Since he is a qualified expert on forensics making essentially the same claim that I was about the state of forensic evidence, I’m curious to know what you would consider to be adequate corroboration for that point.
Why do you condition strongly on the prosecution’s arguments, when their evidence has been found in many points to be false, mishandled, or exaggerated, but not condition at all on the arguments of Moore?
Why do you condition strongly on the prosecution’s arguments, when their evidence has been found in many points to be false, mishandled, or exaggerated, but not condition at all on the arguments of Moore?
I’m not sure what you mean by “condition on,” but I would be similarly skeptical (probably even more skeptical) if the prosecution assured us that it’s perfectly plausible for the secondary participant in a murder such as this not to have had DNA traces found on or about the victim’s person. Even if the assertion were made on behalf of the prosecution by a board certified forensic investigator.
By “condition on,” I mean “update your probability in light of.” To refuse to update at all, you must suppose that it is no more likely that Moore would claim that the state of the evidence effectively rules out Knox and Sollecito’s involvement if they were not involved than if they were.
So it seems that you are claiming that it is much more likely that the prosecution would produce the evidence and arguments that they did if Knox and Guede were guilty than if they were innocent (enough to multiply the likelihood of their guilt by orders of magnitude,) but no more likely that Moore, who has neither pay nor reputation riding on the outcome of the case, would claim that there is dramatically less evidence than we would expect to see in the case of Knox and Sollecito’s involvement, if they were not involved than if they were.
Would you agree with that?
You gave a probability estimate of 90% back in Komponisto’s first thread, and early in this one you said that you had revised your confidence on the fact that Knox and Sollecito had been found innocent on appeal, but now you are asserting exactly the same probability that you did back then. Why is that?
Also, I would appreciate it if you would answer my question about what you would consider to be adequate corroboration for my argument that if Knox and Sollecito had been involved we would strongly expect forensic evidence that we did not see.
Assuming that the various evidence I am considering comes from the prosecution, yes.
You gave a probability estimate of 90% back in Komponisto’s first thread, and early in this one you said that you had revised your confidence on the fact that Knox and Sollecito had been found innocent on appeal, but now you are asserting exactly the same probability that you did back then. Why is that?
Here’s what I said early in the thread:
The main evidence was that the appeals court in Italy reversed the convictions of Knox and Sollecito. This undermined my confidence a bit. On the other hand, arguing that Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder has made me a bit more confident in my beliefs. I hope that this is because arguing has given me the opportunity to think more carefully about the case, but it may also be the false confidence which comes from emotional investment in a position. Either way, I doubt it’s made much of a difference since I was pretty confident from the beginning.
My probability estimate remains roughly 90% and I think that’s pretty clear.
Ok, now a question for you: Why are you so eager to find a contradiction in my posts?
Also, I would appreciate it if you would answer my question about what you would consider to be adequate corroboration for my argument that if Knox and Sollecito had been involved we would strongly expect forensic evidence that we did not see.
First of all, please do not weasel, i.e. change your position without acknowledging it. Your original point was about DNA evidence.
Anyway, what would support your argument is if you can produce a quote from a textbook, police manual, or other authoritative source which says, more or less, and in general terms, that even physically restraining another person will almost always leave biological traces which can be traced back to the person who did the grabbing or holding.
Since he is a qualified expert on forensics making essentially the same claim that I was about the state of forensic evidence, I’m curious to know what you would consider to be adequate corroboration for that point.
I’m not sure it’s the same claim. As I recall, your claim was limited to traces of Knox and Sollecito on or about Kercher’s person. Moore’s point is more general.
But anyway, what I had in mind was a statement which is not specific to the case. For example, a quote from a forensics textbook or a police manual.
Yes, Moore’s point is more general than mine, he points to additional evidence that it had not occurred to me that we would expect. Moore’s point is stronger than mine.
