You asserted before that you yourself do not have a great deal of familiarity with the arguments made by the prosecution, and yet you find it adequate to support 90% confidence of guilt.
Nonsense, I clearly stated that my probability assessment was based mainly on the actual facts as opposed to arguments.
I agree that this statement was probably a mischaracterization of the prosecution’s argument,
Your second mischaracterization. Not only that, you seriously believe that one of the best pieces of circumstantial evidence against Knox is her “mannerisms.” And not only that, you do not understand the significance of the forgotten phone call. Just admit that you don’t really understand the case against Knox (or Sollecito). I promise you the sky won’t fall.
I am probably subject to some degree of confirmation bias in this case, but I would need to weight the evidence in favor of Knox and Sollecito’s involvement many, many times more heavily for it to become a credible assertion.
Given that you clearly don’t know the strength of that evidence, you shouldn’t have an opinion one way or another.
I think that you are yourself subject to an extremely strong confirmation bias here; weighting Knox and Sollecito’s changing of their alibis under probable abuse more heavily than Knox, Sollecito and Guede’s mutual failure to implicate each other, for instance, seems purely nonsensical.
Please show me where I made such a weighing. Please QUOTE me. Failing that, please admit that I made no such weighing and apologize.
what proportion of murders involve conspiracy,
What exactly do you mean by “conspiracy”? It seems pretty clear that if Knox and Sollecito were involved in the crime, they acted in concert with Guede.
In the scenario I describe where Knox and Sollecito encourage Guede from a few feet away and then run, would you count that as a “conspiracy”?
If you can point to any evidence that such an event (non sociopathic, FBI zero threat rating individuals witnessing an attack on someone they have no motive to kill, by someone they do not have strong affiliation with, and cheering on the attacker,) has ever happened before, I would agree that I am underestimating the probability. Can you point to any such evidence?
I think I probably could. But let’s make sure I understand what you are saying.
You are claiming that Scenario A (non sociopathic, FBI zero threat rating individuals witnessing an attack on someone they have no motive to kill, by someone they do not have strong affiliation with, and cheering on the attacker) is at least a thousand times less likely than scenario B ((non sociopathic, FBI zero threat rating individuals witnessing an attack on someone they have no motive to kill, by someone they do not have strong affiliation with, and physically participating in the attack).
You are also claiming that Knox and Sollecito are known to be non-sociopathic and known not to have had a motive to harm Kercher.
Do I understand you correctly?
Can you explain what this apparent claim is?
That if additional samples taken from on or about Kercher’s person matched Guede, it would not have become part of the record in the case.
ETA:
but can you name any other piece of evidence regarding the break in which is more probable in light of a staged break-in than a real one?
A single piece of evidence? Sollecito’s phone call comes close, but probably not.
Your second mischaracterization. Not only that, you seriously believe that one of the best pieces of circumstantial evidence against Knox is her “mannerisms.” And not only that, you do not understand the significance of the forgotten phone call. Just admit that you don’t really understand the case against Knox (or Sollecito). I promise you the sky won’t fall.
No, I don’t concede that. If you can explain to me why it’s so much more likely that Knox would make that phone call if she were guilty than if she were innocent, perhaps it will be something I failed to consider, and I will change my mind. But as-is, it seems to me like such a weak enough piece of evidence that had the police not already promoted Knox and Sollecito to attention, they would probably not have treated it as worthy of notice.
Please show me where I made such a weighing. Please QUOTE me. Failing that, please admit that I made no such weighing and apologize.
I inferred that you made such a weighting from this statement
At the same time, the chances that an innocent person would have this kind of circumstantial evidence against them (changing alibis, staged break-in, forgotten phone calls, and so forth) is much lower. Perhaps 1 in 5000. (This is including the exculpatory aspects of the evidence as well.)
If I was incorrect, then I apologize for that. But I don’t see how you’re getting an odds ratio of 1:5000 in favor of guilt for changed alibis (very high likelihood of coercion,) a forgotten phone call, a phone call stating that nothing had been taken in the break-in (which they could reasonably infer,) versus mutual failure to implicate, absence of evidence of motive, absence of evidence of dangerous personalities or inclinations, absence of evidence of conspiracy, and absence of evidence of physical presence at the scene.
What exactly do you mean by “conspiracy”? It seems pretty clear that if Knox and Sollecito were involved in the crime, they acted in concert with Guede.
In the scenario I describe where Knox and Sollecito encourage Guede from a few feet away and then run, would you count that as a “conspiracy”?
By conspiracy, I mean that they intended for Kercher to be murdered, and made plans to that effect in advance with her murderer.
I think I probably could. But let’s make sure I understand what you are saying.
You are claiming that Scenario A (non sociopathic, FBI zero threat rating individuals witnessing an attack on someone they have no motive to kill, by someone they do not have strong affiliation with, and cheering on the attacker) is at least a thousand times less likely than scenario B ((non sociopathic, FBI zero threat rating individuals witnessing an attack on someone they have no motive to kill, by someone they do not have strong affiliation with, and physically participating in the attack).
You are also claiming that Knox and Sollecito are known to be non-sociopathic and known not to have had a motive to harm Kercher.
Do I understand you correctly?
No. I am saying that Scenario A is much less likely than the possibilities that dominate the probability mass for “Knox and Sollecito physically involved in Kercher’s murder.” This would include possibilities such as “violent argument over cleaning roster gone downhill,” “sex game gone wrong,” etc. The prior probability for “Knox and Sollecito witness Guede attacking Kercher, and proceed to assist Guede in the attack,” as with the probability that they would cheer him on, is infinitesimal.
In retrospect, I think that the relative prior probability that I assigned to their involvement through conspiracy (1:100) was too low, but it’s still very low in light of the absence of evidence that Knox and Sollecito conspired with Guede, and the likelihood that they would observe an attack in progress and support the attacker is infinitesimal.
Also note that if Knox and Sollecito came to the residence Knox shared with Kercher, and witnessed an attack in progress, they cannot have let Guede in. Any evidence in favor of a staged break-in is evidence against this hypothesis.
The prosecution tried quite hard to find a motive for the killing, and was unable to establish one, unless you account “crazy sex game gone wrong” or “satanic ritual” as motives, neither of which they were able to present evidence for. At this point, the notion that Knox and Sollecito had a motive to murder Kercher deserves a very low probability.
