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

Comment author: kodos96 11 December 2009 05:25:08PM 3 points [-]

She has herself to blame, but not ONLY herself to blame. Lying to police, despite being innocent, is obviously an incredibly stupid thing to do... but not nearly as uncommon as TV and the movies would have you believe. When people are accused of serious crimes, they freak out and do stupid things, like enhance their alibi or come up with stories to explain away anything that looks incriminating, or wildly speculate about alternate theories of the crime. Stupid yes, rare no.

Comment author: lordweiner27 14 December 2009 11:21:49AM 0 points [-]

I agree. I can't comment on how rare or common it is though. But I'm certainly going to be careful not to lie when I inevitably end up in court.

Comment author: lordweiner27 14 December 2009 11:20:01AM 12 points [-]

Having review your evidence and some other evidence that I was pointed in the direction of I have to admit I may have been wrong. Knox and the other guy are probably innocent.

There were a few things that lead me to my original conclusion: -The DNA evidence -Amanda changing her story -My belief that it was ridiculous that the police would go to all this effort to frame them if they were innocent.

The DNA evidence has been refuted, I can't say I understand this but I'm willing to accept there is a lot of doubt there.

Amanda changing her story seems like evidence that she is a liar and seems a ridiculous thing to do if you are a murder suspect. (I still think it was really stupid of her and totally the wrong thing to do.) But at the the time she wasn't more of a witness than a suspect and she possibly believed that this would get her off the hook and out of interrogation.

The third point about the police conspiracy is the most interesting. I have a huge bias against conspiracy theories. As soon as anyone starts to go "Wake up sheeple, you're being controlled." I immediately switch off. The quote you use from me at the beginning of your article is partly a reference to this. Of course you are right juries can be wrong. I just tend to think that the simplest answer is normally the best. That's it's more likely that she is guilty, than that the police dept in Italy have a massive desire to convict and innocent woman.

However on reading more about the case, I discovered that the police had a theory it was Knox, Sollecito and Knox's boss before the evidence about Guede turned up. They announced this to the world. When Guede turned up, which normally would have been the end of the case they stuck with their original theory substituting Guede for Knox's boss.
So their motive for wanting to convict Knox and Sollecito was not a conscious devious one but an unconscious subtle one. The didn't want to be embarrassed and shown to be wrong in the eyes of the world media.

Btw, this is the third time I've been proved to be wrong on the internet this week. Either I'm not a very good rationalist or I just spend to much time on the internet.

Comment author: lordweiner27 11 December 2009 01:04:25PM 0 points [-]

Does anyone else think that if Knox is innocent she only has herself to blame for changing her story so many times and for implicating an innocent man?

Maybe that's harsh of me to say and if she is innocent she obviously doesn't deserve jail but it's kind of hard to feel sorry for her.

Comment author: Jack 10 December 2009 04:18:38AM *  1 point [-]
  1. The statements were obviously coerced and Knox and Sollecito were intoxicated during the period in question, it isn't surprising they have given inconsistent and contradictory stories.The fact that no recording of the interrogations was ever released is incredibly damning.

  2. My understanding from what I saw was that no evidence re: purchasing cleaning products was ever introduced.

  3. Did you read the arguments countering the DNA evidence?

Sollecito's footprint was found in blood in Kercher's room. Don't forget this was behind a locked door!

Was this luminaled or visible? I might have missed this piece of evidence. Also, I wasn't at all convinced there was any clean-up afterward.

Comment author: lordweiner27 10 December 2009 09:51:52AM 0 points [-]
  1. Just because they were intoxicated doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to tell us where they were. I have never been drunk enough in my entire life to not remember what house I slept at. Have you?

The fact that no recording of the interrogations was ever released is incredibly damning.

So because the police were idiots and didn't record the interrogations that means they faked the evidence? What would be the police's motivation for faking the evidence?

My understanding from what I saw was that no evidence re: purchasing cleaning products was ever introduced.

Evidence is held back for lots of reasons, doesn't didn't happen. It was on the wikipedia page so I'm taking it as fact.

