW, it just struck me, why do we tend to talk about Amanda Knox and fail to mention Rafaelle Sollecito?
Amanda Knox is American, so she gets more attention from American news media.
And a white female. Don’t forget that part.
And easier to type out.
As well as a wholesome looking WHITE college student, which makes so many other people with latent homicidal tendencies from the same background feel viciously protective of her innocence!
Why do we need latent homicidal tendencies to feel protective? That’s bizarre.
Mostly because she is more attractive.
Ah, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8u7px_GzWQ
Thanks for the link; I’ve updated both predictions on PB.com.