Amanda Knox was known by her acquaintances for having an low tolerance for conflict, and being uncomfortable if she and people around her were in disagreement, behavior which is highly inconsistent with Antisocial Personality Disorder. Further, if the prosecution was able to find evidence that she or Sollecito had APD, they had strong motive to make record of it, but the Massei-Cristiani report contains no such evidence. So the probability that Knox and Sollecito would witness an attack on Kercher and support the attacker may be dominated by the possibility that they were secretly sociopaths and had reason to want her dead, but we have more evidence than for the average person to suspect that neither was the case.
That if additional samples taken from on or about Kercher’s person matched Guede, it would not have become part of the record in the case.
I never said that I expected that if they found additional samples implicating Guede, it would not have become part of the case, I said that I did not have strong expectation that if further evidence been found against Guede, it would have been raised in the case (or to be more precise, I do not have a strong expectation that they would have brought the evidence to the case and I would have found out about it; Guede’s case was not controversial and so was not heavily reported on, and he opted for fast track trial in which he waived the right to contest any evidence against him, and all the primary documents are in Italian.)
Because I do not have a great deal of expertise regarding the Italian legal system, my model of reality would not have taken much of a hit either way.
If you can explain to me why it’s so much more likely that Knox would make that phone call if she were guilty than if she were innocent, perhaps it will be something I failed to consider, and I will change my mind.
It’s not really my job to explain it to you. It’s your job to do your homework to find out what the best and most important evidence is on both sides before you make your probability assessment. I have done that with both sides. On the other hand, you obviously have a very poor understanding of what the case against Knox is. As far as I can tell, you haven’t even tried to defend your claim that Knox’s mannerisms was among the best circumstantial evidence against her.
If I was incorrect, then I apologize for that.
Yes, you are incorrect. My statement was clearly looking at the body of evidence as a whole.
By conspiracy, I mean that they intended for Kercher to be murdered, and made plans to that effect in advance with her murderer.
Ok, then I don’t see how the concept of a “conspiracy” adds much to the discussion. If there was a conspiracy, Knox and Sollecito plausibly may still have been physically involved. If there was not a conspiracy, Knox and Sollecito may plausibly not have been physically involved.
No. I am saying that Scenario A is much less likely than the possibilities that dominate the probability mass for “Knox and Sollecito physically involved in Kercher’s murder.”
In that case you are comparing apples and oranges, since you are comparing one narrow scenario I proposed with much bigger set.
I think that the relative prior probability that I assigned to their involvement through conspiracy (1:100) was too low, but it’s still very low in light of the absence of evidence that Knox and Sollecito conspired with Guede, and the likelihood that they would observe an attack in progress and support the attacker is infinitesimal.
You are ignoring other possibilities here. A more likely scenario is that Knox and Sollecito conspired with Guede to harm Kercher in some way but did not intend for her to die.
For example, consider the murder of Janet Chandler which took place back in 1979. Her roommate and co-worker—a girl named Laurie Swank—apparently helped to organize a sexual attack on her. Swank admitted to cheering on the attackers who ultimately killed Chandler. There was no DNA testing back then, but if there had been, there would not have been any of Swank’s DNA on or about Chandler’s person.
Also note that if Knox and Sollecito came to the residence Knox shared with Kercher, and witnessed an attack in progress, they cannot have let Guede in. Any evidence in favor of a staged break-in is evidence against this hypothesis.
I agree but so what? I’m not proposing that Knox and Sollecito walked in on Guede assaulting Kercher and spontaneously decided to help him. I’m proposing that they acted in concert for some unlawful purpose (which by hypothesis pretty clearly happened) and that for whatever reason, Knox and Sollecito were not close to Kercher when Guede stabbed her to death.
So basically there are two possibilities, assuming that Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder: (1) They acted in concert and were all physically involved; and (2) They acted in concert but only Guede was physically involved. You seem to be saying that (1) is far more likely than (2). I don’t see why, since both scenarios are (a priori) pretty remote. I don’t see any (a priori) reason to think that one is 100 or 1000 times more likely than the other.
But let’s be specific: What do you think is the probability ratio of (1) and (2)?
I said that I did not have strong expectation that if further evidence been found against Guede, it would have been raised in the case
I don’t think that’s what you said, but anyway it seems to me that Knox and Sollecito (or their supporters) would have had incentive to raise this issue. If there were 100 traces of Guede on Kercher’s person and none of Knox, there’s a decent—perhaps compelling—argument that the prosecution was wrong. Certainly Moore did not make this argument even though it would have fit in nicely with the rest of his essay.
If you can explain to me why it’s so much more likely that Knox would make that phone call if she were guilty than if she were innocent, perhaps it will be something I failed to consider, and I will change my mind.
It’s not really my job to explain it to you. It’s your job to do your homework to find out what the best and most important evidence is on both sides before you make your probability assessment.
Downvoted for this remark and most of the next paragraph. In this context, Derstopa is clearly aware of the phonecall and doesn’t understand why one would think it is evidence of guilt. Explaining why one would think that it is non-trivial evidence of guilt (if one thinks it is) is what one should do if one trying to have an actual discussion. Refusing to explain that and telling someone to just do their homework is rude, logically rude, and generally not productive for people trying to understand your viewpoint.
Explaining why one would think that it is non-trivial evidence of guilt (if one thinks it is) is what one should do if one trying to have an actual discussion.
I would say it depends on what is being discussed. My point in that post was not so much that Knox is probably guilty as that Derstopa is ignorant of the case against Knox. Note also that Derstopa is aware of the phone call only because I mentioned it to him.
I’m not Desrtopa, but I had heard about the call way back in 2009. I dismissed it as essentially irrelevant, because no one who has mentioned it has ever said anything convincing about how it was inculpatory. Apparently it was supposed to be obvious? But it wasn’t, not to me, nor apparently to Desrtopa. At best I can make strawman arguments which I find easy to knock down. Having you respond to those would be a waste of everyone’s time. So please, just tell me why you found this call suspicious.
I don’t speak Italian. I have been limited to secondary sources, rather than the prosecutor’s own arguments directly, but I really have looked closely at arguments by those who think Knox and Sollecito are guilty. At the time, they did not articulate any reason for me to find the phone call suspicious. I still haven’t found anything after looking again.
but I really have looked closely at arguments by those who think Knox and Sollecito are guilty. At the time, they did not articulate any reason for me to find the phone call suspicious.
My point in that post was not so much that Knox is probably guilty as that Derstopa is ignorant of the case against Knox. Note also that Derstopa is aware of the phone call only because I mentioned it to him.
