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

Unknowns comments on The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom - Less Wrong

42 Post author: komponisto 13 December 2009 04:16AM

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

Comments (632)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Unknowns 13 December 2009 07:43:26AM 12 points [-]

You're even more overconfident than Eliezer. Even he didn't say that the probability of guilt should be less than 10%.

Also, you ignored the evidence of the scene being rearranged. As far as I can tell, there was substantial evidence of this, and substantial evidence of it being by someone other than RG. This implies substantial evidence that someone else was involved. Even if this doesn't necessarily imply AK is guilty, it definitely implies a probability higher than the original prior (which itself would be much, much higher than the probability you assign of 1 in a 100,000, given the proximity of the persons).

Basically, you are overconfident if you assign less than 10% chance of guilt. And the fact that your opinion is much more extreme than anyone else's doesn't show that you are more rational, but is very strong Bayesian evidence of overconfidence bias on your part, since it is well known that humans are naturally overconfident, not underconfident.

Comment author: brazil84 13 December 2009 02:11:14PM 2 points [-]

"Also, you ignored the evidence of the scene being rearranged. As far as I can tell, there was substantial evidence of this, and substantial evidence of it being by someone other than RG."

I agree. And also substantial evidence that someone was trying to make it look as though the crime was done by an outsider.

Comment author: magfrump 13 December 2009 08:57:56AM 2 points [-]

The Friends of Amanda site clearly stated that there was no evidence of cleanup and that "cleanup" had only been referenced in passing in the trial, and the prosecution did not pursue the point.

That is, there is not "substantial evidence" of the scene being rearranged, I'm not sure where you're getting that.

Comment author: Unknowns 13 December 2009 10:24:43AM 2 points [-]

Yes, it made that claim, but as far as I can see it was wrong. Among other things, the bloodstains on her bra and her body indicated that her bra was removed some time after her death. Even by itself, this implies someone rearranging things. Likewise, luminaled footprints, whether or not they were Amanda's and Sollecito's as claimed, proves that someone cleaned something.

Comment author: McJustice 02 January 2010 11:41:36PM 4 points [-]

Those who say Guede left quickly and therefore was not around to remove the bra, shift the body later and place the cover over her after the blood was dried... forget that she was killed resisting rape and he very likely stayed to complete what he started.

Rudy had plenty of time before he was seen at 2AM in the Disco to first clean up the mess that would have been in the way for what he did next (and by that I mean not only blood but the results of relaxed bowels and urethra) cut off her bra and lay her on her back adjusting where she lay so that he could enjoy what he set out to do originally. That is have sex with her... and he used condoms. And then still time to clean himself up, swab the obvious signs in the bathroom, throw the cover on her and lock the door.

The patrons at the disco who saw him dancing between 2 and 4 AM said he stank very badly....

Comment author: kodos96 14 December 2009 06:00:01PM 4 points [-]

"luminaled footprints, whether or not they were Amanda's and Sollecito's as claimed, proves that someone cleaned something"

No it doen't. Luminal doesn't reveal blood EXCLUSIVELY. I read somewhere, sorry, can't remember where, that it can also light up things like just sweaty/dirty footprints, no blood necessary.

Comment author: rmattbill 15 December 2009 07:27:15AM 7 points [-]

You're absolutely correct. Not only that, but the Luminol footprints specifically tested NEGATIVE for the presence of blood. Every single one of them.

Comment author: pataz1 16 December 2009 11:51:19PM -1 points [-]

"If Luminol is used it can destroy important properties of the blood. While it can detect even small amounts of blood, the disadvantage is often that the small amount identified is diluted further by the Luminol solution. For these reasons, Luminol is encouraged to be used as a last resort in crime scene investigations to protect the physical evidence."

Read more at Suite101: Luminol - Chemiluminescent Blood Detector: Forensic Investigators' Essential Tool for Crime Scene Investigation | Suite101.com http://crime-scene-processing.suite101.com/article.cfm/chemiluminescent_luminol#ixzz0Ztn6XLRc

Comment author: Jack 17 December 2009 07:57:13AM *  5 points [-]

I Luminoled your bathroom. There were bloody footprints everywhere! Yeah, I didn't find any actual blood, but like you said Luminol can dilute blood.

Who did you kill in your bathroom Pat? How could you do such a thing?! You monster!