= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
komponisto 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)
I attempted the test with zero familiarity with the case at hand. I also have very little knowledge of the Italian justice system.
One major problem in presenting a probability assessement is that the links presented in the post offer pratically no facts about the case. They are about a Washington Senator's reaction, instead. It would be ludicrous to answer the questions asked given only this information.
So, I went googling around for more information. I promptly hit a snag in that I do not what a fast-track trial is in the context of Italy, and searching for information on that is made very difficult since the search returns articles on the Kercher case.
Attempting to filter out all the extra fluff about the characters involved, the facts of the case, most especially the DNA, seems to point to Guede. There is no hard evidence supporting Knox's guilt, and Sollecito's DNA on the victim's bra is not suprising given their relationship.
Unless the links I read (mostly obtained via Wikipedia) managed to omit something important, I'd say the following:
Knox guilty: less than 0.1 Sollecito: 0.1 to 0.15 Guede: 0.9
You must have only looked at the front pages of the two sites. You have to browse around somewhat to find the information.
I suggest starting here on Friends of Amanda, and here on True Justice.
You should have sent the readers directly to that information, then. LW has thousands of readers, so putting in 10X work yourself to save thousands of readers X time is generally a good idea.
Well, as I said, the information is not all in one place (particularly on TJ; FoA is better organized), and I was worried about biasing readers via my selection of the first page to read. (In fact, as I indicated in the post, I was even somewhat worried about biasing readers via my selection of the sites themselves.)
Most of the commenters seem not to have had problems. For the few that did, I don't mind giving a little more direction to them individually.