The first sentence is irrelevant to my observation. The second claim (about only knowing about the phonecall from your remark) seems inaccurate to my reading of the conversation. From my skimming the thread again the only bit I see that could give you the impression that Derstopa wasn’t aware of the phonecall is this exchange where Derstopa doesn’t say that. In that context, Derstopa thinks you are talking about a different phonecall. Nothing in that is a useful indication that Derstopa didn’t know about this phone call. Moreover, if you thought that that was the problem then telling Derstopa that he should read up on the prosecutions case would have made minimal sense as a reply at that point, not a reply three days later to where Derstopa asks about how one thinks the phonecall is relevant, especially when they’ve already explained why it seems only marginally relevant.
Nothing in that is a useful indication that Derstopa didn’t know about this phone call.
Here’s what he said:
Unless you’re referring to some argument presented by the prosecution that I haven’t been able to find, the “forgotten phone calls” refers to a three second phone call from Knox to Kercher.
It seems pretty clear to me that he was not aware of the phone call I was referring to.
Moreover, if you thought that that was the problem then telling Derstopa that he should read up on the prosecutions case would have made minimal sense as a reply at that point,
As I recall, at that point, I was only just beginning to realize just how profoundly ignorant Derstopa was about the case against Knox.
It’s not really my job to explain it to you. It’s your job to do your homework to find out what the best and most important evidence is on both sides before you make your probability assessment. I have done that with both sides. On the other hand, you obviously have a very poor understanding of what the case against Knox is. As far as I can tell, you haven’t even tried to defend your claim that Knox’s mannerisms was among the best circumstantial evidence against her.
JoshuaZ’s comment reflects everything I have to say about this.
You are ignoring other possibilities here. A more likely scenario is that Knox and Sollecito conspired with Guede to harm Kercher in some way but did not intend for her to die.
Then why is there no evidence of prior communications between Knox, Sollecito and Guede to support this? Knox had only met Sollecito a week before Kercher’s murder, and had just started dating him, and there’s no evidence that Sollecito and Guede had ever even met as of the time of the murder. The prosecution has no record of phone calls between Knox and Guede, and has no evidence or testimony of any sort to suggest that the two were more than slightly acquainted.
I agree that this scenario had greater prior likelihood, but an absence of evidence that Sollecito and Guede had ever even met is a heavy weight of evidence against it.
I agree but so what? I’m not proposing that Knox and Sollecito walked in on Guede assaulting Kercher and spontaneously decided to help him. I’m proposing that they acted in concert for some unlawful purpose (which by hypothesis pretty clearly happened) and that for whatever reason, Knox and Sollecito were not close to Kercher when Guede stabbed her to death.
You think that there’s enough evidence to think that Knox and Sollecito, for whom there is an absence of evidence of any motive, and who had just recently met, deliberately collaborated with Guede, who there is no evidence that Sollecito had ever met, or that Knox had ever called or met with privately, conspired with Guede to harm Kercher? When did they do the conspiring, after 9:10 PM on the night that Kercher was killed?
The prosecution never alleged conspiracy between Knox, Sollecito and Kercher; the information they had available to them didn’t render it tenable.
So basically there are two possibilities, assuming that Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder: (1) They acted in concert and were all physically involved; and (2) They acted in concert but only Guede was physically involved. You seem to be saying that (1) is far more likely than (2). I don’t see why, since both scenarios are (a priori) pretty remote. I don’t see any (a priori) reason to think that one is 100 or 1000 times more likely than the other.
If Knox and Sollecito were complicit in the crime, but not participants in the crime scene, they would most likely have to have premeditated some sort of harm against Kercher, and the prosecution found no evidence at all to suggest they would have any motive for such. If they were physically involved, they could have premeditated harm against Kercher, but they could also have become involved in the heat of the moment. Most murders are not premeditated, particularly in cases with no apparent motive prior to the crime.
I would say that my previous assignment of 1:100 may have been excessive; a prior ratio of 1:20, as you assigned, might be more reasonable. But the evidence that renders any before-the-event conspiracy between the three highly unlikely weighs against it.
Just how little evidence do you expect prosecutors with a heavy dose of motivated cognition to find for an innocent person, that you think what the prosecution found weighs so heavily against Knox and Sollecito? The data from the Innocence Project suggests an error rate higher than this for average cases prior to the use of DNA evidence, and the evidence against Knox and Sollecito is far weaker than for the average suspect, let alone convict, and the evidence pointing to their innocence far stronger.
JoshuaZ’s comment reflects everything I have to say about this.
As I said to JoshuaZ, the main point of that passage was that you are ignorant of the case against Knox. Which you do not seem to deny anymore.
Then why is there no evidence of prior communications between Knox, Sollecito and Guede to support this?
The prosecution has no record of phone calls between Knox and Guede, and has no evidence or testimony of any sort to suggest that the two were more than slightly acquainted.
Not all communications result in a phone or other record. Particularly if some of those communications are between drug users and elements of the criminal underworld.
I would say that my previous assignment of 1:100 may have been excessive; a prior ratio of 1:20, as you assigned, might be more reasonable.
Ok, then it was reasonable for me to go from 90% to 30%. Unless you think there is an error in my math?
Just how little evidence do you expect prosecutors with a heavy dose of motivated cognition to find for an innocent person, that you think what the prosecution found weighs so heavily against Knox and Sollecito?
I would say a lot less than here. Maybe one or two pieces of inculpatory evidence at most.
By the way, can I take it you are conceding that Knox (and/or her supporters) would have had an incentive to introduce and publicize evidence that there were more traces of Guede on or about Kercher than the two I mentioned earlier?
As I said to JoshuaZ, the main point of that passage was that you are ignorant of the case against Knox. Which you do not seem to deny anymore.
I do deny this. You accuse me of not defending my claim that Knox’s mannerisms are among the strongest evidence against her. I have defended at several points my reasons for assigning very low weight to pieces of evidence put forward by the prosecution. You, on the other hand, while asserting that the prosecution’s arguments collectively deserve high weight, have not defended your reasons for assigning high weight to any of them. In response to requests for a defense of such, you’ve told me it’s not your job to do my homework.
Ok, then it was reasonable for me to go from 90% to 30%. Unless you think there is an error in my math?
Only if you assign zero weight to the evidence rendering conspiracy between them unlikely.
