Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

yeah, it was because she turned her phone off because normally she didn't do that.
or that she acted strangely or that she had sex on a train or that she had hung up after 4 seconds of ringing...both of which didn't happen.

I always found their rational for guilt to be lacking. Mired in obtuse logic. They were always arguing why Amanda did this? Or something else? Or extremely rarely, when they managed to switch to Raffaele for something he did. But their issues were ALWAYS insignificant and actually didnt indicate guilty behavior and we're oftentimes false.

What I really never understood was the overwhelming hatred they felt toward Knox that they never had for Raffaele or the very guilty Rudy.

It was the lamp which sealed guilt as far as I am concerned......

 

[anglolawyer]

Don't forget the bleach receipts.

 

[Bill Williams]

Actually, we should look at photos..... you can tell a lot by looking into their eyes in a photo.

 

[NancyS]

It was eating pizza in Donald duck pants that convinced me :evilpizza:

 

[komponisto]

By the way, komponisto, aside from your normal fame, you have additional fame having been included by David Balding in the reference section of his paper, noted as the translator of the CandV report. Not sure if you know this.

Well, that's great (and even more so given that the very next citation is I.J. Good, discussing Alan Turing...my Less-Wrong-heritage-side is going crazy with excitement...), except that...

...I wasn't the only translator! The C-V translation is clearly described on the welcome page as joint work:

Two translators worked on this project: komponisto (pages 1-30 and 106-145) and katy_did (pages 31-105).

EDIT: And if anyone is curious about what that division of labor corresponds to: my portions were on C&V's attempted retests, and the bra clasp; to katy_did, meanwhile, goes the credit for the notes on proper forensic practices and the knife section.

 

[LondonJohn]

yeah, it was because she turned her phone off because normally she didn't do that.
or that she acted strangely or that she had sex on a train or that she had hung up after 4 seconds of ringing...both of which didn't happen.

I always found their rational for guilt to be lacking. Mired in obtuse logic. They were always arguing why Amanda did this? Or something else? Or extremely rarely, when they managed to switch to Raffaele for something he did. But their issues were ALWAYS insignificant and actually didnt indicate guilty behavior and we're oftentimes false.

What I really never understood was the overwhelming hatred they felt toward Knox that they never had for Raffaele or the very guilty Rudy.

I think they didn't hate Guede because he was quickly (and relatively efficiently) locked up - so they didn't have anything to push against in that respect with him. In addition, I think many pro-guilt commentators rationalised that Guede had sort of in a way "manned up" to his involvement (even though in reality he did absolutely nothing of the sort - he merely tried to invent a story to minimise his guilt which still fit all the solid evidence against him).

I think they didn't focus on Sollecito so much because a) his story and photos were featured in the non-Italian media only a tiny fraction relative to stories and photos about Knox; b) he almost exclusively communicated in Italian, which added an extra barrier to many pro-guilt commentators; c) maybe because of (a) and (b), Sollecito didn't appear to them to be "flaunting his freedom" to anywhere near the same degree as Knox.

And I think they directed most of their anger, bitterness and vitriol at Knox because of all of the above. And in addition, it was easy for them to pigeonhole Knox in the "mean girls" category - that was something that was culturally familiar to many of them: the entitled, spoiled, reasonably-attractive brat who is a bully and a manipulator, and who is always dodging responsibility for her actions.

And lastly, I strongly suspect that for many pro-guilt commentators, Knox formed a strong figure for the projection of their own inadequacies, rages against the system, feelings of disenfranchisement and lack of control, and even unresolved traumatic episodes in their own lives.

I think (genuinely) that sociologists and psychologists (and probably also psychiatrists) would gain some real insight from studying the pro-guilt community in this case.

 

[LondonJohn]

Don't forget the bleach receipts.

Maybe Michael will publish them, now that the circus has finally left town.........

 

[lonepinealex]

I think they didn't hate Guede because he was quickly (and relatively efficiently) locked up - so they didn't have anything to push against in that respect with him. In addition, I think many pro-guilt commentators rationalised that Guede had sort of in a way "manned up" to his involvement (even though in reality he did absolutely nothing of the sort - he merely tried to invent a story to minimise his guilt which still fit all the solid evidence against him).

I think they didn't focus on Sollecito so much because a) his story and photos were featured in the non-Italian media only a tiny fraction relative to stories and photos about Knox; b) he almost exclusively communicated in Italian, which added an extra barrier to many pro-guilt commentators; c) maybe because of (a) and (b), Sollecito didn't appear to them to be "flaunting his freedom" to anywhere near the same degree as Knox.

