Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Juror]

I was doing a bit of thinking based on the LessWrong article linked to previously, and the demands that the burglary, knife etc... need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Say you have a bunch of individual, independent claims, "the burglary was faked" for example, each of which, if true make the claim "Amanda and Raffaele committed the murder" true.

If the odds of each of the claims being true is 0.3333... I think the odds of "Amanda and Raffaele committed the murder" being true is greater than .95 if you have 7.4 such sub claims. If the odds of the sub claims being true is 0.5, then you need 4.32 subclaims.

Clearly this is simplistic and the defense has similar claims, like the alibi, which would need to be factored in, and in any case there are other problems like what odds to assign, what defense/prosecution claims to include and exclude..... My purpose in posting was to underline the fact that the individual elements of the case, whether supporting the defense or the prosecution, don't even have to be better than 50% probable to provide support for a case.

The problem I see with this type of logic is the claims are not independent so the math is not as simple as you lay out. You need to consider the correlation between the events (if break-in was real, then likelihood of knife being contamination is increased or vice-versa).

 

[shuttlt]

The problem I see with this type of logic is the claims are not independent so the math is not as simple as you lay out. You need to consider the correlation between the events (if break-in was real, then likelihood of knife being contamination is increased or vice-versa).

I agree it is too complicated to actually calculate. What I don't think is that the DNA on the knife, the DNA on the bras strap, the faked break in necessarily have to be individually proved to a particularly high standard for the whole case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Justinian2]

I was doing a bit of thinking based on the LessWrong article linked to previously, and the demands that the burglary, knife etc... need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Say you have a bunch of individual, independent claims, "the burglary was faked" for example, each of which, if true make the claim "Amanda and Raffaele committed the murder" true.

If the odds of each of the claims being true is 0.3333... I think the odds of "Amanda and Raffaele committed the murder" being true is greater than .95 if you have 7.4 such sub claims. If the odds of the sub claims being true is 0.5, then you need 4.32 subclaims.

Clearly this is simplistic and the defense has similar claims, like the alibi, which would need to be factored in, and in any case there are other problems like what odds to assign, what defense/prosecution claims to include and exclude..... My purpose in posting was to underline the fact that the individual elements of the case, whether supporting the defense or the prosecution, don't even have to be better than 50% probable to provide support for a case.

You are taking all of the claims in parallel; as additive. This is NOT true. The type of evidence gathered requires that all the probabilities be multiplied together which makes the probabliity of guilt something like one in a million even with probabiltities of 30% (.3) for each factor.

Guede has the type of evidence that can be additive. All the DNA samples taken of him make his presence in the murder room certain. His testimony and the footprints also add together to put him at the scene of the murder when it happened. The statistical probability that Guede is guilty is VERY high.

RS and AK don't have any evidence that is additive. All the evidence gathered against them should be calculated in serial. If the break-in was real, they are innocent. If their alibi is true, they are innocent. If the DNA is contamination, they are innocent. If the DNA contamination is deliberate, they are innocent. If they have no evidence in the murder room, they are innocent. The statistical probability that AK and RS are guilty is virtually zero.

 

[platonov]

Why would they, what would it achieve?

There was a lot of argument once that Amanda couldn't say that what she had told the police about Patrick killing Amanda was false, because not having been there she couldn't know that what she had said was false... (doubtless others will remember this differently). By the same token they can't know that Rudy did it without having been there.

shuttl

This was settled (again ?) recently.

We don't need to rely on our memories - we have direct testimony [temporally challenged* and rambling admittedly] from AK herself regarding the fact that she told her mother on Nov 10th in a bugged conversation that PL was innocent.
* A common theme as I pointed out recently.

See post here and here - exchange begins top of page 440 if you want to follow it.

By the same token - they/she cant.... what now ?

The RG situation is however a different one - the obvious danger of retaliatory testimony kept any of them from saying too much. IIRC RG's position moved/hardened after the defence for AK or RS started to seek to portray him as the sole killer.

Much of the to&fro seemed to take place outside the courtroom in the Italian media so its all ........ ?

 

[shuttlt]

You are taking all of the claims in parallel; as additive. This is NOT true. The type of evidence gathered requires that all the probabilities be multiplied together which makes the probabliity of guilt something like one in a million even with probabiltities of 30% (.3) for each factor.

No. That's how you calculate the odds of ALL the evidence being true that build the case.

RS and AK don't have any evidence that is additive. All the evidence gathered against them should be calculated in serial.

