Hmmm. So using this model, what would the OP say if there were Knox DNA under the victim's fingernails? If her roommate weren't a murder victim (more precisel

Hmmm. So using this model, what would the OP say if there were Knox DNA under the victim's fingernails? If her roommate weren't a murder victim (more precisely, that we don't have any reason to think that there's been a murder, since that's what we're imagining to keep ourselves honest) these things aren't even suggestive of murder. Here's another question: what a friend of the victim had testified that the victim had called sometime around the believed time of death and choked out, "Guede and Knox did it!"? If we're imagining that we don't know if there is a murder, then someone doing that isn't all that damnning, since hey, "it" could be any silly little thing? Yet it sounds pretty bad. Aha! Guede's name there associates something he did with Knox and it's agreed that he only did one thing of note in her apartment that day. OK, can we make a fact that would be more entangled? Yes: what if she said in that dying phone call, "Knox killed me"? Then aren't we saying that we only add the additional evidence of a roommate who isn't thought to be dead uttering that sentence? People say things like that all the time using "killed" as a metaphor for all sorts of innocent things. Yet it seems pretty damning. Can we really untangle the murder from the other evidence? I mean, the probability that the victim would at that moment use the word "killed" to mean something other than "stuck a knife in my throat" seems really low. And I think there is some similar entanglement with the other facts I've mentioned, too. The fact of the murder seems to make this technique faulty.