And I think they directed most of their anger, bitterness and vitriol at Knox because of all of the above. And in addition, it was easy for them to pigeonhole Knox in the "mean girls" category - that was something that was culturally familiar to many of them: the entitled, spoiled, reasonably-attractive brat who is a bully and a manipulator, and who is always dodging responsibility for her actions.

And lastly, I strongly suspect that for many pro-guilt commentators, Knox formed a strong figure for the projection of their own inadequacies, rages against the system, feelings of disenfranchisement and lack of control, and even unresolved traumatic episodes in their own lives.

I think (genuinely) that sociologists and psychologists (and probably also psychiatrists) would gain some real insight from studying the pro-guilt community in this case.

And don't forget good old misogyny. Nothing fires the imagination quite like a female killer.

 

[Desert Fox]

And don't forget good old misogyny. Nothing fires the imagination quite like a female killer.

I have commented about this elsewhere
A woman will murder a partner who has a history of abusing her - often she get life imprison and the state make seek the death penalty.
A man will murder his partner for nagging him - he might get manslaughter and 10 years in jail.

 

[lonepinealex]

I have commented about this elsewhere
A woman will murder a partner who has a history of abusing her - often she get life imprison and the state make seek the death penalty.
A man will murder his partner for nagging him - he might get manslaughter and 10 years in jail.

Yes, this sort of thing is down to cultural constructs of gender roles. Women are expected to be nurturing peace makers, not warriors like men! So if women commit murder it must therefore be worse than when men do, because they have further to fall. They must be possessed by Satan.

 

[acbytesla]

I think they didn't hate Guede because he was quickly (and relatively efficiently) locked up - so they didn't have anything to push against in that respect with him. In addition, I think many pro-guilt commentators rationalised that Guede had sort of in a way "manned up" to his involvement (even though in reality he did absolutely nothing of the sort - he merely tried to invent a story to minimise his guilt which still fit all the solid evidence against him).

I think they didn't focus on Sollecito so much because a) his story and photos were featured in the non-Italian media only a tiny fraction relative to stories and photos about Knox; b) he almost exclusively communicated in Italian, which added an extra barrier to many pro-guilt commentators; c) maybe because of (a) and (b), Sollecito didn't appear to them to be "flaunting his freedom" to anywhere near the same degree as Knox.

And I think they directed most of their anger, bitterness and vitriol at Knox because of all of the above. And in addition, it was easy for them to pigeonhole Knox in the "mean girls" category - that was something that was culturally familiar to many of them: the entitled, spoiled, reasonably-attractive brat who is a bully and a manipulator, and who is always dodging responsibility for her actions.

And lastly, I strongly suspect that for many pro-guilt commentators, Knox formed a strong figure for the projection of their own inadequacies, rages against the system, feelings of disenfranchisement and lack of control, and even unresolved traumatic episodes in their own lives.

I think (genuinely) that sociologists and psychologists (and probably also psychiatrists) would gain some real insight from studying the pro-guilt community in this case.

I think it was deeper than that and really demonstrates the sexism and misogyny that permeates Italy, the UK and the US. How do we ignore the actions of 2 adult men, both of which are older than Amanda, both of whom had much less a connection to Meredith? Even if Amanda had some deep hatred toward Meredith, what kind of guy would say, "sure, I'll kill her for you"?

Personally, I can't imagine 2 men being so easily manipulated. It's also really offensive to men. Doing absolutely anything for a woman...and in Rudy's case a stranger.

 

[LondonJohn]

Wow. "Thoughtful" has just given an excellent demonstration of why maths can have massive shortcomings in the real world of assessing guilt. I urge everyone to read her example.

To summarise, she's imagining a man accused of murdering a woman. At this point (although she's coy about clarifying this), there might as well be zero evidence pointing to the man. And she posits that the imaginary jurors will have formed their own probabilities of the guilt of the man (which logically could range from 0% to 100%).

Now she imagines a single new piece of evidence emerging. A bloody handprint, which clearly was made by the killer. She imagines that this print matches 1 in 100 of the population, including the accused man.

She then uses Bayesian maths to show that this single piece of evidence should (by sheer statistical calculations alone....) serve to raise every juror's assessment of the probability of the guilt of the man to something not far off certainty: someone who previously adjudged the probability of guilt at 10% "should" now judge it at 91%!! Someone who had previously judged guilt at 50% "should" now judge guilt at 99%!!

