Psychohistorian 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. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Jack 10 December 2009 04:09:21AM 1 point [-]

The cell phone evidence and the changing stories are what gives me reason to a probability of guilty to S and K above .05. (See my comment for my probabilities). The effect of this evidence was mitigated for me by:

  1. Their likely intoxication during this period.
  2. Police coercion leading to confusion about the events.
  3. It looks like a lot of what the pro-guilty site claims ended up being unproven rumors not produced in trial, this makes it very unclear to me what story S and K actually ended up giving in trial. Since the site exaggerates other claims their claims about the cell phones and the stories can't be fully trusted.

You weren't troubled by the lack of motive and the fact that after covering up her involvement in a crime but intentionally leaving evidence of Guede's presence Knox went on to point the finger at someone who couldn't have been involved after being coerced by the police? Shoot, I can't figure out why Knox, if she was guilty, wouldn't have just stayed at Sollecito's until someone else discovered the body.

Comment author: Psychohistorian 10 December 2009 06:31:04PM *  5 points [-]

What I can't understand is, if all three were in it together, given the evidence against Guede, why he didn't rat out the other two in exchange for a reduced sentence. I'd be amazed if the Italian legal system doesn't cut such deals, and I'd be amazed if the prosecutors didn't try to get him to rat out the other two. If they were actually involved, the odds that he'd turn on them in that situation seem well over .9.