Therefore, I offered 0 in the spirit of Goedel’s completeness theorem, yes, at the expense of consistency. Consistency will yield a perpetual motion situation. Completeness is required and can be appropriately reached through reasoning, logic, objectivity, etc. Something can only consistent OR complete. Not both.
AnnaGilmour
Karma: 50
I am also pointing out that is a question pertaining to applied situation with a limited scope—the decision to convict or exonerate. For all intents and purposes, relative “knowing” is permissible in a legal case, since we are dealing with human events and activities of a finite nature—a court decision is a discrete (not continuous) matter. After a certain point, probabilties have to turn into decisions.
The thing that I am trying to point out is that I believe Amanda and Raffaele were wrongly included in the class called “suspects”.
The concept of limits is a great way to look at this. A limit is a thing unto its own, a complex statement indicating, confirmed as much as is humanly possible.
Another notion is what Goedel brings to the table. His contribution of something being consistent or complete is relevant.
Were there any fatal wounds that she could not have inflicted?
Well, it is quite fascinating that no one gets a 0 probability. Just to ask, does Meredith get a 0 probability? I will move past understanding the exclusion of 0. I just want to make sure I understand. Anyway, when I say 0, I understand it to mean functionally 0, which is the same as .0000000001, which is also functionally 0, correct? Thank you for you patience.
Is it possible to show that it would be impossible for them to have been participants making it 0? Is there anyone in the world in that class—of 0? Trying to understand the parameters of “probability”.
In other words, his psychological profile and actions leading up to the murder do not indicate that he was above board and immune from a violent attack, especially an attack with a knife. He was also known around town to go too far in the direction toward harassment of females around town at the clubs and so forth. He was also known to do various drugs including aggression-increasing drugs such as cocaine. He was known to break and enter and steal, and that he carried a ten inch knife “for protection” (his words). It could be argued then that it was a matter of brief time for him to break and enter, steal, and encounter someone indoors in the process as was arguably such in the situation with Meredith, and “defend” himself when caught or interrupted. This is the case that I would start to make as for a high prior.
It is true that a high probability of a prior is not necessary for probability of guilt.
It is also true, however, that it doesn’t mean that he didn’t have a high prior. I could drop it to .3 though. With the actions in the previous weeks, a case could be made that he was in an escalating pattern of behavior, which is why I gave him a .5 prior.
Thank you. Yes I’ve seen the post by Rolf Nelson.
I don’t understand (though I admit for expediency’s sake did not fully read the 0⁄1 link which I should do if I post here) how there cannot be an absolute for innocence. I didn’t assign 1 to Rudy Guede for the reason you mention. But in terms of innocence, we know for example that Princess Diana didn’t kill Meredith and that the mayor of Seattle at the time did not kill Meredith, so how can it not be zero? I wrote zero for a specific reason. I wanted it to indicate that gap between reasonability of arrest and no reasonability of arrest. To assign even a small possibility at this point seems inaccurate to me. Although, you make a good point, in actuality, so I would amend them to .001. Is that a proper probability quotient in terms of the question?
This should allow us to quickly pinpoint our disagreement(s).
The disagreement most likely stems from the reliability of the Micheli Report for accuracy and comprehensiveness.
Posterior probability estimates:
0
0
.9
Priors:
.01
.01
.5
Is that the sort of thing you are asking? I don’t know if I attributed correctly.
You are making an assumption, one exaggeration, and one statement of belief.
Assumption: More than one person is known to be involved. (Not established.)
Exaggeration: someone known to one of the occupants (He was known to the occupants in the cottage below and only only known of by one the occupants alleged to be involved.)
Belief: found to have a false alibi (There is no proof or acceptable evidence that that occupant has a false alibi.)
The means by which the prosecution set about to establish that more than person was involved is suspect. The means by which a false alibi was established is also suspect. You cannot accept those as viable fact. Something that has been shown in previous comments, if I am not mistaken.
“Interpreting evidence is always a matter of inference.”
