So it was pretty clear to any reasonable person that I was asking the questions not simply to improve my understanding.
Yes, your disingenuousness was indeed transparent.
If you thought there was some stronger piece of evidence than what your interlocutor mentioned, you should simply have stated it rather than quizzing the other person.
You need evidence that is thousands of times more likely in the case of staging than in the case of an authentic burglary.
Sorry, no. You are the contrarian here; the onus is on you to explain your position. My view is well known by now; I’ve explained it in a number of posts and comments. Just for the record, my current probability of guilt for Knox and Sollecito is between 0.0001 and 0.001, updated from a prior of between 0.00001 and 0.0001; if you want numerical bounds on my likelihood ratios, you can do the arithmetic yourself.
Yes, your disingenuousness was indeed transparent.
Let’s see if I have this straight: According to you, any question which is for rhetorical, testing, or socratic purposes is “disingenuous” even if the nature of the question is made clear from the beginning? Is that what you are saying?
Read the post I linked,
I’m not sure I see your point. It seems that your “thousands of times more likely” comes from the observation that the prior probability of Knox’s guilt is pretty low. But the exact same thing could be said in connection with Knox’s “confession” and in any event, the unlikelihood of the various evidence resulting from a bona fide break-in would appear to counterbalance the low prior probability.
Sorry, no. You are the contrarian here; the onus is on you to explain your position.
I’m not sure it needs to go by the majority. But anyway, if you don’t want to explain your position, that’s fine by me. I was trying to get down to the nub of our disagreement.
I was trying to get down to the nub of our disagreement.
The nub of our disagreement is quite clearly identifiable: you apparently believe that certain testimony about the position of glass fragments (contrary to the photographic evidence, incidentally) is thousands of times less likely to occur in the case of an actual burglary than in the case of fake one. More generally, you are of the opinion that circumstantial and psychological evidence of the sort produced in this case is powerful enough to overcome not only the incredibly low prior probability of guilt for Knox and Sollecito, but also the total lack of any (significant, non-discredited) physical evidence tying them to the crime, the failure of Guede to implicate them until he knew they were suspects, and the fact that Kercher had both a full stomach and an empty duodenum at death, and thus almost certainly died before 9:30 pm, while Sollecito’s computer was in use at his apartment.
Needless to say, I think this is sheer madness. In my view, you are vastly, hugely overconfident in your model of human behavior. However, in the unlikely event that you can actually produce a compelling argument for why I should (for example) regard the presence of glass on top of clothes as 30-decibel evidence in favor of the hypothesis that Knox and Sollecito staged the burglary over the hypothesis that there was an authentic burglary committed by known burglar Rudy Guede, I am all ears.
Really, however, I’m long past the point where I’m ready to write you off as an incorrigible clacker.
you apparently believe that certain testimony about the position of glass fragments (contrary to the photographic evidence, incidentally) is thousands of times less likely to occur in the case of an actual burglary than in the case of fake one.
Actually I don’t believe that. My estimate is somewhere between 10 and 100. It seems you refuse to tell me yours.
the fact that Kercher had both a full stomach and an empty duodenum at death, and thus almost certainly died before 9:30 pm, while Sollecito’s computer was in use at his apartment.
Where are you getting this from?
According to my research
(1) Sollecito’s computer stopped being used at 9:10pm
(2) Sollecito’s own expert witness—Professor Introna—testified that based on the stomach and duodenum contents, the time of death was between 9:30 pm and 10:30pm.
(3) Professor Bacci, the prosecution’s expert, testified (based on the same digestive issues) that the time of death was between 9:00 to 9:30 pm and 11:00pm to midnight.
Do you disagree with any of this? Because it looks to me like you are suffering from a massive case of confirmation bias. To be sure, I got items (2) and (3) from the sentencing report. But I have a really hard time believing that the report would flat out lie about peoples’ testimony.
And by the way, I would still like an answer to my earlier question:
According to you, any question which is for rhetorical, testing, or socratic purposes is “disingenuous” even if the nature of the question is made clear from the beginning? Is that what you are saying?
Yes, your disingenuousness was indeed transparent.
If you thought there was some stronger piece of evidence than what your interlocutor mentioned, you should simply have stated it rather than quizzing the other person.
Read the post I linked, and review Bayes’ theorem if necessary.
Sorry, no. You are the contrarian here; the onus is on you to explain your position. My view is well known by now; I’ve explained it in a number of posts and comments. Just for the record, my current probability of guilt for Knox and Sollecito is between 0.0001 and 0.001, updated from a prior of between 0.00001 and 0.0001; if you want numerical bounds on my likelihood ratios, you can do the arithmetic yourself.
Let’s see if I have this straight: According to you, any question which is for rhetorical, testing, or socratic purposes is “disingenuous” even if the nature of the question is made clear from the beginning? Is that what you are saying?
I’m not sure I see your point. It seems that your “thousands of times more likely” comes from the observation that the prior probability of Knox’s guilt is pretty low. But the exact same thing could be said in connection with Knox’s “confession” and in any event, the unlikelihood of the various evidence resulting from a bona fide break-in would appear to counterbalance the low prior probability.
I’m not sure it needs to go by the majority. But anyway, if you don’t want to explain your position, that’s fine by me. I was trying to get down to the nub of our disagreement.
The nub of our disagreement is quite clearly identifiable: you apparently believe that certain testimony about the position of glass fragments (contrary to the photographic evidence, incidentally) is thousands of times less likely to occur in the case of an actual burglary than in the case of fake one. More generally, you are of the opinion that circumstantial and psychological evidence of the sort produced in this case is powerful enough to overcome not only the incredibly low prior probability of guilt for Knox and Sollecito, but also the total lack of any (significant, non-discredited) physical evidence tying them to the crime, the failure of Guede to implicate them until he knew they were suspects, and the fact that Kercher had both a full stomach and an empty duodenum at death, and thus almost certainly died before 9:30 pm, while Sollecito’s computer was in use at his apartment.
Needless to say, I think this is sheer madness. In my view, you are vastly, hugely overconfident in your model of human behavior. However, in the unlikely event that you can actually produce a compelling argument for why I should (for example) regard the presence of glass on top of clothes as 30-decibel evidence in favor of the hypothesis that Knox and Sollecito staged the burglary over the hypothesis that there was an authentic burglary committed by known burglar Rudy Guede, I am all ears.
Really, however, I’m long past the point where I’m ready to write you off as an incorrigible clacker.
Actually I don’t believe that. My estimate is somewhere between 10 and 100. It seems you refuse to tell me yours.
Where are you getting this from?
According to my research
(1) Sollecito’s computer stopped being used at 9:10pm
(2) Sollecito’s own expert witness—Professor Introna—testified that based on the stomach and duodenum contents, the time of death was between 9:30 pm and 10:30pm.
(3) Professor Bacci, the prosecution’s expert, testified (based on the same digestive issues) that the time of death was between 9:00 to 9:30 pm and 11:00pm to midnight.
Do you disagree with any of this? Because it looks to me like you are suffering from a massive case of confirmation bias. To be sure, I got items (2) and (3) from the sentencing report. But I have a really hard time believing that the report would flat out lie about peoples’ testimony.
And by the way, I would still like an answer to my earlier question:
According to you, any question which is for rhetorical, testing, or socratic purposes is “disingenuous” even if the nature of the question is made clear from the beginning? Is that what you are saying?