I disagree.

If the break-in was real, they are innocent.

As near as I care to argue, yes!

If their alibi is true, they are innocent.

By definition.

If the DNA is contamination, they are innocent.

No, this is not the case. The DNA evidence being contaminated is not evidence for innocence, it just reduces the quantity of evidence in the prosecutions case. Proving contamination is not equivalent to proving innocence in the same way as proving their alibi is.

If the DNA contamination is deliberate, they are innocent.

No, this is not evidence of innocence, but it would muddy the waters of the prosecution case beyond recovery.

If they have no evidence in the murder room, they are innocent.

No, this is not the case.

The statistical probability that AK and RS were guilty is virtually zero.

No.

 

[capealadin]

Perhaps it is because Rudy told multiple versions of what happened, or because for him to have named them is blatantly self-serving. I think that Amanda and Raffaele are showing admirable restraint in not saying anything.

Halides, Lovely to *see you again*. Umm, taking about * Multilple version*, does that strike a bell?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

starting point

I don't want to twist your words here, but I'm struck by the constant interviews, articles, statements etc... from her family and associated supporters. It rather undermines her admirable restraint that they have been responsible for keeping a constant stream of new stories going the whole time. I don't particularly blame them, they presumably believe it will help.

What is there for her to say that isn't being said over and over on her behalf?

shuttlt,

My comment was strictly in reference to their not naming Rudy themselves. From the pro-innocence point of view, there are several good reasons for them not to do so, starting with the fact that they have no direct knowledge of what transpired that night (no evidence to offer). Other commenters have offered other reasons. However, I would be tempted to yell at the top of my lungs that Rudy was solely responsible, if I were in their shoes, and that is why I used the word restraint.

We can have a conversation about the best way for her supporters to discuss this case, but I think that Charlie Wilkes is right and I would suggest reviewing what he has said here as a starting point.

 

[Katody Matrass]

They are not. The bottom of his shoe looks to me like a white powder similar to that found inside the room that was broken into. Look at the wallwithnail high resolution pic at the bottom of his foot.

Thanks RoseMontague!

I was just pointing out there's no mud, soil or grass on his shoes, but that's great observation.

 

[shuttlt]

We can have a conversation about the best way for her supporters to discuss this case, but I think that Charlie Wilkes is right and I would suggest reviewing what he has said here as a starting point.

I suspect that that is a conversation that would descend rapidly into something the moderators would take issue with.

 

[capealadin]

I don't know exactly, but AK and RS were without lawyers before they were in jail and with them after they were in jail.



He said he saw a male figure in the dark. Rudy's lawyer probably told him to say that. (My lawyers would have told me to say something like that.)

Also, any statement that "Rudy did it" would have placed AK or RS them at the scene of the crime when the murder took place. It is because they are innocent that they didn't and couldn't accuse Rudy.

Justinian: * A male figure in the dark* is akin to * The bushy haired stranger*. PROBABLY is not going to cut it, I'm afraid. And, no, it is not about them being at the scene of the crime. I am talking about Raff's statement AFTER Rudi was convicted, in Court. He said* I Hope the REAL murderer will confess*. After all, that was a done deal. Why not say : You have the killer, you have the evidence?

Oh, wait. A little problem, I guess. That doesn't make THEIR DNA disappear right? Rudi has no compunctions about calling Amanda and Raff the killers, Even though he hasn't exhausted his appeals. What to make of this? I'm ready, I'm expecting a lot of *Plausible* reasons*. C'mon//////

 

[capealadin]

Halides: PLEASE: Let's examine * MUltiple Versions*.........

 

[shuttlt]

Justinian: * A male figure in the dark* is akin to * The bushy haired stranger*. PROBABLY is not going to cut it, I'm afraid. And, no, it is not about them being at the scene of the crime. I am talking about Raff's statement AFTER Rudi was convicted, in Court. He said* I Hope the REAL murderer will confess*. After all, that was a done deal. Why not say : You have the killer, you have the evidence?

Oh, wait. A little problem, I guess. That doesn't make THEIR DNA disappear right? Rudi has no compunctions about calling Amanda and Raff the killers, Even though he hasn't exhausted his appeals. What to make of this? I'm ready, I'm expecting a lot of *Plausible* reasons*. C'mon//////

I fail to follow your reasoning. They don't want to accuse Rudy because it would be false, or because they think there would be no point, or....? Please explain in small words for the slow of understanding.