Not all communications require physical meeting or result in a phone record. But when you have no evidence of private meeting, no phone records, no email records, and a very short time frame in which any sort of communication could have taken place, and you don’t adjust your likelihood of communication downwards at all, then it’s clear that you’re desperate to come to a particular conclusion and don’t want to perform any sort of update which would render it more unlikely.
I would say a lot less than here. Maybe one or two pieces of inculpatory evidence at most.
Then why are so many primary suspects and even convicts later proven to be innocent? Your estimation of the amount of evidence that it is reasonable to expect against an innocent person seems strongly contradicted given our information on false conviction rates.
By the way, can I take it you are conceding that Knox (and/or her supporters) would have had an incentive to introduce and publicize evidence that there were more traces of Guede on or about Kercher than the two I mentioned earlier?
I have stopped trying to argue that point because, in the face of a qualified expert without any professional stake in the case claiming that it is enormously unlikely for Knox and Sollecito to have left an absence of evidence if they were physically involved in the case, you insist on demanding a particular piece of evidence which I have already provided repeated and abundant explanations as to why it would be difficult for me to produce.
In fact, when I put it in words, I have to wonder I’m still arguing about any of this. Thus far you have shown a tremendous unwillingness to update in favor of any exculpatory evidence (when I think evidence from the prosecution is weak, I explain why I do not think it is much more likely if Knox and Sollecito are guilty than if they are innocent. You refuse to update on evidence entirely with an explanation of how it does not disprove all possible guilt scenarios.) You have been rude, logically rude, and I suspect you could go on arguing for Knox and Sollecito’s guilt indefinitely, increasing your confidence in your probability assignment no matter how much evidence mounts against you.
You have given me every reason to believe that if exposed to further evidence against your position, you will refuse to change your assessment at all. This simply isn’t worth my time.
If brazil84 weren’t a lawyer, I would have written this debate off as pointless a long time ago. It’s raising a negative affect around all the time I spend on this site, but simply walking away knowing that he’s going to continue practicing law without realizing that he’s been making some big mistakes of judgment that demand commensurately big corrections has up till this point been even more frustrating.
As a lawyer, I feel obligated to defend the profession a little. Lawyers exist to maximize the utility of the client. But a lawyer who has no grip on what is true cannot tell the client when it makes sense to throw in the towel. And that lack of judgment is not rewarded.
That said, lawyers are relatively well trained in behavior that is orthogonal to truth but correlated with winning. But for the most part, the legal system (i.e. the judge) is trying to determine truth within the limits of its empirical system.
Well said. But note that the behavior is not entirely orthogonal to truth-seeking. Being trained to discuss a dispute through the techniques of debating will surely decrease one’s ability to say “oops”. (not in the sense of it being a necessary decrease, but in the sense of it being a tendency to decrease such that my prior reduced confidence is justified)
This is actually something I struggle with, being trained as a polemic philosopher.
You, on the other hand, while asserting that the prosecution’s arguments collectively deserve high weight
You are talking about the evidence, right?
In response to requests for a defense of such, you’ve told me it’s not your job to do my homework.
In response to your request regarding the phone call, yes. The issue there is not that you have considered the argument on this point and rejected it; the issue is that you are completely unaware of the significance of the forgotten phone call. I identified the phone call merely as an example of the body of evidence against Knox.
Only if you assign zero weight to the evidence rendering conspiracy between them unlikely.
Well, assuming for the sake of argument that (1) Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder; and (2) there was absolutely no conspiracy as you have defined that term, are you saying that your a priori probability estimate of physical involvement by Knox and Sollecito is 1000 times higher than no physical involvement?
If not 1000, then what?
But when you have no evidence of private meeting, no phone records, no email records, and a very short time frame in which any sort of communication could have taken place, and you don’t adjust your likelihood of communication downwards at all,
Are you saying that I have done so?
Then why are so many primary suspects and even convicts later proven to be innocent?
I dispute that “so many” primary suspects and even convicts are later proven to be innocent. How often do you think this happens? What is the percentage of convicts who are later completely exonerated? Surely it is far less than 10% and I have allowed a 10% chance that Knox and Sollecito are innocent.
In fact, when I put it in words, I have to wonder I’m still arguing about any of this. Thus far you have shown a tremendous unwillingness to update in favor of any exculpatory evidence
The only exculpatory evidence you have offered (which I have not already considered) is based on your non-expert opinion. I have patiently explained to you the effect it would have on my probability estimate if you were able to document your opinion.
Or is there some other piece of exculpatory evidence you think I am not considering in my probability estimate?
you insist on demanding a particular piece of evidence
Look, you are the one who is proposing that additional traces of Guede on Kercher would not have made it into the public record. I am asking for you to back up that claim.
Seriously, if you want to continue this debate, show me some evidence that you will actually update in the face of more evidence against your position. In the beginning of this debate, you said that you were aware that the DNA evidence against Knox and Sollecito had been challenged. In the face of the independent experts’ report indicating that there is no valid DNA evidence against them, and Moore’s expert claims for all the evidence we should expect to see in the case of the sort of involvement alleged by the prosecution that we do not see, you update your probability by… nothing. You say you would update your probability were I to provide the right references, but when I offer to make the effort to obtain those references in exchange for a comparable effort on your behalf to produce evidence for your position (I offered you to substitute evidence for any of your assertions if you suggested the substitute first and I agreed that it was appropriate,) you evade. Why should I think this conversation is worth my time? You’ve given me every reason think that if I go to further efforts, you’ll just find more excuses not to update.
Why should I think this conversation is worth my time? You’ve given me every reason think that if I go to further efforts, you’ll just find more excuses not to update.
Seriously, if you want to continue this debate, show me some evidence that you will actually update in the face of more evidence against your position
I already conceded that my probability estimate would drop from roughly 90% to roughly 30% if you could substantiate your claim about transfer of DNA traces.
But anyway, I am not particularly interested in debating Knox’s actual innocence with you given your ignorance of the case against Knox.
In the face of the independent experts’ report indicating that there is no valid DNA evidence against them
That’s not what the independent expert report said, as far as I know.
but when I offer to make the effort to obtain those references in exchange for a comparable effort on your behalf to produce evidence for your position (I offered you to substitute evidence for any of your assertions if you suggested the substitute first and I agreed that it was appropriate,) you evade
Nonsense, you are the one who is evading; since it’s not even clear that you dispute my “position” on the point and you refuse to clarify your position. You demanded evidence for a strawman position you set up.
