I work from home over the internet running IT systems.
I studied Maths for 2 years at Cambridge, then Computer Science in my 3rd year.
I came across this site after becoming interested in the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito ( just subsequent to their acquittal in October 2011 ).
I’m interested in a rational basis for assessing guilt in criminal cases. My idea ( as above ) is to compare the relative likelihood of each part of the defence and prosecution case, but this was perhaps not a good example, as I found that there was no credible, objective evidence against the defendants after looking closely at the evidence.
Maybe we could look at the recent conviction of Gary Dobson and David Norris. I would start from the position that they are probably guilty, but this is before examining in any detail the evidence against them, so this is based mainly on a general belief that UK courts do a fairly good job. The questions to be raised there would be whether we can really trust the forensic evidence, given that the police have powerful incentives to convict. And how do we eliminate prejudice against these unpleasant people ( both were clearly vile racists whether or not they committed the murder ).
Hi, I’m 53 years old, from Gloucester, UK.
I work from home over the internet running IT systems.
I studied Maths for 2 years at Cambridge, then Computer Science in my 3rd year.
I came across this site after becoming interested in the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito ( just subsequent to their acquittal in October 2011 ).
I made an analysis of the Massei report ( http://massei-report-analysis.wikispaces.com/ ) and concluded that the defence case was much more probable than the prosecution case.
I’m interested in a rational basis for assessing guilt in criminal cases. My idea ( as above ) is to compare the relative likelihood of each part of the defence and prosecution case, but this was perhaps not a good example, as I found that there was no credible, objective evidence against the defendants after looking closely at the evidence.
Maybe we could look at the recent conviction of Gary Dobson and David Norris. I would start from the position that they are probably guilty, but this is before examining in any detail the evidence against them, so this is based mainly on a general belief that UK courts do a fairly good job. The questions to be raised there would be whether we can really trust the forensic evidence, given that the police have powerful incentives to convict. And how do we eliminate prejudice against these unpleasant people ( both were clearly vile racists whether or not they committed the murder ).
Well, I’m not touching that case with a ten-foot pole. But if you picked a less politically charged case, I’m sure there might be interesting things to say!