If ever a single post served to illustrate the massive shortcomings of pure Bayesian reasoning in this sort of real-word situation, it's this post of "Thoughtful's". It takes no account whatsoever of many crucial factors that also go into the real-world assessment of guilt. What about the potential for the absence of evidence that "should" be there if this man is the real killer? What about population spreads? After all, if the murder happened on a tiny remote island of 50 inhabitants, this would affect the value of the handprint evidence dramatically compared with the murder happening in a city of 5 million inhabitants. And what about the sheer basic stupidity of the mathematical outcomes here in a real-world assessment? Really? One single item of evidence that is shared by 1 in every 100 people, including the accused man, can serve - all on its own - to raise an assessed probability of guilt from 10% to 91%?! Really?!!!!!

Seriously. Read it. And weep. But not in the way that "Thoughtful" would like you to weep..............

 

[carbonjam72]

Wow. "Thoughtful" has just given an excellent demonstration of why maths can have massive shortcomings in the real world of assessing guilt. I urge everyone to read her example.

To summarise, she's imagining a man accused of murdering a woman. At this point (although she's coy about clarifying this), there might as well be zero evidence pointing to the man. And she posits that the imaginary jurors will have formed their own probabilities of the guilt of the man (which logically could range from 0% to 100%).

Now she imagines a single new piece of evidence emerging. A bloody handprint, which clearly was made by the killer. She imagines that this print matches 1 in 100 of the population, including the accused man.

She then uses Bayesian maths to show that this single piece of evidence should (by sheer statistical calculations alone....) serve to raise every juror's assessment of the probability of the guilt of the man to something not far off certainty: someone who previously adjudged the probability of guilt at 10% "should" now judge it at 91%!! Someone who had previously judged guilt at 50% "should" now judge guilt at 99%!!

If ever a single post served to illustrate the massive shortcomings of pure Bayesian reasoning in this sort of real-word situation, it's this post of "Thoughtful's". It takes no account whatsoever of many crucial factors that also go into the real-world assessment of guilt. What about the potential for the absence of evidence that "should" be there if this man is the real killer? What about population spreads? After all, if the murder happened on a tiny remote island of 50 inhabitants, this would affect the value of the handprint evidence dramatically compared with the murder happening in a city of 5 million inhabitants. And what about the sheer basic stupidity of the mathematical outcomes here in a real-world assessment? Really? One single item of evidence that is shared by 1 in every 100 people, including the accused man, can serve - all on its own - to raise an assessed probability of guilt from 10% to 91%?! Really?!!!!!

Seriously. Read it. And weep. But not in the way that "Thoughtful" would like you to weep..............

Has thoughtful ever come on these boards? Think she might return, now that there's a final verdict? I'm curious if she has had her faith in her positions shaken at all.

 

[lonepinealex]

Circular reasoning, it's astonishing how powerful it is in combination with confirmation bias.

 

[acbytesla]

Wow. "Thoughtful" has just given an excellent demonstration of why maths can have massive shortcomings in the real world of assessing guilt. I urge everyone to read her example.

To summarise, she's imagining a man accused of murdering a woman. At this point (although she's coy about clarifying this), there might as well be zero evidence pointing to the man. And she posits that the imaginary jurors will have formed their own probabilities of the guilt of the man (which logically could range from 0% to 100%).

Now she imagines a single new piece of evidence emerging. A bloody handprint, which clearly was made by the killer. She imagines that this print matches 1 in 100 of the population, including the accused man.

She then uses Bayesian maths to show that this single piece of evidence should (by sheer statistical calculations alone....) serve to raise every juror's assessment of the probability of the guilt of the man to something not far off certainty: someone who previously adjudged the probability of guilt at 10% "should" now judge it at 91%!! Someone who had previously judged guilt at 50% "should" now judge guilt at 99%!!

If ever a single post served to illustrate the massive shortcomings of pure Bayesian reasoning in this sort of real-word situation, it's this post of "Thoughtful's". It takes no account whatsoever of many crucial factors that also go into the real-world assessment of guilt. What about the potential for the absence of evidence that "should" be there if this man is the real killer? What about population spreads? After all, if the murder happened on a tiny remote island of 50 inhabitants, this would affect the value of the handprint evidence dramatically compared with the murder happening in a city of 5 million inhabitants. And what about the sheer basic stupidity of the mathematical outcomes here in a real-world assessment? Really? One single item of evidence that is shared by 1 in every 100 people, including the accused man, can serve - all on its own - to raise an assessed probability of guilt from 10% to 91%?! Really?!!!!!