I will ask you one last time, if you evade or ignore we are done:
Assuming for the sake of argument that (1) Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder; and (2) there was absolutely no conspiracy as you have defined that term, are you saying that your a priori probability estimate of physical involvement by Knox and Sollecito is 1000 times higher than no physical involvement?
If not 1000, then what?
ETA:
Why should I think this conversation is worth my time?
I don’t know, what exactly are you trying to accomplish?
I don’t want to get sucked in by replying to more of brazil84′s comments, but in the spirit of this quote (edit, link fixed,) in case it will help me to do better in future...
By the way, if any lurkers are reading this, I will point out the fatal flaw in Desrtopa’s reasoning on the 90% to 30% issue. See, the prior probability of Knox and Sollecito being involved in the murder but not physically is quite low. But the prior probability of Knox and Sollecito being involved in the murder physically is also low. What matters for my calculation is the ratio of the two probabilities.
I suspect that’s why Desrtopa had to bob and weave with my questions on this issue.
Did it look to anyone else like I was bobbing and weaving with my responses to these questions? My perception was that I answered these questions in a straightforward way, but I may have been suffering from illusions of transparency.
You definitely got somewhat sucked into “debate mode”, and you often had far too many points lobbed at you to have caught all of them. It would seem to be possible for brazil84 to honestly have thought you were evading something, but I don’t think an outside observer should have thought so.
That you seem to have kept your cool throughout this ridiculous exercise is a credit.
We are done. You’ve given me no more reason to think there’s any point in having a conversation with you.
Ok bye.
By the way, if any lurkers are reading this, I will point out the fatal flaw in Desrtopa’s reasoning on the 90% to 30% issue. See, the prior probability of Knox and Sollecito being involved in the murder but not physically is quite low. But the prior probability of Knox and Sollecito being involved in the murder physically is also low. What matters for my calculation is the ratio of the two probabilities.
I suspect that’s why Desrtopa had to bob and weave with my questions on this issue. Because he knew deep down that there is no basis to think that this ratio is wildly lopsided. And if the ratio is not lopsided, then it’s perfectly reasonable to go from 90% to 30%.
I enjoy debating and I am fascinated by situations where the popular view is wrong. Also, I like debating where there isn’t anything important at stake.
Once in a while I learn something from debating with someone who disagrees with me.
I enjoy debating and I am fascinated by situations where the popular view is wrong. Also, I like debating where there isn’t anything important at stake.
I strongly suspect that you are incorrect about which side of this debate has more adherents. Neither LW nor Wikipedia are likely to be representative.
Once in a while I learn something from debating with someone who disagrees with me.
I hope to learn something in every discussion I have. Debate is for changing people’s minds. Debate for its own sake is pointless (aka—I don’t debate Flat-Earthers).
You don’t seem interested in saying something that I can glean insight from, and you don’t seem open to changing your mind.
Actually, I’ve done that before. It helps a surprisingly large amount in getting one to realize how astronomy can easily pay rent. And it really tests how well one understands how much historical scientists did really careful, clever observations. That said, I can’t plausibly argue that this is a good use of one’s time, merely that is probably marginally better use than say playing Farmville.
I strongly suspect that you are incorrect about which side of this debate has more adherents.
On this discussion board, the popular view seems to be that Knox is most likely innocent. I make no claims about what is believed in the world in general.
You don’t seem interested in saying something that I can glean insight from, and you don’t seem open to changing your mind.
The second part is incorrect—I am open to changing my mind. As far as the first goes, I don’t know where you are at in terms of insight so I couldn’t say.
ETA:
I hope to learn something in every discussion I have.
On this discussion board, the popular view seems to be that Knox is most likely innocent. I make no claims about what is believed in the world in general.
On this he is clearly correct.
In any case I don’t think this particular comment deserved to be as down voted as it was.
I dispute that “so many” primary suspects and even convicts are later proven to be innocent. How often do you think this happens? What is the percentage of convicts who are later completely exonerated? Surely it is far less than 10% and I have allowed a 10% chance that Knox and Sollecito are innocent.
First of all, just because they aren’t completely exonerated does not mean they are not innocent. A better question is what the percentage chance of innocence is.
Second of all, this assumes that letting a guilty person go free and sending an innocent person to get punished is of equal weight, which it is not.
Nonsense, I clearly stated that my probability assessment was based mainly on the actual facts as opposed to arguments.
Your second mischaracterization. Not only that, you seriously believe that one of the best pieces of circumstantial evidence against Knox is her “mannerisms.” And not only that, you do not understand the significance of the forgotten phone call. Just admit that you don’t really understand the case against Knox (or Sollecito). I promise you the sky won’t fall.
Given that you clearly don’t know the strength of that evidence, you shouldn’t have an opinion one way or another.
Please show me where I made such a weighing. Please QUOTE me. Failing that, please admit that I made no such weighing and apologize.
What exactly do you mean by “conspiracy”? It seems pretty clear that if Knox and Sollecito were involved in the crime, they acted in concert with Guede.
In the scenario I describe where Knox and Sollecito encourage Guede from a few feet away and then run, would you count that as a “conspiracy”?
I think I probably could. But let’s make sure I understand what you are saying.
You are claiming that Scenario A (non sociopathic, FBI zero threat rating individuals witnessing an attack on someone they have no motive to kill, by someone they do not have strong affiliation with, and cheering on the attacker) is at least a thousand times less likely than scenario B ((non sociopathic, FBI zero threat rating individuals witnessing an attack on someone they have no motive to kill, by someone they do not have strong affiliation with, and physically participating in the attack).
You are also claiming that Knox and Sollecito are known to be non-sociopathic and known not to have had a motive to harm Kercher.
Do I understand you correctly?
That if additional samples taken from on or about Kercher’s person matched Guede, it would not have become part of the record in the case.
ETA:
A single piece of evidence? Sollecito’s phone call comes close, but probably not.
No, I don’t concede that. If you can explain to me why it’s so much more likely that Knox would make that phone call if she were guilty than if she were innocent, perhaps it will be something I failed to consider, and I will change my mind. But as-is, it seems to me like such a weak enough piece of evidence that had the police not already promoted Knox and Sollecito to attention, they would probably not have treated it as worthy of notice.
