AK guilty: 90%; RS guilty; 85%; RG guilty: 99%. Probability that komponisto agrees that they are all probably guilty: 80%.
The more I read, the more it seems to me that the “pro-guilt” side has a case like the scientific case for the “pro-evolution” position, namely conclusive arguments that take a while to understand, while the “pro-innocence” side has a case like that for creationism, namely plausible arguments that do not stand up under scrutiny.
Evidence that komponisto agrees with this is another accidental similarity with this case: creationism is a popular American position, while the scientific community knows that evolution is true. Similarly, the pro-innocence side of this case is a popular American position—in fact adopted by most of the posters here—but those who have actually studied the case, namely the judges and jury, thought themselces to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the three were guilty.
AK guilty: 90%; RS guilty; 85%; RG guilty: 99%. Probability that komponisto agrees that they are all probably guilty: 80%.
The more I read, the more it seems to me that the “pro-guilt” side has a case like the scientific case for the “pro-evolution” position, namely conclusive arguments that take a while to understand, while the “pro-innocence” side has a case like that for creationism, namely plausible arguments that do not stand up under scrutiny.
Evidence that komponisto agrees with this is another accidental similarity with this case: creationism is a popular American position, while the scientific community knows that evolution is true. Similarly, the pro-innocence side of this case is a popular American position—in fact adopted by most of the posters here—but those who have actually studied the case, namely the judges and jury, thought themselces to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the three were guilty.