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

Jack 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 08:54:17PM 1 point [-]

FYI, I've updated in your direction since my first response. Those phone call lengths are driving me nuts.

Part of the suspicious behavior was that Knox didn't flush the toilet (where Guede had used it) the morning she returned. Also, Knox and Sollectio's 'bloody' foot prints had to be luminaled when right next to them were Guede's visible foot prints. And over all, the shear amount of physical evidence against Guede compared to the near total lack of physical evidence against the other two suggests that if there was a clean up they really cared not at all about Guede getting caught. Which is believable, but they did too good of a job. They're intoxicated the night of, come back a few hours later and can distinguish all of their prints from all of Guede's? And they didn't think he had left enough physical evidence (on the victim) that they thought they should leave the toilet unflushed? They appear to have done a really good job cleaning up and a really bad job getting their story straight- which seems inconsistent to me.

Though come to think of it I'm not really sure why the toilet wasn't flushed at all. If Guede used the bathroom before joining Knox and Sallecito killing Kercher, why wouldn't he flush it? Hearing the screaming is actually a plausible explanation for this. Not flushing would make sense if Guede was trying to provide evidence for the story he was planning on telling but that seems way to smart for him. I also don't know why that would be his planned explanation if he was working with Knox and Sallecito.

Part of the problem is that the details of what happened in the room were never released in English (and that might be a good thing) so there may be good reason to think the evidence indicated three people were involved, etc.

Comment author: Psychohistorian 13 December 2009 06:17:49AM 1 point [-]

there may be good reason to think the evidence indicated three people were involved, etc.

This seems to be a major focus of the pro-guilt site, though it isn't really backed up at any level of detail. Were it true, it would increase the probability that K and S were involved, but still far short of beyond a reasonable doubt, I would think.