Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

lordweiner27 comments on You Be the Jury: Survey on a Current Event - Less Wrong

31 Post author: komponisto 09 December 2009 04:25AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (260)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: lordweiner27 10 December 2009 02:04:32AM *  2 points [-]

Amanda Knox being Guilty: 90%

Raffaele Sollecito being Guilty 90%

Rudy Guede being guilty: 90%

I hope you agree with me because no one else in the comments seem too. I'm gonna give the probability of you agreeing with me 75% based on my own arrogance and belief that I'm right and based and little else really.

Most people seem to believe Rudy Guede is guilty so lets skip that and look at the other two. They've changed their stories and have been proven to have lied quite a few times. For example Rudy at one point said he was at home surfing the internet but his alibi is not substantiated by records of his internet service provider.
Amanda at one point said she was round Rudy's house till 10am (later changing her story) but according to a witness she was at the store as soon as it opened to buy cleaning products.

That alone is some strong evidence that they are both guilty.

If they were innocent there would be no need to lie.

Probably the most damning piece of evidence is this:

When Sollecito's home was searched, a knife was found in a kitchen drawer that contained small traces of Kercher's DNA on the blade, and Knox's on the handle.

There really is no other explanation for that. Unless she was round Sollecito's home at some earlier date and cut herself on his knife.

Here's another nail in the coffin:

Sollecito's footprint was found in blood in Kercher's room.
Don't forget this was behind a locked door!

Add all that evidence to the cleaning up afterwards, the body being covered, the rape fantasies Knox had, Sollecito's DNA on her bra etc. etc. All three of them clearly killed her. The jury clearly believed so as well which strengthens my argument. They spent months examining the case, so the idea that a few minutes of internet research makes you certain they're wrong seems laughable.

Comment author: imaxwell 10 December 2009 06:18:52PM 7 points [-]

Do you really find it equally likely that Knox/Sollecito are guilty as you do that Guede is guilty? It seems like most of the weight should be given to Knox-Sollecito-Guede and Guede as possibilities, so unless you think the probability of Guede acting alone is very close to zero, this is sort of bizarre. In particular, it indicates that your P(KSG | G) is very close to 100%.

Comment author: Blueberry 11 December 2009 08:07:09AM 0 points [-]

Downvoted for poor spelling.

Comment author: Jack 10 December 2009 04:18:38AM *  1 point [-]
  1. The statements were obviously coerced and Knox and Sollecito were intoxicated during the period in question, it isn't surprising they have given inconsistent and contradictory stories.The fact that no recording of the interrogations was ever released is incredibly damning.

  2. My understanding from what I saw was that no evidence re: purchasing cleaning products was ever introduced.

  3. Did you read the arguments countering the DNA evidence?

Sollecito's footprint was found in blood in Kercher's room. Don't forget this was behind a locked door!

Was this luminaled or visible? I might have missed this piece of evidence. Also, I wasn't at all convinced there was any clean-up afterward.

Comment author: lordweiner27 10 December 2009 09:51:52AM 0 points [-]
  1. Just because they were intoxicated doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to tell us where they were. I have never been drunk enough in my entire life to not remember what house I slept at. Have you?

The fact that no recording of the interrogations was ever released is incredibly damning.

So because the police were idiots and didn't record the interrogations that means they faked the evidence? What would be the police's motivation for faking the evidence?

My understanding from what I saw was that no evidence re: purchasing cleaning products was ever introduced.

Evidence is held back for lots of reasons, doesn't didn't happen. It was on the wikipedia page so I'm taking it as fact.

  1. No. I'd love a link to them. However I can't invision reasonable argument against DNA evidence, unless there's evidence of a massive police conspiracy.
Comment author: Jack 10 December 2009 10:35:59AM *  3 points [-]

Just because they were intoxicated doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to tell us where they were. I have never been drunk enough in my entire life to not remember what house I slept at. Have you?

Intoxicated people as a rule have fuzzy and missing memories. I've definitely forgotten events when I've been drunk and I've had friends lose a couple hours of memory and wake up not knowing where they are. Maybe this isn't sufficient to explain the inconsistencies but it is once you combine it with scary, potentially abusive police yelling at and threatening them... well, I'd say some inaccurate testimony is to be expected.

That said I'm having trouble with their story of the morning the body was discovered.

So because the police were idiots and didn't record the interrogations that means they faked the evidence? What would be the police's motivation for faking the evidence?

Initially the police said they had lost the recording and later said they had never made one. In fact, they didn't even have a transcript of the the interrogation just a signed statement in flawless italian. These things "get lost" when the police realize the confession was coerced and won't hold up on appeal once people see the video tape. And are you really asking me why police would manufacture evidence to get a conviction? Like, are you kidding? If you want a motive unique to this case you might read the criticism of the Italian prosecutor. From the wikipedia page:

Mignini is currently under investigation for pursuit of bizarre and lurid psycho-sexual homicide theories in another Italian murder investigation, regarding a serial killer dubbed "The Monster of Florence." Criticism of Mignini's methods, accusations of mental instability and fascination with the occult have dogged him in the media and a senior Florentine minister has gone on the record stating his opinion that Mr Mignini had fallen "prey to a sort of delirium".

Evidence is held back for lots of reasons, doesn't didn't happen. It was on the wikipedia page so I'm taking it as fact.

It doesn't mean it didn't happen. It may have, I'm not convinced of their innocence. But the fact that it is on a contested wikipedia article is a terrible reason to take it as fact. Wikipedia is great for reading about the history of cheddar cheese, less so for answering questions about current, controversial and biasing events. Btw, did you really read the defense's site? Quoting:

Early in the trial, the prosecutor seemed to be aware that the washing machine was a matter of interest to people discussing the case on the Internet, because he made a point of asking several witnesses about it. But nothing of value emerged from these questions. Insiders have known for a long time that the police examined the contents of the washing machine and found nothing incriminating.

Finally:

However I can't invision reasonable argument against DNA evidence, unless there's evidence of a massive police conspiracy.

This was in the main section of the defense's site. Section 2.