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

Dreaded_Anomaly 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: Dreaded_Anomaly 03 October 2011 08:13:22PM 17 points [-]

Amanda Knox acquitted.

Justice is finally served.

Comment author: MarkusRamikin 05 October 2011 07:15:20AM *  4 points [-]

That took a while.

BTW, it just struck me, why do we tend to talk about Amanda Knox and fail to mention Rafaelle Sollecito?

Comment author: Desrtopa 05 October 2011 10:57:42PM 7 points [-]

Amanda Knox is American, so she gets more attention from American news media.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 05 October 2011 11:37:23PM 1 point [-]

And a white female. Don't forget that part.

Comment author: MarkusRamikin 06 October 2011 05:56:40AM 4 points [-]

And easier to type out.

Comment author: wedrifid 05 October 2011 08:15:16AM 3 points [-]

Mostly because she is more attractive.

Comment author: APMason 03 October 2011 08:20:05PM 9 points [-]

Or at least injustice has stopped being served.

Comment author: private_messaging 31 January 2014 09:58:40AM *  3 points [-]

Overturned, though.

With regards to "bayesian" analysis in question, as dilaudid said, the fact that a body was found makes for a fairly high probability that one out of a fairly small number of people connected to the victim has committed or participated in the murder. Even more so for a staged break-in.

The reason why we shouldn't imprison people based on things such as apparently weird behaviour has little to do with it's impact on probability, and everything to do with the potential for the abuses that a subjective criterion would create, as well as discrimination against "weird people" such as borderline autistic. We have to think what is going to happen on the bigger scale if we start using "weirdness" as evidence in the court.

The issue in this case is that the narrative presented by the police seems incredibly improbable even given all the facts, and there are far more probable narratives where she committed a lesser crime (such as being an accessory after the act). People who would commit murder are much rarer than people who may act as an accessory.

Comment author: gwern 03 October 2011 09:48:23PM *  2 points [-]

Thanks for the link; I've updated both predictions on PB.com.