I haven't followed the instructions precisely, due to lack of time, but will answer anyway in the interest of avoiding self-selection bias. (I'm also not reading any of the other responses yet.)
I had heard of the case, but not seen any mainstream media reports. It was probably on one of the blogs I read.
I spent about 5 minutes looking at the "guilty" site, and about 1 minute looking at the "innocent" site. My first reactions to the two sites were:
(1) Wow, the "innocent" people aren't really trying very hard. Is this really the best, most passionate defense out ther? Is komponisto actually playing some sort of rationalist psychological game here, where the real test is to see if we notice how lame the defense is? Hmm, maybe not, because we are advised that it's ok to look elsewhere...
(2) The "guilty" site is disorganized, but apparently full of information. Or is it really? It mostly seems to be emotional reactions, not a description of what they believed actually happened and why. Possibly that information is on one of those fifty-zillion pages, but gee -- if my friend had been murdered, and I wanted to make sure that her killers were brought to justice, I would make damn sure that the facts were front and center, with as many sources as possible, and that the arguments were crystal-clear. Then I would get into the emotionalizing about how terrible this is. But hey, I'm a Vulcan*, maybe this is normal behavior for grieving humans.
(*according to some people, and sometimes I don't know how serious they are)
So, to answer the enumerated questions:
There's the obvious conclusion of "white American privilege is the only thing supporting Amanda Knox's case -- but that would be extremely circumstantial, and has been proven wrong before (e.g. the Duke LaCrosse scandal took place just a few miles from where I live). I want to know what the real argument is, and I'm not finding it -- but I recognize that I haven't yet taken the time to do a proper search.
Okay, that's probably more data than you wanted for a largely inconclusive result.
UPDATE after reading some comments: I didn't notice that one of the links to the side on the "innocent" site had more information; my initial assumption was that they were all translations of the front page. Clicking on that link immediately takes me to a summary which seems much more clear-headed than anything on the "guilty" site, and actually gives a few facts involved in the case. A further link (clearly labeled) goes into considerably more detail.
After reading about a third of the detailed account, my estimates of Amanda and Raffaele's innocence goes up considerably (with accompanying reduction in the margin of error), along with my estimate of Guede's guilt.
However, before making a final determination I would want a great deal more information (e.g. recordings of the police interrogation, or transcripts, or whatever is available), considerable quiet time in which to ponder it, and a chance to ask any questions I might think of.
As many of you probably know, in an Italian court early last weekend, two young students, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, were convicted of killing another young student, Meredith Kercher, in a horrific way in November of 2007. (A third person, Rudy Guede, was convicted earlier.)
If you aren't familiar with the case, don't go reading about it just yet. Hang on for just a moment.
If you are familiar, that's fine too. This post is addressed to readers of all levels of acquaintance with the story.
What everyone should know right away is that the verdict has been extremely controversial. Strong feelings have emerged, even involving national tensions (Knox is American, Sollecito Italian, and Kercher British, and the crime and trial took place in Italy). The circumstances of the crime involve sex. In short, the potential for serious rationality failures in coming to an opinion on a case like this is enormous.
Now, as it happens, I myself have an opinion. A rather strong one, in fact. Strong enough that I caught myself thinking that this case -- given all the controversy surrounding it -- might serve as a decent litmus test in judging the rationality skills of other people. Like religion, or evolution -- except less clichéd (and cached) and more down-and-dirty.
Of course, thoughts like that can be dangerous, as I quickly recognized. The danger of in-group affective spirals looms large. So before writing up that Less Wrong post adding my-opinion-on-the-guilt-or-innocence-of-Amanda-Knox-and-Raffaele-Sollecito to the List of Things Every Rational Person Must Believe, I decided it might be useful to find out what conclusion(s) other aspiring rationalists would (or have) come to (without knowing my opinion).
So that's what this post is: a survey/experiment, with fairly specific yet flexible instructions (which differ slightly depending on how much you know about the case already).
For those whose familiarity with the case is low:
I'm going to give you two websites advocating a position, one strongly in favor of the verdict, the other strongly opposed. Your job will be to browse around these sites to learn info about the case, as much as you need to in order to arrive at a judgment. The order, manner, and quantity of browsing will be left up to you -- though I would of course like to know how much you read in your response.
1. Site arguing defendants are guilty.
2. Site arguing defendants are innocent.
I've chosen these particular sites because they seemed to contain the best combination of fierceness of advocacy and quantity of information on their respective sides that I could find.
If you find better summaries, or think that these choices reflect a bias or betray my own opinion, by all means let me know. I'm specifically avoiding referring you to media reports, however, for a couple of reasons. First, I've noticed that reports often contain factual inaccuracies (necessarily, because they contradict each other). Secondly, journalists don't usually have much of a stake, and I'd like to see how folks respond to passionate advocacy by people who care about the outcome, as in an actual trial, rather than attempts at neutral summarizing. Of course, it's fine if you want to read media reports linked to by the above sites.
(One potential problem is that the first site is organized like a blog or forum, and thus it is hard to find a quick summary of the case there. [EDIT: Be sure to look at the category links on the right side of the page to find the arguments.] If you think it necessary, refer to the ever-changing Wikipedia article, which at the moment of writing seems a bit more favorable to the prosecution. [EDIT: I'm no longer sure that's true.] [EDIT: Now I think it's true again, the article having apparently changed some more. So there's really no telling. Be warned.])
After you do this reading, I'd like to know:
1. Your probability estimate that Amanda Knox is guilty.
2. Your probability estimate that Raffaele Sollecito is guilty.
3. Your probability estimate that Rudy Guede is guilty.
4. How much you think your opinion will turn out to coincide with mine.
Feel free to elaborate on your reasoning to whatever degree you like.
One request: don't look at others' comments until you've done the experiment yourself!
For those whose familiarity with the case is moderate or high:
I'd like to know, as of right now:
1. Your probability estimate that Amanda Knox is guilty.
2. Your probability estimate that Raffaele Sollecito is guilty.
3. Your probability estimate that Rudy Guede is guilty.
4. How much you think your opinion will turn out to coincide with mine.
5. From what sources you've gotten the info you've used to arrive at these estimates.
Then, if possible, do the experiment described above for those with little familiarity, and report any shifts in your estimates.
Again, everyone should avoid looking at others' responses before giving their own feedback. Also, don't forget to identify your prior level of familiarity!
If the level of participation warrants it, I'll post my own thoughts (and reaction to the feedback here) in a later post. (Edit: That post can be found here.)