= 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)
"Please see the response from RNO (for a start)."
I don't see anything in RNO's response which would offer an explanation for your claim. On the contrary, it appears that RNO simply misunderstood my point and I explained myself a bit further.
Ah, i think i see the problem here.
You say that a weak prosecution does not equal an innocent defendant. I think we can all agree on that.
You say that there are other explanations for the evidence. Sounds reasonable enough; after all, even if we're sure of something, we're not absolutely sure, not 100% sure.
Back in the first "you be the jury" thread, there was a general agreement that Guede was guilty and Knox was innocent. For Knox, as i recall, there were various estimates from 10% to 30% chance of guilt, thus a judgment of "probably innocent / not likely enough to convict". So, i think it's not that nobody is considering any other explanation, rather, they're convinced that this one explanation is correct.
Saying, "there might be another explanation" is a good idea as a general point, but that doesn't mean that another explanation is particularly likely. You keep saying "there are other possibilities" but the problem is: what other scenario are you suggesting, and why should we believe it?
I'm not suggesting any particular scenario. There simply isn't enough evidence to make a good guess at what happened in the hour or two leading up to Kircher's death.
It's a bit like the Annie Le case in New Haven. It's reasonably clear who the killer was, but it's not clear why he did it.
In any murder case, there is a lot of pressure on the prosecutor to put together a scenario as to how and why the killing happened. And usually it's not too hard to do. i.e. to paint the defendant as a jealous ex-husband; a robber; a competing drug dealer; etc.
But I'm not the prosecutor so there's no need for me to put together any scenario. I'm reasonably confident that Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder, but I do not know what their role was or why they did it.