5% for the couple, 99% for the first convict.
90% that my probability estimate is close to yours in the sense that you think the two are innocent and the one is guilty.
I’d read a bit about this in the news, and I checked out those sites and wikipedia.
Given the fact that there is no evidence of prior acquaintance of the couple and the man, combined with the fact that the man did not attempt to implicate the couple despite the overwhelming evidence against him, make it very unlikely that they were involved. That, and one person being crazy/desperate/disturbed enough to commit a brutal rape-homicide is much, much more likely than one person and a completely unrelated couple he’s never met before being disturbed enough to commit a rape homicide. The defense’s response to forensic evidence appeared pretty strong, and the pro-guilt group did not seem like they tried to seriously rebut this (they mentioned that one defendan’t DNA was on the bra strap, but failed to mention three other unidentified people’s DNA on it as well).
The fact that the prosecutor is under investigation for previously using crazy psychotic hypersexual homicidal maniac theories without basis does a lot to explain how the prosecutors ended up with such a crazy theory.
My estimate of your position was (as I perceived it) largely independent of my own analysis. You mention a number of confounding factors as to why people are likely to be wrong about these things, with no mention of why they might be right, and you posted this in response to their conviction. It would be very surprising to choose a decision you agree with as an example of problems with human rationality.
It would be very surprising to choose a decision you agree with as an example of problems with human rationality.
While it may indeed be legitimate to wonder if my having posted this implies anything about my opinion, I’ll note that I didn’t in this post cite the jury’s decision itself as an example of rationality failure, but merely indicated—in the context of an erupting international controversy and ongoing Internet flamewars—that the whole topic is by nature fraught with obstacles to rationality.
5% for the couple, 99% for the first convict. 90% that my probability estimate is close to yours in the sense that you think the two are innocent and the one is guilty.
I’d read a bit about this in the news, and I checked out those sites and wikipedia.
Given the fact that there is no evidence of prior acquaintance of the couple and the man, combined with the fact that the man did not attempt to implicate the couple despite the overwhelming evidence against him, make it very unlikely that they were involved. That, and one person being crazy/desperate/disturbed enough to commit a brutal rape-homicide is much, much more likely than one person and a completely unrelated couple he’s never met before being disturbed enough to commit a rape homicide. The defense’s response to forensic evidence appeared pretty strong, and the pro-guilt group did not seem like they tried to seriously rebut this (they mentioned that one defendan’t DNA was on the bra strap, but failed to mention three other unidentified people’s DNA on it as well).
The fact that the prosecutor is under investigation for previously using crazy psychotic hypersexual homicidal maniac theories without basis does a lot to explain how the prosecutors ended up with such a crazy theory.
My estimate of your position was (as I perceived it) largely independent of my own analysis. You mention a number of confounding factors as to why people are likely to be wrong about these things, with no mention of why they might be right, and you posted this in response to their conviction. It would be very surprising to choose a decision you agree with as an example of problems with human rationality.
Thanks, your comment has changed my mind about Knox and Sollecito’s guilt.
While it may indeed be legitimate to wonder if my having posted this implies anything about my opinion, I’ll note that I didn’t in this post cite the jury’s decision itself as an example of rationality failure, but merely indicated—in the context of an erupting international controversy and ongoing Internet flamewars—that the whole topic is by nature fraught with obstacles to rationality.