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

NancyLebovitz comments on Open Thread June 2010, Part 2 - Less Wrong

7 Post author: komponisto 07 June 2010 08:37AM

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

Comments (534)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 10 June 2010 04:28:08PM 7 points [-]
Comment author: komponisto 11 June 2010 04:20:20AM *  4 points [-]

Seconding kodos96. As this would exonerate not only Knox and Sollecito but Guede as well, it has to be treated with considerable skepticism, to say the least.

More significant, it seems to me (though still rather weak evidence), is the Alessi testimony, about which I actually considered posting on the March open thread.

Still, the Aviello story is enough of a surprise to marginally lower my probability of Guede's guilt. My current probabilities of guilt are:

Knox: < 0.1 % (i.e. not a chance)

Sollecito: < 0.1 % (likewise)

Guede: 95-99% (perhaps just low enough to insist on a debunking of the Aviello testimony before convicting)

It's probably about time I officially announced that my revision of my initial estimates for Knox and Sollecito was a mistake, an example of the sin of underconfidence.

I of course remain willing to participate in a debate with Rolf Nelson on this subject.

Finally, I'd like to note that the last couple of months have seen the creation of a wonderful new site devoted to the case, Injustice in Perugia, which anyone interested should definitely check out. Had it been around in December, I doubt that I could have made my survey seem like a fair fight between the two sides.

Comment author: kodos96 11 June 2010 07:21:12PM 1 point [-]

More significant, it seems to me (though still rather weak evidence), is the Alessi testimony, about which I actually considered posting on the March open thread. Still, the story is enough of a surprise to marginally lower my probability of Guede's guilt.

I hadn't heard about this - I just read your link though, and maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how it lowers the probability of Guede's guilt. He (supposedly) confessed to having been at the crimescene, and that Knox and Sollecito weren't there. How does that, if true, exonerate Guede?

Comment author: komponisto 11 June 2010 09:57:04PM *  2 points [-]

You omitted a crucial paragraph break. :-)

The Aviello testimony would exonerate Guede (and hence is unlikely to be true); the Alessi testimony is essentially consistent with everything else we know, and isn't particularly surprising at all.

I've edited the comment to clarify.

Comment author: kodos96 12 June 2010 07:04:47AM 0 points [-]

Ahhhh... ok I see where the misunderstanding was now.

Comment author: RobinZ 10 June 2010 05:39:15PM 2 points [-]

That story would be consistent with Guédé's, modulo the usual eyewitness confusion.

Comment author: kodos96 10 June 2010 07:06:10PM *  4 points [-]

And modulo all the forensic evidence.

Obviously this is breaking news and it's too soon to draw a conclusion, but at first blush this sounds like just another attention seeker, like those who always pop up in these high profile cases. If he really can produce a knife, and it matches the wounds, then maybe I'll reconsider, but at the moment my BS detector is pegged.

Of course, it's still orders of magnitude more likely than Knox and Sollecito being guilty.

Comment author: RobinZ 10 June 2010 07:08:28PM 0 points [-]

I wasn't following the case even when komponisto posted his analyses, so I really can't say.