I inferred that you made such a weighting from this statement
If I was incorrect, then I apologize for that. But I don’t see how you’re getting an odds ratio of 1:5000 in favor of guilt for changed alibis (very high likelihood of coercion,) a forgotten phone call, a phone call stating that nothing had been taken in the break-in (which they could reasonably infer,) versus mutual failure to implicate, absence of evidence of motive, absence of evidence of dangerous personalities or inclinations, absence of evidence of conspiracy, and absence of evidence of physical presence at the scene.
By conspiracy, I mean that they intended for Kercher to be murdered, and made plans to that effect in advance with her murderer.
No. I am saying that Scenario A is much less likely than the possibilities that dominate the probability mass for “Knox and Sollecito physically involved in Kercher’s murder.” This would include possibilities such as “violent argument over cleaning roster gone downhill,” “sex game gone wrong,” etc. The prior probability for “Knox and Sollecito witness Guede attacking Kercher, and proceed to assist Guede in the attack,” as with the probability that they would cheer him on, is infinitesimal.
In retrospect, I think that the relative prior probability that I assigned to their involvement through conspiracy (1:100) was too low, but it’s still very low in light of the absence of evidence that Knox and Sollecito conspired with Guede, and the likelihood that they would observe an attack in progress and support the attacker is infinitesimal.
Also note that if Knox and Sollecito came to the residence Knox shared with Kercher, and witnessed an attack in progress, they cannot have let Guede in. Any evidence in favor of a staged break-in is evidence against this hypothesis.
The prosecution tried quite hard to find a motive for the killing, and was unable to establish one, unless you account “crazy sex game gone wrong” or “satanic ritual” as motives, neither of which they were able to present evidence for. At this point, the notion that Knox and Sollecito had a motive to murder Kercher deserves a very low probability.
Amanda Knox was known by her acquaintances for having an low tolerance for conflict, and being uncomfortable if she and people around her were in disagreement, behavior which is highly inconsistent with Antisocial Personality Disorder. Further, if the prosecution was able to find evidence that she or Sollecito had APD, they had strong motive to make record of it, but the Massei-Cristiani report contains no such evidence. So the probability that Knox and Sollecito would witness an attack on Kercher and support the attacker may be dominated by the possibility that they were secretly sociopaths and had reason to want her dead, but we have more evidence than for the average person to suspect that neither was the case.
I never said that I expected that if they found additional samples implicating Guede, it would not have become part of the case, I said that I did not have strong expectation that if further evidence been found against Guede, it would have been raised in the case (or to be more precise, I do not have a strong expectation that they would have brought the evidence to the case and I would have found out about it; Guede’s case was not controversial and so was not heavily reported on, and he opted for fast track trial in which he waived the right to contest any evidence against him, and all the primary documents are in Italian.)
Because I do not have a great deal of expertise regarding the Italian legal system, my model of reality would not have taken much of a hit either way.
It’s not really my job to explain it to you. It’s your job to do your homework to find out what the best and most important evidence is on both sides before you make your probability assessment. I have done that with both sides. On the other hand, you obviously have a very poor understanding of what the case against Knox is. As far as I can tell, you haven’t even tried to defend your claim that Knox’s mannerisms was among the best circumstantial evidence against her.
Yes, you are incorrect. My statement was clearly looking at the body of evidence as a whole.
Ok, then I don’t see how the concept of a “conspiracy” adds much to the discussion. If there was a conspiracy, Knox and Sollecito plausibly may still have been physically involved. If there was not a conspiracy, Knox and Sollecito may plausibly not have been physically involved.
In that case you are comparing apples and oranges, since you are comparing one narrow scenario I proposed with much bigger set.
You are ignoring other possibilities here. A more likely scenario is that Knox and Sollecito conspired with Guede to harm Kercher in some way but did not intend for her to die.
For example, consider the murder of Janet Chandler which took place back in 1979. Her roommate and co-worker—a girl named Laurie Swank—apparently helped to organize a sexual attack on her. Swank admitted to cheering on the attackers who ultimately killed Chandler. There was no DNA testing back then, but if there had been, there would not have been any of Swank’s DNA on or about Chandler’s person.
I agree but so what? I’m not proposing that Knox and Sollecito walked in on Guede assaulting Kercher and spontaneously decided to help him. I’m proposing that they acted in concert for some unlawful purpose (which by hypothesis pretty clearly happened) and that for whatever reason, Knox and Sollecito were not close to Kercher when Guede stabbed her to death.
So basically there are two possibilities, assuming that Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder: (1) They acted in concert and were all physically involved; and (2) They acted in concert but only Guede was physically involved. You seem to be saying that (1) is far more likely than (2). I don’t see why, since both scenarios are (a priori) pretty remote. I don’t see any (a priori) reason to think that one is 100 or 1000 times more likely than the other.
But let’s be specific: What do you think is the probability ratio of (1) and (2)?
I don’t think that’s what you said, but anyway it seems to me that Knox and Sollecito (or their supporters) would have had incentive to raise this issue. If there were 100 traces of Guede on Kercher’s person and none of Knox, there’s a decent—perhaps compelling—argument that the prosecution was wrong. Certainly Moore did not make this argument even though it would have fit in nicely with the rest of his essay.
Downvoted for this remark and most of the next paragraph. In this context, Derstopa is clearly aware of the phonecall and doesn’t understand why one would think it is evidence of guilt. Explaining why one would think that it is non-trivial evidence of guilt (if one thinks it is) is what one should do if one trying to have an actual discussion. Refusing to explain that and telling someone to just do their homework is rude, logically rude, and generally not productive for people trying to understand your viewpoint.
I would say it depends on what is being discussed. My point in that post was not so much that Knox is probably guilty as that Derstopa is ignorant of the case against Knox. Note also that Derstopa is aware of the phone call only because I mentioned it to him.
I’m not Desrtopa, but I had heard about the call way back in 2009. I dismissed it as essentially irrelevant, because no one who has mentioned it has ever said anything convincing about how it was inculpatory. Apparently it was supposed to be obvious? But it wasn’t, not to me, nor apparently to Desrtopa. At best I can make strawman arguments which I find easy to knock down. Having you respond to those would be a waste of everyone’s time. So please, just tell me why you found this call suspicious.
I don’t speak Italian. I have been limited to secondary sources, rather than the prosecutor’s own arguments directly, but I really have looked closely at arguments by those who think Knox and Sollecito are guilty. At the time, they did not articulate any reason for me to find the phone call suspicious. I still haven’t found anything after looking again.
I don’t think it’s obvious at all.
Which sites did you look at?