Seriously. Read it. And weep. But not in the way that "Thoughtful" would like you to weep..............

Where did she post it? Some PMF forum that doesn't allow her logic to be challenged?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

And I think they directed most of their anger, bitterness and vitriol at Knox because of all of the above. And in addition, it was easy for them to pigeonhole Knox in the "mean girls" category - that was something that was culturally familiar to many of them: the entitled, spoiled, reasonably-attractive brat who is a bully and a manipulator, and who is always dodging responsibility for her actions.

Yeah, that's a good description of how she was portrayed. Interestingly it is the polar opposite of what kind of person she is. I have tried to describe her. She is not shy, and she has a goofball sense of humor. She has a wonderful, infectious giggle. But she is overall a quiet, low-key, introspective person with good common sense. And she is conscientious to a fault, believe me. She does NOT want to make anyone feel bad or cause a problem. She is utterly lacking in malice, and she shrinks from conflict.

Around the time she went to Perugia, she was experimenting with the hedonistic party lifestyle, giving it a try. She described this in her book. I could see how she might not have made a great impression in her effort to whoop it up with people she didn't know well. It might have seemed forced, because it's not her nature to be garrulous with strangers. She is most comfortable in a private setting with the people she knows well, her family and her close friends. They love her dearly, because they know she's an absolute gem of a person.

Amanda Knox, my friend. She has always made me proud to be her supporter, and I feel privileged to have her as a friend.

 

[komponisto]

Wow. "Thoughtful" has just given an excellent demonstration of why maths can have massive shortcomings in the real world of assessing guilt. I urge everyone to read her example.
[...]

She then uses Bayesian maths to show that this single piece of evidence should (by sheer statistical calculations alone....) serve to raise every juror's assessment of the probability of the guilt of the man to something not far off certainty: someone who previously adjudged the probability of guilt at 10% "should" now judge it at 91%!! Someone who had previously judged guilt at 50% "should" now judge guilt at 99%!!

If ever a single post served to illustrate the massive shortcomings of pure Bayesian reasoning in this sort of real-word situation, it's this post of "Thoughtful's". It takes no account whatsoever of many crucial factors that also go into the real-world assessment of guilt.

I have to disagree. Those factors also go into the "pure Bayesian reasoning". I haven't read her post, but there's nothing wrong with the hypothetical reasoning you describe. One piece of evidence certainly can raise an assessed probability of guilt from 10% to 91%...and another piece of evidence can lower it down from 91% to 0.91%

What about the potential for the absence of evidence that "should" be there if this man is the real killer?

This is extremely important, but, once again, it's part of the Bayesian math. See http://lesswrong.com/lw/ih/absence_of_evidence_is_evidence_of_absence/.

 

[Sonia]

I thought HuffPO never pays anyone? Maybe different in UK?

@Selene_Nelson wrote on Twitter to someone asking which article she was paid for:

@strong4895 @Jhansigir1 @daguro It was by default. Digital Journal pay all their writers, mandatory. I've had one article published there.

ETA: Whatever "Digital Journal" might be. Never heard of it.

 

[carbonjam72]

Man freed after almost 30 years on death row in Alabama. Wrongful conviction is an epidemic.

http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2015/04/former_alabama_death_row_inmat.html

EJI, which took over the appellate work on Hinton's case in 1998, was "frustrated" by the unwillingness of the Alabama Attorney General's Office for more than a decade to acknowledge mistakes were made and to have the bullets re-tested, Stevenson said. Defense experts had testified in 2002 that they didn't see a match between the bullets or gun.

State prosecutors never questioned or disputed those defense experts, Stevenson said. "They just ignored it and I think that's even more troubling," he said.
Prosecutors willing to consider the possibilities mistakes could have been made are more respected, Stevenson said. "We didn't see that kind of leadership in this case," he said.

Prosecutors in Alabama need to have conviction integrity units, which are already in place in some states, have fresh eyes on the evidence to make sure innocent people are not convicted of crimes, Stevenson said. Sometimes, as in the Hinton case, lawyers don't have the resources to provide an adequate defense, he said.

 

[Bill Williams]

Circular reasoning, it's astonishing how powerful it is in combination with confirmation bias.

I maintain that the woman would not pass a first year statistics course. However, that's probably not it - it is amazing how even the most reputable scientist can get locked into a confirmation bias....

..... it's why one of the bedrocks of the discipline is peer review.

It would be one thing for a professional mathematician to say what she said, it would be quite another to have colleagues agree.