The hypothesis in question has low prior probability,
Prior to what? Prior to finding the evidence against Guede or prior to considering any evidence at all?
I inferred from your question (correctly) that you didn’t understand the point about the evidence against Guede exonerating Knox and Sollecito.
I do understand the point, I simply happen to disagree with you at the moment. Anyway, if you want to address a different issue from the one under discussion, it would be helpful if you made it clear from the beginning.
By the principle of charity, that shouldn’t have stopped you from understanding and addressing their real point, which was that Knox and Sollecito should have been dropped as suspects as soon as the physical evidence turned out to implicate Guede and not them.
I think that’s too much of a leap. Charity must be balanced with the principle that it’s often a mistake to try to put words in peoples’ mouths.
Prior to what? Prior to finding the evidence against Guede or prior to considering any evidence at all?
I do understand the point, I simply happen to disagree with you at the moment. Anyway, if you want to address a different issue from the one under discussion, it would be helpful if you made it clear from the beginning.
I think that’s too much of a leap. Charity must be balanced with the principle that it’s often a mistake to try to put words in peoples’ mouths.