 

[Justinian2]

No. That's how you calculate the odds of ALL the evidence being true that build the case.

I disagree.

As near as I care to argue, yes!

By definition.

No, this is not the case. The DNA evidence being contaminated is not evidence for innocence, it just reduces the quantity of evidence in the prosecutions case. Proving contamination is not equivalent to proving innocence in the same way as proving their alibi is.

No, this is not evidence of innocence, but it would muddy the waters of the prosecution case beyond recovery.

No, this is not the case.

No.

I think we've given others something that can and should be argued, so I'm going to back off for awhile.

 

[platonov]

shuttlt,

My comment was strictly in reference to their not naming Rudy themselves. From the pro-innocence point of view, there are several good reasons for them not to do so, starting with the fact that they have no direct knowledge of what transpired that night (no evidence to offer). Other commenters have offered other reasons. However, I would be tempted to yell at the top of my lungs that Rudy was solely responsible, if I were in their shoes, and that is why I used the word restraint.
We can have a conversation about the best way for her supporters to discuss this case, but I think that Charlie Wilkes is right and I would suggest reviewing what he has said here as a starting point.

And yet they don't, why is that ??

While your explanation of admirable restraint has a certain charm and naiveté similar to what one would find in a 19th century romantic novel - I believe my earlier the obvious danger of retaliatory testimony is more compelling.

 

[TomCH]

There is quite a bit of evidence that links Guede to the crime scene.

But no evidence that he actually stabbed her, or that he even entered the room before she was stabbed.

 

[capealadin]

Did the defense provided, 'staged' photo you proclaim as evidentiary and irrefutable per chance include a visible time and date and recent meteorological conditions ??

Was the ground moisture/mud below from recent rain or even from morning dew still present ?

Was the grass below 'undisturbed' as cited previously being significant?

Rose, cognizant of your elaborate accumulation of some very accurate facts of the case, forgive the possible parsing/nitpicking of this query.
It is something that I try to avoid, but just seems customary, appropriate and endlessly utilized here to argue this type of detail.

Hello, Pilot Padron. These pertinent questions are food for thought. In view of your excellent observations, I think I'd rather go with * someone let him in*. Whether Meredith or Amanda. It's just too much of a *STRETCH,*,,,to think Rudi would have risked life and limb, for a * HAUL*. From students? Are Perugian residents , on the whole, rather lacking in riches? PFFT.

 

[shuttlt]

While your explanation of admirable restraint has a certain charm and naiveté similar to what one would find in a 19th century romantic novel - I believe my earlier the obvious danger of retaliatory testimony is more compelling.

That, and what purpose would it serve? The less the two of them say about the case as a whole the better, surely... what they say could be used against them and restrict the defenses room to maneuver. If anything needs to be said, far better to let others say it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

two versions versus many

Halides, Lovely to *see you again*. Umm, taking about * Multilple version*, does that strike a bell?

Capealadin,

The pro-guilt commenters often talk about Amanda’s or Raffaele’s multiple versions. In reality both had two basic versions of what happened, what they said on the night of November 5th-6th and what they said before and after. The pro-guilt and pro-innocence communities do not agree on the reason behind Amanda’s and Raffaele’s statements on the night in question.

However, Rudy did have multiple versions, and I strongly doubt that I can name them all off the top of my head. At one point he said that Amanda was not there (IIRC, this was during a skype conversation). At one point he admitted being there, but he blamed a left-handed assailant. Months after the crime he started associating the assailant with Raffaele, who is right-handed. Ann Wise and Nikki Battiste gave an account of one of Rudy’s court appearances here.

 

[shuttlt]

There version will have changed if they claim to have been using the computer continuously all night though?

 

[capealadin]

I fail to follow your reasoning. They don't want to accuse Rudy because it would be false, or because they think there would be no point, or....? Please explain in small words for the slow of understanding.

Oh, Shutlt: There is no hint of * slow of misunderstanding*. They don't accuse Rudi, because HE IS THEIR PARTNER IN CRIME. Rudi is the one, most likely to tell all. Oh, and he has said that Amanda and Raffaele are the killers. But, they have never repudiated his accusations. Very telling. No? They are being tried together. They must stick with their *story*. Rudi, is, if you will, independant. WHY has Rudi accused them. WAIT. We have a child killer in the wings, A mafiosa. However, Rudi has denied their stories. He's going with Amanda and Raff. You tell me.......