= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
pete22 comments on The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom - 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 (632)
You're right, this is the part I have trouble understanding. Partly because I have trouble separating the facts of this particular case from the theoretical point you're making. So if you'll humor me for a second: let's say you're the chief of police somewhere, and one of your detectives comes back from a murder scene and tells you "we've arrested a prime suspect and we've got very strong evidence against him, including an ironclad DNA match that ties him to the murder. but we don't think he acted alone, because of X, so we want to keep looking for another suspect."
It sounds like for almost any X, your response would be "Don't waste your time. Case closed. Your hypothesis that there was another killer is unnecessary to explain the victim's death." Is that correct? What kind of X would suffice for you to let your detectives keep investigating?
Two examples that come to mind immediately:
-Similarly incriminating DNA from someone else in addition to the prime suspect.
-Information acquired from the prime suspect himself that points to accomplices.
Maybe. But remember that reality is consistent: If two people were at the scene committing the crime, why would there be vastly more evidence of one than the other?
Once you have the suspect, you can interrogate him to find out who he knows.