  1. No. I'd love a link to them. However I can't invision reasonable argument against DNA evidence, unless there's evidence of a massive police conspiracy.
Comment author: Threads 09 December 2009 07:38:36PM *  0 points [-]

My familiarity with the case is low:

  1. p = 0.40

  2. p = 0.40

  3. p = 0.90

  4. I think we will agree with the general idea that Guede is likely to be guilty while Knox and Sollecito are unlikely to be guilty.

From what I could gather, the physical evidence against Knox and Sollecito is pretty weak and the force of the prosecution's argument is supposed to come from the inconsistencies between Knox's and Sollecito's accounts of the night. While there were more inconsistencies than I would have expected (judging just on the general fallibility of human memory), I felt that Knox's alibi of being exposed to extended interrogation was enough to account for the inconsistencies.

Comment author: lordweiner27 10 December 2009 02:13:06AM -1 points [-]

While there were more inconsistencies than I would have expected (judging just on the general fallibility of human memory), I felt that Knox's alibi of being exposed to extended interrogation was enough to account for the inconsistencies.

I don't. She changed her story at least three times. And I'm sorry but if I was an innocent suspect in a murder trial you'd have to rape me up the arse with a barb wire dildo to get me to change my story from the truth.

Comment author: mattnewport 09 December 2009 07:45:06PM 4 points [-]

I don't mean to single you out particularly but your probabilities show a pattern common to several other commenters that I find surprising. What is your prior probability that a rape-murder would be committed by three people, a man and a woman who had been dating for a couple of weeks and a third man who was a stranger to both of them, rather than by a single man acting alone?

My prior probability for three people acting together like this would be extremely low. The fact that Knox and Sollecito had only been dating for a couple of weeks doesn't seem to be in dispute, nor does the fact that they did not previously associate with Guede. I'm surprised that people don't revise down their probability of Knox and Sollecito being guilty significantly if they believe Guede is guilty.

Comment author: lordweiner27 10 December 2009 02:10:51AM 0 points [-]

The wikipedia article states that Guede was known to the couple and to the others in their house.

Comment author: mattnewport 10 December 2009 01:01:24AM *  4 points [-]

I had a quick look for some statistics to verify my priors that both female on female murder and multiple offender murder are unusual. These data seem relevant: gender; multiple offenders. These appear to back up my intuition that finding a very likely male suspect (Guede) should have greatly reduced the prosecution's odds for the guilt of a female suspect (Knox) in a multiple offender attack. A plausible case for a male offender committing the crime alone should greatly lower the probability of guilt of a female suspect acting either alone or as an accomplice.

Comment author: lordweiner27 10 December 2009 02:08:17AM *  1 point [-]

Sure this type of murder is rare, otherwise it wouldn't have made the news. That's not evidence the other two aren't guilty. Not when we have her hand on the knife and his foot in her blood.

Comment author: lordweiner27 10 December 2009 02:04:32AM *  2 points [-]

Amanda Knox being Guilty: 90%

Raffaele Sollecito being Guilty 90%

Rudy Guede being guilty: 90%

I hope you agree with me because no one else in the comments seem too. I'm gonna give the probability of you agreeing with me 75% based on my own arrogance and belief that I'm right and based and little else really.

Most people seem to believe Rudy Guede is guilty so lets skip that and look at the other two. They've changed their stories and have been proven to have lied quite a few times. For example Rudy at one point said he was at home surfing the internet but his alibi is not substantiated by records of his internet service provider.
Amanda at one point said she was round Rudy's house till 10am (later changing her story) but according to a witness she was at the store as soon as it opened to buy cleaning products.

That alone is some strong evidence that they are both guilty.

If they were innocent there would be no need to lie.

Probably the most damning piece of evidence is this:

When Sollecito's home was searched, a knife was found in a kitchen drawer that contained small traces of Kercher's DNA on the blade, and Knox's on the handle.

There really is no other explanation for that. Unless she was round Sollecito's home at some earlier date and cut herself on his knife.

Here's another nail in the coffin:

Sollecito's footprint was found in blood in Kercher's room.
Don't forget this was behind a locked door!

Add all that evidence to the cleaning up afterwards, the body being covered, the rape fantasies Knox had, Sollecito's DNA on her bra etc. etc. All three of them clearly killed her. The jury clearly believed so as well which strengthens my argument. They spent months examining the case, so the idea that a few minutes of internet research makes you certain they're wrong seems laughable.