= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
bgrah449 comments on You Be the Jury: Survey on a Current Event - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (260)
Not trying to enforce groupthink here, just sincerely curious: could you elaborate on your reasoning a bit? The pro-guilt site doesn't seem to have much in the way of coherent arguments - hopefully a fellow rationalist could do a better job of explaining the other side's thought process.
I'm especially baffled by the 0.2 for Guede - it seems like the only possible explanation for his innocence would be a massive conspiracy/frameup by police... which, don't get me wrong, I would never be so naive as to assign p=0, but if that's what you think happened, how do you get from there to the other two being probably guilty?
What's really confusing me I think is that your combination of the 3 values (guede innocent, knox and sollecito guilty) doesn't seem to correspond to any theory of the crime being proposed by anyone on either side.
Oh, and since I'm posting I guess I should play by the rules and post my own opinions (which I arrived at before reading comments):
After spending more time reading on the subject (damn you lw for sucking up so much of my time! :), I'm revising my numbers, in the direction of greater certainty:
My reasons? Many small things... probably the biggest being: why didn't knox implicate guede??? If all 3 were there at the crime scene, then she knew that there was a third person involved, someone who:
So if under interrogation you're being pressured to point the finger at someone, wouldn't he be the obvious choice, rather than someone picked at random from your phone book?
And why didn't guede implicate knox/sollecito? When multiple parties conspire to commit a crime, I would strongly suspect that the most common behaviour under interrogation would be to point fingers at each other, not at random 3rd/4th parties.... that is, if the "co-conspirators" are actually aware of each others existence.
As for my revising upwards guede's guilt, that's due to the bloody handprint - guede's handprint, in the victim's blood.... that's about as unimpeachable as forensic evidence gets, as it proves not just that he was at the crime scene at some point in time, not just that he had sex with the victim at some point in time, but that the victim was bleeding profusely while in his presence. That seems more solid than a signed confession to me.
As to my original question to bgrah449... well, its a shame he's not replying... my best guess is that he was confusing guede and lumumba - thats the only thing I can come up with that would make those numbers make sense.