After spending more time reading on the subject (damn you lw for sucking up so much of my time! :), I'm revising my numbers, in the direction of greater certainty:

1. 0.01
2. 0.01
3. 0.99
4. 0.9

My reasons? Many small things... probably the biggest being: why didn't knox implicate guede??? If all 3 were there at the crime scene, then she knew that there was a third person involved, someone who:

• didn't have an alibi
• had left gratuitous amounts of forensic evidence
• was a generally disreputable character
• was black (playing on prejudice)
• she didn't know well enough to care about protecting

So if under interrogation you're being pressured to point the finger at someone, wouldn't he be the obvious choice, rather than someone picked at random from your phone book?

And why didn't guede implicate knox/sollecito? When multiple parties conspire to commit a crime, I would strongly suspect that the most common behaviour under interrogation would be to point fingers at each other, not at random 3rd/4th parties.... that is, if the "co-conspirators" are actually aware of each others existence.

As for my revising upwards guede's guilt, that's due to the bloody handprint - guede's handprint, in the victim's blood.... that's about as unimpeachable as forensic evidence gets, as it proves not just that he was at the crime scene at some point in time, not just that he had sex with the victim at some point in time, but that the victim was bleeding profusely while in his presence. That seems more solid than a signed confession to me.

As to my original question to bgrah449... well, its a shame he's not replying... my best guess is that he was confusing guede and lumumba - thats the only thing I can come up with that would make those numbers make sense.