= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
brazil84 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)
I'm not sure what your point is. I thought you were claiming that there was essentially no evidence which reasonably supports the hypothesis that somebody staged a burglary or break-in.
Now it seems you admit that there is such evidence but believe it could be explained away.
I don't think there is evidence of a staged break-in. I think there is evidence of a break-in.
Well do you agree that the room's occupant testified that there had been valuable items in plain view, none of which were taken?
I think he was looking for money. It was the 1st of the month and rent was due. Meredith had dated casually a guy downstairs and Rudy had hung out there. Also, I think it is likely he didn't expect to find anyone home and was interrupted when Meredith came home early, for an early night. I don't think he was planning to take objects, though might have if uninterrupted.
Also, Meredith's $300 was missing, and somehow he had the money to ride a train the next day to Germany.
I don't understand what point you are trying to make. There is a difference between saying that evidence can be explained away and saying that the evidence does not exist.
To have evidence of a break-in is different than having evidence of a staged break-in. Since there is evidence of a break-in, but not any that would say it was staged, there is evidence of an invented idea of a staged break-in. I'm not saying that a lack of evidence of something being staged means it wasn't. But going the rules in the post, there is nothing that would indicate it was staged from the evidence itself. That part is fallacious. It exists in the mind of Mignini, not in the evidence.
Does that clarify what I mean?
I'm sayinig he made up the staged part, since the evidence for a staging (rather than a break-in) did not exist in the crime scene. He imposed his ideas on the reality before him. He looked for things to support his idea, and those things were shown to be false or unrelated logically to Amanda.
Not really. For example, the ransacking of a room but the failure to take valuable items in plain view is evidence of a staging. Yes, there are other explanations for this evidence but that does not mean it's not evidence of a staging.
In terms of the rules of the post, it takes a leap to get to the idea of a staging. One has to infer it. Amanda's DNA is not on the glass or the objects, anyway, even in the unlikely event that there was a staging.
"In terms of the rules of the post, it takes a leap to get to the idea of a staging. One has to infer it."
Sorry, but I have no idea what this means. Interpreting evidence is always a matter of inference.
"Interpreting evidence is always a matter of inference."
Without physical evidence of something, how do you, except by imagination, come up with an explanation? Logic of the situation, yes. But this forms a tautology in this case. She broke the window and staged a break-in (though there is no physical evidence that suggests this) because... why? Because... someone wants it to look like she did the crime. My point was that komponisto showed how you have to have a reason in the situation itself to suggest it. This theory of the staged break-in is being used as a reason to suspect Amanda. The reason to suspect Amanda of a staged break-in is that more evidence is needed to implicate her in the crime. To say that "if Amanda staged a break-in, it would implicate her" may be true, but it would also be true of anyone. It could equally be true of the other two roommates, for example. The only thing that made Amanda stand out in this regard is that she was there first and that someone read into her behavior as significant.
This is how it seems to me.
I find this hard to believe, particularly after the multiple explanations given to you. Even if these multiple explanations that leave open technicalities for exploitation by a reader who does not desire comprehension. I get the impression that you are being disingenuous. If not, please reread the grandparent again assuming the sentence "One has to infer it." was removed.
The claim was that there was essentially no evidence which reasonably supports the hypothesis that the burglary was staged.
Ok, so again my question:
"do you agree that one of the bedrooms had clothing and such strewn around it while the owner of the room testified that the room had been left orderly?"
And yes, I am well aware that there are other possible explanations for this evidence besides staging.
This is a relevant question. It is not evidence that I weigh particularly highly given what I know about witness testimonies, particularly those under motivated prompting. But it is evidence.