komponisto comments on Amanda Knox: post mortem - Less Wrong

23 Post author: gwern 20 October 2011 04:10PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (483)

Comments (483)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: komponisto 21 October 2011 03:35:35PM * 9 points [-]

Exactly what DNA evidence do you believe exonerates them?

The DNA evidence showing that Guede was the killer.

This is exactly the sort of thing that gets people exonerated under the Innocence Project. The only difference is, in most cases, the authorities don't usually go back to the scene desperately looking for new evidence to incriminate the original suspect.

Comment author: brazil84 comment score below threshold [+] (7 children)

Comment author: komponisto 23 October 2011 11:32:41AM * 1 point [-]

Wait, what? You're saying that the case against Guede is even stronger than I implied, and yet you're disagreeing with me?

The evidence against Guede -- of whatever type -- is what exonerates Knox and Sollecito. The more evidence against him, the more exonerated they are.

If, years later, DNA and fingerprints were found from someone other than the person convicted, that would make it even more likely for the conviction to be overturned.

Comment author: brazil84 23 October 2011 11:42:16AM * 0 points [-]

The evidence against Guede -- of whatever type -- is what exonerates Knox and Sollecito.

Only if you substantially rule out the possibility that all 3 were involved in the murder.

ETA: Besides, the claim on the table seems to be that if you look at the case without DNA evidence; and then ADD DNA evidence, it would substantially reduce, basically to zero, the assessed chances that Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder. Agreed?

Comment author: komponisto 23 October 2011 11:53:29AM 1 point [-]

Only if you substantially rule out the possibility that all 3 were involved in the murder.

Why should we privilege that hypothesis?

ETA: Besides, the claim on the table seems to be that if you look at the case without DNA evidence; and then ADD DNA evidence, it would substantially reduce, basically to zero, the assessed chances that Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder. Agreed?

No. Or at any rate, that's not an interesting claim, so I don't see why it should be on the table.

Comment author: brazil84 23 October 2011 12:11:14PM * 0 points [-]

Why should we privilege that hypothesis?

So you are saying that there are only two choices: (1) privileging the hypothesis; and (2) substantially ruling it out?

No. Or at any rate, that's not an interesting claim,

If it's not interesting to you, then probably you should not have tried to answer my question. Here is the claim which was made:

Had this case occurred before DNA testing was available, Knox and Sollecito would most likely have been convicted, but a DNA test should have been sufficient to exonerate them.

I asked this:

Exactly what DNA evidence do you believe exonerates them?

And you said this:

The DNA evidence showing that Guede was the killer.

Since Guede's fingerprints were (apparently) found at the scene, extra DNA evidence which confirms his presence at the scene should not have much of an effect on anyone's assessments of the likelihood of any conclusion.

Comment author: komponisto 23 October 2011 12:52:57PM * 3 points [-]

So you are saying that there are only two choices: (1) privileging the hypothesis; and (2) substantially ruling it out?

In a word: yes.

The hypothesis in question has low prior probability, and hence is "substantially ruled out" by default, unless there is strong evidence pointing to it. In this case, there isn't; people who think there is are, almost invariably, anchoring on the probability that they assigned (or that the investigators assigned) to Knox and Sollecito's guilt before Guede was discovered.

If it's not interesting to you, then probably you should not have tried to answer my question.

On the contrary, I inferred from your question (correctly) that you didn't understand the point about the evidence against Guede exonerating Knox and Sollecito.

Here is the claim which was made:

Had this case occurred before DNA testing was available, Knox and Sollecito would most likely have been convicted, but a DNA test should have been sufficient to exonerate them.

[...]

Since Guede's fingerprints were (apparently) found at the scene, extra DNA evidence which confirms his presence at the scene should not have much of an effect on anyone's assessments of the likelihood of any conclusion.

Most likely, the person who made the above claim simply wasn't aware of the fingerprint evidence (or, possibly, the difference between fingerprint evidence and DNA evidence). By the principle of charity, that shouldn't have stopped you from understanding and addressing their real point, which was that Knox and Sollecito should have been dropped as suspects as soon as the physical evidence turned out to implicate Guede and not them.

Comment author: Desrtopa 23 October 2011 02:38:51PM * 2 points [-]

Most likely, the person who made the above claim simply wasn't aware of the fingerprint evidence (or, possibly, the difference between fingerprint evidence and DNA evidence).

I had, in fact, forgotten about the fingerprint evidence, but I stand by my claim that Knox and Sollecito would probably have been convicted prior to DNA testing, given that even with DNA testing they were only released on appeal, and with DNA testing we have a much higher burden of expectation of evidence to meet. To say that they probably would have been convicted does not and was not intended to mean that they should have been convicted given the state of evidence that would have been available in that case.

Comment author: brazil84 23 October 2011 06:13:41PM -2 points [-]

The hypothesis in question has low prior probability,

Prior to what? Prior to finding the evidence against Guede or prior to considering any evidence at all?

I inferred from your question (correctly) that you didn't understand the point about the evidence against Guede exonerating Knox and Sollecito.

I do understand the point, I simply happen to disagree with you at the moment. Anyway, if you want to address a different issue from the one under discussion, it would be helpful if you made it clear from the beginning.

By the principle of charity, that shouldn't have stopped you from understanding and addressing their real point, which was that Knox and Sollecito should have been dropped as suspects as soon as the physical evidence turned out to implicate Guede and not them.

I think that's too much of a leap. Charity must be balanced with the principle that it's often a mistake to try to put words in peoples' mouths.

komponisto comments on Amanda Knox: post mortem - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (483)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (483)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login