The first sentence is irrelevant to my observation. The second claim (about only knowing about the phonecall from your remark) seems inaccurate to my reading of the conversation. From my skimming the thread again the only bit I see that could give you the impression that Derstopa wasn’t aware of the phonecall is this exchange where Derstopa doesn’t say that. In that context, Derstopa thinks you are talking about a different phonecall. Nothing in that is a useful indication that Derstopa didn’t know about this phone call. Moreover, if you thought that that was the problem then telling Derstopa that he should read up on the prosecutions case would have made minimal sense as a reply at that point, not a reply three days later to where Derstopa asks about how one thinks the phonecall is relevant, especially when they’ve already explained why it seems only marginally relevant.
Here’s what he said:
It seems pretty clear to me that he was not aware of the phone call I was referring to.
As I recall, at that point, I was only just beginning to realize just how profoundly ignorant Derstopa was about the case against Knox.
JoshuaZ’s comment reflects everything I have to say about this.
Then why is there no evidence of prior communications between Knox, Sollecito and Guede to support this? Knox had only met Sollecito a week before Kercher’s murder, and had just started dating him, and there’s no evidence that Sollecito and Guede had ever even met as of the time of the murder. The prosecution has no record of phone calls between Knox and Guede, and has no evidence or testimony of any sort to suggest that the two were more than slightly acquainted.
I agree that this scenario had greater prior likelihood, but an absence of evidence that Sollecito and Guede had ever even met is a heavy weight of evidence against it.
You think that there’s enough evidence to think that Knox and Sollecito, for whom there is an absence of evidence of any motive, and who had just recently met, deliberately collaborated with Guede, who there is no evidence that Sollecito had ever met, or that Knox had ever called or met with privately, conspired with Guede to harm Kercher? When did they do the conspiring, after 9:10 PM on the night that Kercher was killed?
The prosecution never alleged conspiracy between Knox, Sollecito and Kercher; the information they had available to them didn’t render it tenable.
If Knox and Sollecito were complicit in the crime, but not participants in the crime scene, they would most likely have to have premeditated some sort of harm against Kercher, and the prosecution found no evidence at all to suggest they would have any motive for such. If they were physically involved, they could have premeditated harm against Kercher, but they could also have become involved in the heat of the moment. Most murders are not premeditated, particularly in cases with no apparent motive prior to the crime.
I would say that my previous assignment of 1:100 may have been excessive; a prior ratio of 1:20, as you assigned, might be more reasonable. But the evidence that renders any before-the-event conspiracy between the three highly unlikely weighs against it.
Just how little evidence do you expect prosecutors with a heavy dose of motivated cognition to find for an innocent person, that you think what the prosecution found weighs so heavily against Knox and Sollecito? The data from the Innocence Project suggests an error rate higher than this for average cases prior to the use of DNA evidence, and the evidence against Knox and Sollecito is far weaker than for the average suspect, let alone convict, and the evidence pointing to their innocence far stronger.
As I said to JoshuaZ, the main point of that passage was that you are ignorant of the case against Knox. Which you do not seem to deny anymore.
Not all communications result in a phone or other record. Particularly if some of those communications are between drug users and elements of the criminal underworld.
Ok, then it was reasonable for me to go from 90% to 30%. Unless you think there is an error in my math?
I would say a lot less than here. Maybe one or two pieces of inculpatory evidence at most.
By the way, can I take it you are conceding that Knox (and/or her supporters) would have had an incentive to introduce and publicize evidence that there were more traces of Guede on or about Kercher than the two I mentioned earlier?
I do deny this. You accuse me of not defending my claim that Knox’s mannerisms are among the strongest evidence against her. I have defended at several points my reasons for assigning very low weight to pieces of evidence put forward by the prosecution. You, on the other hand, while asserting that the prosecution’s arguments collectively deserve high weight, have not defended your reasons for assigning high weight to any of them. In response to requests for a defense of such, you’ve told me it’s not your job to do my homework.
Only if you assign zero weight to the evidence rendering conspiracy between them unlikely.
Not all communications require physical meeting or result in a phone record. But when you have no evidence of private meeting, no phone records, no email records, and a very short time frame in which any sort of communication could have taken place, and you don’t adjust your likelihood of communication downwards at all, then it’s clear that you’re desperate to come to a particular conclusion and don’t want to perform any sort of update which would render it more unlikely.
Then why are so many primary suspects and even convicts later proven to be innocent? Your estimation of the amount of evidence that it is reasonable to expect against an innocent person seems strongly contradicted given our information on false conviction rates.
I have stopped trying to argue that point because, in the face of a qualified expert without any professional stake in the case claiming that it is enormously unlikely for Knox and Sollecito to have left an absence of evidence if they were physically involved in the case, you insist on demanding a particular piece of evidence which I have already provided repeated and abundant explanations as to why it would be difficult for me to produce.
In fact, when I put it in words, I have to wonder I’m still arguing about any of this. Thus far you have shown a tremendous unwillingness to update in favor of any exculpatory evidence (when I think evidence from the prosecution is weak, I explain why I do not think it is much more likely if Knox and Sollecito are guilty than if they are innocent. You refuse to update on evidence entirely with an explanation of how it does not disprove all possible guilt scenarios.) You have been rude, logically rude, and I suspect you could go on arguing for Knox and Sollecito’s guilt indefinitely, increasing your confidence in your probability assignment no matter how much evidence mounts against you.
You have given me every reason to believe that if exposed to further evidence against your position, you will refuse to change your assessment at all. This simply isn’t worth my time.
Indeed, for some time I’ve been tempted to caution you against feeding the trolls.
If brazil84 weren’t a lawyer, I would have written this debate off as pointless a long time ago. It’s raising a negative affect around all the time I spend on this site, but simply walking away knowing that he’s going to continue practicing law without realizing that he’s been making some big mistakes of judgment that demand commensurately big corrections has up till this point been even more frustrating.
Then I commend you for your efforts.
brazil84 being a lawyer, though, reduces my confidence that this will pay off. That is a person optimized for debating rather than truth-seeking.
As a lawyer, I feel obligated to defend the profession a little. Lawyers exist to maximize the utility of the client. But a lawyer who has no grip on what is true cannot tell the client when it makes sense to throw in the towel. And that lack of judgment is not rewarded.
That said, lawyers are relatively well trained in behavior that is orthogonal to truth but correlated with winning. But for the most part, the legal system (i.e. the judge) is trying to determine truth within the limits of its empirical system.
