3 ms·
>> The point of the post on lesswrong.com is that since it's agreed that Guede murdered the victim, you have completely explained away the murder. So now you mu
by heyitsnick 17y ago
>> The point of the post on lesswrong.com is that since it's agreed that Guede murdered the victim, you have completely explained away the murder. So now you must start over, from scratch, as if the victim were still alive, and ask how likely it is that Knox and Sollecito killed somebody based on the other evidence:
To me, I think this first line should read ".. since it's agreed that Guede was found guilty for his involvement in a murder that, due to extensive crime scene analysis, was clearly committed by multiple assailants". So I'm not sure why we must "start over, from scratch, as if the victim were still alive".
Furthermore, keep in mind that the evidence includes an initial written statement from Knox that implicates her in the murder.
- herdrick 17y agoYou're right, if the crime was clearly committed by multiple assailants you need to find another killer. But the OP throws out the evidence that indicates multiple assailants. False written statements are often signed in police stations.
- heyitsnick 17y agoCould you quote the parts of the article that "throws out the evidence that indicates multiple assailants"? Specifically parts of the article that discredit the body of evidence from the Judge's report (http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/understanding_micheli_2_why_judge_micheli_rejected_the_lone_wolf_theory/ http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/under...) that supports a multiple-assailant theory?
- herdrick 17y agoHe appears to ignore such evidence, assuming it exists. I don't know much about the case; I'm interested in the OP's model of thinking about cases.