Whereas the FoA site seemed very well put together.
The primary pieces of evidence that shape my current beliefs (I have admittedly looked through the comments but they’ve become heterogeneous enough that I don’t think they’ve effected me too much) are:
The FoA site provides a clear outline of possible events, and addresses every outlier I have seen presented. This outline involves the least amount of criminal activity, and so has the highest prior probability for me.
The True Justice site provides a clear outline of possible events, but these events seem to be in contradiction with the FoA events. Specifically, a major point of evidence is the “cleanup phase” which FoA points out was not used by the prosecution—I do not consider the existence of the “cleanup” to be in evidence. The page also involves more conspiracy, giving it a lower prior probability for me.
TJ claims Amanda’s confusion about phone calls made is evidence—to me it seems like evidence of her innocence. I would expect an innocent person to be more confused and forgetful than a guilty one. I would expect a guilty person who was covering up to be more aware of content-unrelated details (such as the prosecution’s assertion that a call was made at 3am seattle time).
FoA presents specific details about poor police protocol around the crime scene, as well as questioning the use of luminol and citing the prosecution’s expert witness.
TJ takes “bloody footprints” to be in evidence, I do not believe that they are.
Were I a jurist involved with the trial and were the evidence from these sites all that was presented to me, I would certainly rule that Amanda Knox was innocent, I do not feel that there is sufficient evidence to claim otherwise and cannot comprehend how someone would.
HOWEVER I noticed that 6 Italian judges had considered the case, that she was convicted by a jury, and that Judge Micheli produced a 106 page report on the guilt of RG which indicted RS and AK.
The prosecution has been noted as somewhat crazy, this makes the possibility that the jury wanted to signal disapproval of murder-rape at a level much higher than protect innocent people more probable.
TJ notes that RS and AK stood outside the girls’ house the night of November 1. FoA claims that this was unreliable witness testimony.
I therefore believe that there is substantial evidence for the prosecution of which I am unaware, enough to convince 6 judges and a jury, much of which should be in the micheli report which there’s no way I will read (106 pages of italian?!)
My beliefs hinge primarily on the believability of the testimony—were RS and AK at the house the night of 11⁄1, or did AK return the morning of 11/2?
Now, to answer the first four questions:
P(AK guilty): 41%
P(AK|at scene night of 11⁄1): 80%
P(AK|not at scene): 2%
P(RS guilty): 38%
P(RS|at scene): 75%
P(RS|not at scene): .5%
Since OP has claim to extra information concerning the case, I suspect that OP will be within 20% of my conditional beliefs for 1. and 2. with 70% confidence. Similarly I suspect that my aggregate beliefs (because they are split evenly between “intense anti-murderape-signaling” and “murderape conspiracy”) for 1. and 2. will be FURTHER than 20% from OPs beliefs with 80% confidence.
Everyone on both sites and here seems convinced of RG’s guilt. I think there’s approximately a 1% chance of some crazy shit happening but otherwise this belief is primarily uninvestigated (relies mainly on people not writing 106 page reports about innocent people murdering each other).
I ended up spending a lot of time looking over the two provided sites, without having ever heard of the case before.
The parts of the “true justice” site that I found most helpful were:
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/how_the_media_should_approach_the_case_if_justice_is_to_be_done_and_seen_to/
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/why_defendants_mostly_dont_testify_those_devils_that_lurk_in_the_details/
Whereas the FoA site seemed very well put together.
The primary pieces of evidence that shape my current beliefs (I have admittedly looked through the comments but they’ve become heterogeneous enough that I don’t think they’ve effected me too much) are:
The FoA site provides a clear outline of possible events, and addresses every outlier I have seen presented. This outline involves the least amount of criminal activity, and so has the highest prior probability for me.
The True Justice site provides a clear outline of possible events, but these events seem to be in contradiction with the FoA events. Specifically, a major point of evidence is the “cleanup phase” which FoA points out was not used by the prosecution—I do not consider the existence of the “cleanup” to be in evidence. The page also involves more conspiracy, giving it a lower prior probability for me.
TJ claims Amanda’s confusion about phone calls made is evidence—to me it seems like evidence of her innocence. I would expect an innocent person to be more confused and forgetful than a guilty one. I would expect a guilty person who was covering up to be more aware of content-unrelated details (such as the prosecution’s assertion that a call was made at 3am seattle time).
FoA presents specific details about poor police protocol around the crime scene, as well as questioning the use of luminol and citing the prosecution’s expert witness. TJ takes “bloody footprints” to be in evidence, I do not believe that they are.
Were I a jurist involved with the trial and were the evidence from these sites all that was presented to me, I would certainly rule that Amanda Knox was innocent, I do not feel that there is sufficient evidence to claim otherwise and cannot comprehend how someone would.
HOWEVER I noticed that 6 Italian judges had considered the case, that she was convicted by a jury, and that Judge Micheli produced a 106 page report on the guilt of RG which indicted RS and AK.
The prosecution has been noted as somewhat crazy, this makes the possibility that the jury wanted to signal disapproval of murder-rape at a level much higher than protect innocent people more probable.
TJ notes that RS and AK stood outside the girls’ house the night of November 1. FoA claims that this was unreliable witness testimony.
I therefore believe that there is substantial evidence for the prosecution of which I am unaware, enough to convince 6 judges and a jury, much of which should be in the micheli report which there’s no way I will read (106 pages of italian?!)
My beliefs hinge primarily on the believability of the testimony—were RS and AK at the house the night of 11⁄1, or did AK return the morning of 11/2?
Now, to answer the first four questions:
P(AK guilty): 41% P(AK|at scene night of 11⁄1): 80% P(AK|not at scene): 2%
P(RS guilty): 38% P(RS|at scene): 75% P(RS|not at scene): .5%
P(RG guilty): 99% P(crazy shit): 1% P(RG guilty| no crazy shit): 99.9999%
Since OP has claim to extra information concerning the case, I suspect that OP will be within 20% of my conditional beliefs for 1. and 2. with 70% confidence. Similarly I suspect that my aggregate beliefs (because they are split evenly between “intense anti-murderape-signaling” and “murderape conspiracy”) for 1. and 2. will be FURTHER than 20% from OPs beliefs with 80% confidence.
Everyone on both sites and here seems convinced of RG’s guilt. I think there’s approximately a 1% chance of some crazy shit happening but otherwise this belief is primarily uninvestigated (relies mainly on people not writing 106 page reports about innocent people murdering each other).
Sorry, how do you get 99.9999% as a unit weighted combination of 99 and 1 ?!
the 99 and 1 are approximations.
Although my primary motivation is that P(it mattering) is very very small.
Also it’s possible that there is crazy shit and he is still guilty.