Well said. But note that the behavior is not entirely orthogonal to truth-seeking. Being trained to discuss a dispute through the techniques of debating will surely decrease one’s ability to say “oops”. (not in the sense of it being a necessary decrease, but in the sense of it being a tendency to decrease such that my prior reduced confidence is justified)
This is actually something I struggle with, being trained as a polemic philosopher.
You are talking about the evidence, right?
In response to your request regarding the phone call, yes. The issue there is not that you have considered the argument on this point and rejected it; the issue is that you are completely unaware of the significance of the forgotten phone call. I identified the phone call merely as an example of the body of evidence against Knox.
Well, assuming for the sake of argument that (1) Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder; and (2) there was absolutely no conspiracy as you have defined that term, are you saying that your a priori probability estimate of physical involvement by Knox and Sollecito is 1000 times higher than no physical involvement?
If not 1000, then what?
Are you saying that I have done so?
I dispute that “so many” primary suspects and even convicts are later proven to be innocent. How often do you think this happens? What is the percentage of convicts who are later completely exonerated? Surely it is far less than 10% and I have allowed a 10% chance that Knox and Sollecito are innocent.
The only exculpatory evidence you have offered (which I have not already considered) is based on your non-expert opinion. I have patiently explained to you the effect it would have on my probability estimate if you were able to document your opinion.
Or is there some other piece of exculpatory evidence you think I am not considering in my probability estimate?
Look, you are the one who is proposing that additional traces of Guede on Kercher would not have made it into the public record. I am asking for you to back up that claim.
Seriously, if you want to continue this debate, show me some evidence that you will actually update in the face of more evidence against your position. In the beginning of this debate, you said that you were aware that the DNA evidence against Knox and Sollecito had been challenged. In the face of the independent experts’ report indicating that there is no valid DNA evidence against them, and Moore’s expert claims for all the evidence we should expect to see in the case of the sort of involvement alleged by the prosecution that we do not see, you update your probability by… nothing. You say you would update your probability were I to provide the right references, but when I offer to make the effort to obtain those references in exchange for a comparable effort on your behalf to produce evidence for your position (I offered you to substitute evidence for any of your assertions if you suggested the substitute first and I agreed that it was appropriate,) you evade. Why should I think this conversation is worth my time? You’ve given me every reason think that if I go to further efforts, you’ll just find more excuses not to update.
You two agree on something!
I already conceded that my probability estimate would drop from roughly 90% to roughly 30% if you could substantiate your claim about transfer of DNA traces.
But anyway, I am not particularly interested in debating Knox’s actual innocence with you given your ignorance of the case against Knox.
That’s not what the independent expert report said, as far as I know.
Nonsense, you are the one who is evading; since it’s not even clear that you dispute my “position” on the point and you refuse to clarify your position. You demanded evidence for a strawman position you set up.
I will ask you one last time, if you evade or ignore we are done:
Assuming for the sake of argument that (1) Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder; and (2) there was absolutely no conspiracy as you have defined that term, are you saying that your a priori probability estimate of physical involvement by Knox and Sollecito is 1000 times higher than no physical involvement?
If not 1000, then what?
ETA:
I don’t know, what exactly are you trying to accomplish?
We are done. You’ve given me no more reason to think there’s any point in having a conversation with you.
I don’t want to get sucked in by replying to more of brazil84′s comments, but in the spirit of this quote (edit, link fixed,) in case it will help me to do better in future...
Did it look to anyone else like I was bobbing and weaving with my responses to these questions? My perception was that I answered these questions in a straightforward way, but I may have been suffering from illusions of transparency.
You definitely got somewhat sucked into “debate mode”, and you often had far too many points lobbed at you to have caught all of them. It would seem to be possible for brazil84 to honestly have thought you were evading something, but I don’t think an outside observer should have thought so.
That you seem to have kept your cool throughout this ridiculous exercise is a credit.
You might want to check the link. EDIT: works now.
On the substance, all I can say is dayenu.
No. You’re fine. That’s just how brazil argues.
Ok bye.
By the way, if any lurkers are reading this, I will point out the fatal flaw in Desrtopa’s reasoning on the 90% to 30% issue. See, the prior probability of Knox and Sollecito being involved in the murder but not physically is quite low. But the prior probability of Knox and Sollecito being involved in the murder physically is also low. What matters for my calculation is the ratio of the two probabilities.
I suspect that’s why Desrtopa had to bob and weave with my questions on this issue. Because he knew deep down that there is no basis to think that this ratio is wildly lopsided. And if the ratio is not lopsided, then it’s perfectly reasonable to go from 90% to 30%.
What exactly are you trying to accomplish?
I enjoy debating and I am fascinated by situations where the popular view is wrong. Also, I like debating where there isn’t anything important at stake.
Once in a while I learn something from debating with someone who disagrees with me.
What about you?
I strongly suspect that you are incorrect about which side of this debate has more adherents. Neither LW nor Wikipedia are likely to be representative.
I hope to learn something in every discussion I have. Debate is for changing people’s minds. Debate for its own sake is pointless (aka—I don’t debate Flat-Earthers).
You don’t seem interested in saying something that I can glean insight from, and you don’t seem open to changing your mind.
Actually, I’ve done that before. It helps a surprisingly large amount in getting one to realize how astronomy can easily pay rent. And it really tests how well one understands how much historical scientists did really careful, clever observations. That said, I can’t plausibly argue that this is a good use of one’s time, merely that is probably marginally better use than say playing Farmville.
On this discussion board, the popular view seems to be that Knox is most likely innocent. I make no claims about what is believed in the world in general.
The second part is incorrect—I am open to changing my mind. As far as the first goes, I don’t know where you are at in terms of insight so I couldn’t say.
ETA:
Agree denotatively but disagree connotatively.
On this he is clearly correct.
In any case I don’t think this particular comment deserved to be as down voted as it was.
First of all, just because they aren’t completely exonerated does not mean they are not innocent. A better question is what the percentage chance of innocence is.
Second of all, this assumes that letting a guilty person go free and sending an innocent person to get punished is of equal weight, which it is not.
The discussion is about the probability of actual guilt, not the expected utility of punishment, so that’s not relevant.
ETA: Relatedly, I’ve commented elsewhere that a 90% probability of guilt for murder should be well within the “not guilty” verdict range.
Oh right, good point.
Err that should be “what do you think is the A PRIOR ratio.”