Without physical evidence of something, how do you, except by imagination, come up with an explanation? Logic of the situation, yes. But this forms a tautology in this case. She broke the window and staged a break-in (though there is no physical evidence that suggests this) because… why? Because… someone wants it to look like she did the crime. My point was that komponisto showed how you have to have a reason in the situation itself to suggest it. This theory of the staged break-in is being used as a reason to suspect Amanda. The reason to suspect Amanda of a staged break-in is that more evidence is needed to implicate her in the crime. To say that “if Amanda staged a break-in, it would implicate her” may be true, but it would also be true of anyone. It could equally be true of the other two roommates, for example. The only thing that made Amanda stand out in this regard is that she was there first and that someone read into her behavior as significant.
This is how it seems to me.
micio quoted:
“while Knox’s defenders have no trouble complaining that jurors judged her unfairly based on her behavior in the days after the murder (purchasing sexy lingerie, frolicking around town and making out with her boyfriend), they don’t mind pointing out her gentle appearance—or arguing that she has a reputation for being “sweet and generous and kind” etc. In other words—they’re fine with exploiting Knox’s image only to the extent it lines up with the idea that she’s “not the type” who could kill another human being in connection with an act of sexual violence”
After a while people will be accountable for the evidence they choose to acknowledge or not. Things like this are inconsequential and incidental. Stick to the evidence. Talk about that. You will be voting for civilization and the rule of law or rule by thugs.
What I am finding is that a few people who are commenting here are consistently making the mistake that komponisto described. They are not leaving their perceptual fallacies.
For instance this statement:
“Amanda Knox was a roommate of Meredith Knox’s; the initial likelihood of her being responsible is raised by that fact alone. It is normal for police to question motives of people close to the decedent, and it is good practice.”
First of all, if the roommate question is enough to bring her in for questioning, then it should be on the same level as the inquiry toward the other two roommates, and this also puts Raffaele further out on the proximity scale. But these checks should be quick and cleared by the lack of physical evidence.
And this statement:
“Wife...confesses to giving $3,000 in cash she had squirreled away to someone (a description, but no name and he’s gone) to shoot Hubby… Is the confession noise? We have no physical evidence. That’s somewhat dissimilar to your assertion, I understand. Let’s take it back a step...”
This has been checked as well. Given the lack of physical evidence, then evidence of conspiracy or collusion gets checked. There was no evidence of this either.
And the following statement:
″...but the behavior is evidence.”
Not when there is no evidence of conspiracy, collusion, or physical evidence because then you are going back to the mistakes described by komponisto in the post.
A fascinating look at Roman law versus Germanic:
”Italian Law and You—Welcome to the Jungle!” by Amanda Sorensen
http://www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art315.htm
I find the evidence of the conspicuousness of the prosecution’s investigation and case for Amanda and Raffaele’s guilt much more suspicious and compelling than the evidence left by Amanda and Raffaele. What would the probability/certainty numbers be on that?
The lack of DNA evidence of a additional perpetrators corroborates the single suspect coroner’s result.
The following is from a recap of the defense’s arguments on closing day. The recap was written by Kelly Brodbeck who was summarizing Ghirga’s arguments. I think he got the rundown from a person present at the trial. This is the first thing I can cite. Will continue to look for more.
“He talked about how Mignini stated that the position and condition of Meredith showed that there was more than one person involved in the murder, but when the coroner Dr. Lali said that the body did not show that more than one person was involved, Mignini fired him and replaced him with someone who agreed with his assertions. He said “I wonder why he was really fired??” ”
I find the term useful. I think it is what a lot of the media has done. Since Amanda and Raffaele are in discussion and named in the theory, there must be something to it and they have equal weights of measure for concern as the third suspect, Rudy. When in fact, they are very lightweight and the (heavy) weight should be attributed to the method by which they became suspects. The term helps me to say “Oh that’s what is going on.” Like komponisto said, a whole category of error. (Not to mention all the contexts apart from this specific case, the topic at hand, indeed.)