I do not have a forensics textbook or police manual, but Moore probably does. If I ask him for a citation, and he provides one, would you consider that adequate?
Yes, Moore’s point is more general than mine, he points to additional evidence that it had not occurred to me that we would expect. Moore’s point is stronger than mine.
Moore’s point is stronger if his assumptions are correct.
I do not have a forensics textbook or police manual, but Moore probably does. If I ask him for a citation, and he provides one, would you consider that adequate?
If it says more or less, and in general terms, that even physically restraining another person will almost always leave biological traces which can be traced back to the person who did the grabbing or holding.
And by the way, if you really plan to research this, what would also be helpful to me would be a cite for the proposition that the Italian forensics labs may have (or did) find additional material attributable to Guede which did not make it into the record.
Since he is a qualified expert on forensics making essentially the same claim that I was about the state of forensic evidence, I’m curious to know what you would consider to be adequate corroboration for that point.
Why do you condition strongly on the prosecution’s arguments, when their evidence has been found in many points to be false, mishandled, or exaggerated, but not condition at all on the arguments of Moore?
I’m not sure what you mean by “condition on,” but I would be similarly skeptical (probably even more skeptical) if the prosecution assured us that it’s perfectly plausible for the secondary participant in a murder such as this not to have had DNA traces found on or about the victim’s person. Even if the assertion were made on behalf of the prosecution by a board certified forensic investigator.
By “condition on,” I mean “update your probability in light of.” To refuse to update at all, you must suppose that it is no more likely that Moore would claim that the state of the evidence effectively rules out Knox and Sollecito’s involvement if they were not involved than if they were.
So it seems that you are claiming that it is much more likely that the prosecution would produce the evidence and arguments that they did if Knox and Guede were guilty than if they were innocent (enough to multiply the likelihood of their guilt by orders of magnitude,) but no more likely that Moore, who has neither pay nor reputation riding on the outcome of the case, would claim that there is dramatically less evidence than we would expect to see in the case of Knox and Sollecito’s involvement, if they were not involved than if they were.
Would you agree with that?
You gave a probability estimate of 90% back in Komponisto’s first thread, and early in this one you said that you had revised your confidence on the fact that Knox and Sollecito had been found innocent on appeal, but now you are asserting exactly the same probability that you did back then. Why is that?
Also, I would appreciate it if you would answer my question about what you would consider to be adequate corroboration for my argument that if Knox and Sollecito had been involved we would strongly expect forensic evidence that we did not see.
Assuming that the various evidence I am considering comes from the prosecution, yes.
Here’s what I said early in the thread:
My probability estimate remains roughly 90% and I think that’s pretty clear.
Ok, now a question for you: Why are you so eager to find a contradiction in my posts?
First of all, please do not weasel, i.e. change your position without acknowledging it. Your original point was about DNA evidence.
Anyway, what would support your argument is if you can produce a quote from a textbook, police manual, or other authoritative source which says, more or less, and in general terms, that even physically restraining another person will almost always leave biological traces which can be traced back to the person who did the grabbing or holding.
I’m not sure it’s the same claim. As I recall, your claim was limited to traces of Knox and Sollecito on or about Kercher’s person. Moore’s point is more general.
But anyway, what I had in mind was a statement which is not specific to the case. For example, a quote from a forensics textbook or a police manual.
Yes, Moore’s point is more general than mine, he points to additional evidence that it had not occurred to me that we would expect. Moore’s point is stronger than mine.
I do not have a forensics textbook or police manual, but Moore probably does. If I ask him for a citation, and he provides one, would you consider that adequate?
Moore’s point is stronger if his assumptions are correct.
If it says more or less, and in general terms, that even physically restraining another person will almost always leave biological traces which can be traced back to the person who did the grabbing or holding.
And by the way, if you really plan to research this, what would also be helpful to me would be a cite for the proposition that the Italian forensics labs may have (or did) find additional material attributable to Guede which did not make it into the record.