Amanda Knox is guilty: 75%, Raffaele Sollecito: 75%, Rudy Guede: 25%. I shall abbreviate future percentage triples as 75/75/25.
No knowledge of the case before reading this post. My prior is due to my assumption that trial people know what they are doing, and on the fact that I imagined that the trial was trying to show that the guilty were K+S instead of G.
acquiring information
Reading about G’s DNA, which should be rather good evidence: switching to 50/50/75. I contemplated switching all the way to 25/25/75, but I figured there had to be some reason for the new trial.
Reading about the police’s claim that the murder was linked to a group sex game; thinking that this would be a ridiculous motive. This made me think that maybe the trial people didn’t knew what they were doing after all. Switching to 25/25/80.
Finally realized that the trial was in fact trying to show that the guilty were K+S+G instead of just G, not K+S instead of G. Stopped keeping track of percentages for some reason.
Reading about the police switching from K+S+L to K+S+G, which lowered my esteem of the police even more.
Reading about the DNA of K+S, figured it was natural for a woman and her boyfriend to have DNA all over the woman’s own house.
Still trying to understand who was G relative to the others. I think he’s a robber now. Definitely not part of the group sex thing. Even worse feelings toward the police.
Over all, the truejustice website seems more emotional than the friends of K website, which surprises me. I would have expected the family of the victim to have calmed down after the original G trial, yet truejustice still seemed angry; and doesn’t even seem to be ran by the victim’s family at all. They should be a lot less emotional about this than K’s friend, which seem to be a lot more clearheaded than truejustice is.
I’m now quite convinced of the innocence of K+S, although I’m too shy to give an actual percentage. 5/5/95, if not more extreme.
I think he’s a robber now. Definitely not part of the group sex thing. Even worse feelings toward the police.
I like the rapist theory. It’s not like Amanda was the only promiscuous American collegian around—birds of a feather… And who would rob an exchange student? No, a consensual meeting gone bad sounds like a far more common scenario to me.
Why would you murder someone just because she didn’t wanted to have group sex?
And even if you did, why the hell would you call the police yourself?
Furthermore, this case was decided by a jury. A group of average people with no real juristic knowledge at all. Just some random dumbasses who couldn’t care less and just want to get home (no, I’m not narcist. Just consider: 50% of all people are by definition dumber than the average, and a jury is randomly selected. ie the average jury ranges from IQ 80 to 120, while a professional judge should start at about 125.) Do you really believe they would come to the correct decision?
And just think of the charges against the prosecutor (about inventing crazy conspiracy theories) . .
Why would you murder someone just because she didn’t wanted to have group sex?
Not sure what you are thinking, but to clarify: I meant an encounter between just Meredith and Guede, nothing to do with Knox or Sollecito. I could see a single guy (Guede) expecting sex and then resorting to rape and then murder to cover it.
(And I suspect the jury is on average better than the populace, since just about every country gives into the temptation to lard on extra conditions like ‘if you’re a felon you forfeit forever rights such as being on a jury or voting’, which would disparately affect the lower percentiles.)
Ah, I thought you referred to an encounter between all of them. In this case, I agree with you—that’s also what I think happened.
Regarding the juries: I’ve read to many reports about bad juries than to believe in them, and the fact that they are almost certainly less educated than a judge still remains.
The Italian system is different from ours. This particular jury included two judges.
That’s an interesting variant. There may well be advantages to such a system to counterbalance the disadvantages. I know, for example, that I just felt my ‘confidence of innocence’ adjust itself downwards. (I would expect a judge to be more likely to be corrupt than a random citizen but also to have less naive vulnerability to obvious manipulations. The latter is relevant here.)
priors
Amanda Knox is guilty: 75%, Raffaele Sollecito: 75%, Rudy Guede: 25%. I shall abbreviate future percentage triples as 75/75/25.
No knowledge of the case before reading this post. My prior is due to my assumption that trial people know what they are doing, and on the fact that I imagined that the trial was trying to show that the guilty were K+S instead of G.
acquiring information
Reading about G’s DNA, which should be rather good evidence: switching to 50/50/75. I contemplated switching all the way to 25/25/75, but I figured there had to be some reason for the new trial.
Reading about the police’s claim that the murder was linked to a group sex game; thinking that this would be a ridiculous motive. This made me think that maybe the trial people didn’t knew what they were doing after all. Switching to 25/25/80.
Finally realized that the trial was in fact trying to show that the guilty were K+S+G instead of just G, not K+S instead of G. Stopped keeping track of percentages for some reason.
Reading about the police switching from K+S+L to K+S+G, which lowered my esteem of the police even more.
Reading about the DNA of K+S, figured it was natural for a woman and her boyfriend to have DNA all over the woman’s own house.
Still trying to understand who was G relative to the others. I think he’s a robber now. Definitely not part of the group sex thing. Even worse feelings toward the police.
Over all, the truejustice website seems more emotional than the friends of K website, which surprises me. I would have expected the family of the victim to have calmed down after the original G trial, yet truejustice still seemed angry; and doesn’t even seem to be ran by the victim’s family at all. They should be a lot less emotional about this than K’s friend, which seem to be a lot more clearheaded than truejustice is.
I’m now quite convinced of the innocence of K+S, although I’m too shy to give an actual percentage. 5/5/95, if not more extreme.
I like the rapist theory. It’s not like Amanda was the only promiscuous American collegian around—birds of a feather… And who would rob an exchange student? No, a consensual meeting gone bad sounds like a far more common scenario to me.
Why would you murder someone just because she didn’t wanted to have group sex?
And even if you did, why the hell would you call the police yourself?
Furthermore, this case was decided by a jury. A group of average people with no real juristic knowledge at all. Just some random dumbasses who couldn’t care less and just want to get home (no, I’m not narcist. Just consider: 50% of all people are by definition dumber than the average, and a jury is randomly selected. ie the average jury ranges from IQ 80 to 120, while a professional judge should start at about 125.) Do you really believe they would come to the correct decision?
And just think of the charges against the prosecutor (about inventing crazy conspiracy theories) . .
I guess for me its 5/5/90 for K/S/G.
Not sure what you are thinking, but to clarify: I meant an encounter between just Meredith and Guede, nothing to do with Knox or Sollecito. I could see a single guy (Guede) expecting sex and then resorting to rape and then murder to cover it.
(And I suspect the jury is on average better than the populace, since just about every country gives into the temptation to lard on extra conditions like ‘if you’re a felon you forfeit forever rights such as being on a jury or voting’, which would disparately affect the lower percentiles.)
Ah, I thought you referred to an encounter between all of them. In this case, I agree with you—that’s also what I think happened.
Regarding the juries: I’ve read to many reports about bad juries than to believe in them, and the fact that they are almost certainly less educated than a judge still remains.
The Italian system is different from ours. This particular jury included two judges.
That’s an interesting variant. There may well be advantages to such a system to counterbalance the disadvantages. I know, for example, that I just felt my ‘confidence of innocence’ adjust itself downwards. (I would expect a judge to be more likely to be corrupt than a random citizen but also to have less naive vulnerability to obvious manipulations. The latter is relevant here.)
[comment deleted]