I updated my 60% guilt for Knox/Sollecito almost immediately after reading the follow-up article. As I noted on that page, my 60% judgement was a clear case of anchoring. I started with the pro-guilt evidence and only managed an 80% guilt after reading only their evidence. That I was then only able to re-adjust down to 60% was absurd. Since I was (and still am) fairly weak as a rationalist, I probably should have withheld any kind of assessment until after I had read the pro-innocence website, rather than try to make an early assessment and update it with the evidence I knew would be coming.
I didn’t put a number on my update at the time, I just went from “There isn’t enough evidence to convict” to “Why were they still suspects?”. If I had to put a number on it, I’d say this was a <5% chance of guilt.
Since the acquittal, given the judge’s statements about the DNA evidence and the handling thereof (I didn’t read the full assessment by the independent expert), I’d have to adjust it now to <1%.
ETA:
I just went through the independent analysis, and the conclusions were even stronger than I thought they were.
I thought that the conclusions were of the nature: “this DNA cannot be conclusively matched to anyone”.
In fact, they were of the nature: “There is no organic material present.”
They did find a few grains of starch on the bra clasp, but that was it. How did the Scientific Police screw it up that badly? They got a shakey DNA match where no DNA existed!
I have to update my assessment yet again, to the lowest I’m willing to put a number on, and that’s <0.1% chance that either of them are guilty. There is literally zero evidence that either of them were involved.
I updated my 60% guilt for Knox/Sollecito almost immediately after reading the follow-up article. As I noted on that page, my 60% judgement was a clear case of anchoring. I started with the pro-guilt evidence and only managed an 80% guilt after reading only their evidence. That I was then only able to re-adjust down to 60% was absurd. Since I was (and still am) fairly weak as a rationalist, I probably should have withheld any kind of assessment until after I had read the pro-innocence website, rather than try to make an early assessment and update it with the evidence I knew would be coming.
I didn’t put a number on my update at the time, I just went from “There isn’t enough evidence to convict” to “Why were they still suspects?”. If I had to put a number on it, I’d say this was a <5% chance of guilt.
Since the acquittal, given the judge’s statements about the DNA evidence and the handling thereof (I didn’t read the full assessment by the independent expert), I’d have to adjust it now to <1%.
ETA: I just went through the independent analysis, and the conclusions were even stronger than I thought they were.
I thought that the conclusions were of the nature: “this DNA cannot be conclusively matched to anyone”.
In fact, they were of the nature: “There is no organic material present.”
They did find a few grains of starch on the bra clasp, but that was it. How did the Scientific Police screw it up that badly? They got a shakey DNA match where no DNA existed!
I have to update my assessment yet again, to the lowest I’m willing to put a number on, and that’s <0.1% chance that either of them are guilty. There is literally zero evidence that either of them were involved.