The OP has changed his estimates from 0.001 to 0.1, which I think is a lot more defensible. My main point remains, for him as well as you: why are you choosing priors by a different method for Guede and the others?
None of the things you mention are “material facts”. They’re reports from various sources of things that can be interpreted as material facts. Very importantly: the murder is by no means an axiom for anyone rational, any more than the untold trillions of other imaginable murders should be axiomatic. The investigation and trial are some evidence, but you seem to be taking them at face value for Guede and discounting it heavily for the other two, and I don’t think that’s justifiable.
Reports of DNA are evidence as well. What false-negative rate do you give such reports, that brings you from any reasonable prior (which is similar to the prior you use for the other two) to over 90% probability?
First question, how is Meredith’s murder not a fact? Are you saying we have to prove she was murdered? Maybe I should have said death rather than murder. Is that what you mean?
Second question, what do you mean by “taking them at face value...”
Third, what am discounting?
Fourth, what such reports are you asking about for the reports?
Fifth, what do you mean by the last sentence, particularly “reasonable prior”? Can you reword? I’m not sure how the word “prior” is used on this site…
The OP has changed his estimates from 0.001 to 0.1, which I think is a lot more defensible. My main point remains, for him as well as you: why are you choosing priors by a different method for Guede and the others?
None of the things you mention are “material facts”. They’re reports from various sources of things that can be interpreted as material facts. Very importantly: the murder is by no means an axiom for anyone rational, any more than the untold trillions of other imaginable murders should be axiomatic. The investigation and trial are some evidence, but you seem to be taking them at face value for Guede and discounting it heavily for the other two, and I don’t think that’s justifiable.
Reports of DNA are evidence as well. What false-negative rate do you give such reports, that brings you from any reasonable prior (which is similar to the prior you use for the other two) to over 90% probability?
First question, how is Meredith’s murder not a fact? Are you saying we have to prove she was murdered? Maybe I should have said death rather than murder. Is that what you mean?
Second question, what do you mean by “taking them at face value...”
Third, what am discounting?
Fourth, what such reports are you asking about for the reports?
Fifth, what do you mean by the last sentence, particularly “reasonable prior”? Can you reword? I’m not sure how the word “prior” is used on this site…