Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kevin_Lowe said:
Putting a number on things keeps people honest, and if people were rational they would be able to put a figure on "beyond reasonable doubt" anyway. Bayes' Theorem isn't just a good idea, it's the law. A rational belief comes inextricably linked with a p value.
Click to expand...

Who was being "kept honest" by the number of 1 in 73 million in the Sally Clark case?
 
Antony said:
Who was being "kept honest" by the number of 1 in 73 million in the Sally Clark case?
Click to expand...

That case was in fact a classic example of a medical specialist who thought he also understood statistics, when in fact he didn't. Never was Pope's saying "A little learning is a dangerous thing" more applicable.

Professor Sir Roy Meadow (the prosecution paediatric expert) arrogantly and ignorantly multiplied probabilities together, rather than taking conditionalities into account. In essence, if one has already had one young child die from SIDS, the odds of a second or third child dying in the same way decrease markedly, yet Meadow was ignorant of Bayes' Theorem or conditional probabilities, and gave the original jury a totally incorrect statistical analysis (which, to its discredit, Clark's defence didn't notice and seek to correct).
 
Antony said:
Who was being "kept honest" by the number of 1 in 73 million in the Sally Clark case?
Click to expand...

As LondonJohn said, that's an example of bad statistics.

I never said that maths was a magic wand that could not be abused. Maths is necessary for a rational assessment of any contested factual issue, but not sufficient.
 
probabilities as they are (mis)applied in criminal cases

This link comes from the Bain case in New Zealand. I think that the following quote is pertinent to the Knox case in a couple of ways. I have seen this line of reasoning applied to the five instances of mixed DNA, but I think that it also applies more generally to the strategy that the prosecution applied. I wonder how often fallacious statistical arguments get hatched in jury deliberation rooms. DPF wrote:

"I think it is important to look at the totality of the evidence, rather than individual aspects. While one can not define reasonable doubt, let us be stats geeks and say if you could it is doubt beyond 99.99%. And let us say that there are ten crucial forescnic items that point to David being the killer. But let us say that in each case the defence has introduced a 10% doubt.

But the defence have to knock out all ten items. And that 10% doubt, gets multipled and over the ten items is a 0.00000001% doubt.

Now before people howl at me, of course it is not a formula. But the point is you have to look at reasonable doubt over all the evidence, not just each individual aspect."
 
RoseMontague said:
I wonder if katy_did could take a look at the original Italian on this. That part about "from underneath" is not real clear. I am not sure if that case held her laptop or not. A poster at PMF indicated they thought the standing up part of the quote meant the laptop was open and not closed.
Click to expand...

I had a look at this a while back because I didn't think it made much sense! The original is "da sotto", from below or from underneath, so it would be "she looked for the computer, which she glimpsed 'from underneath'" ("cercò il computer che intravedeva "da sotto" (pag. 40)"). Could it have been partially under some clothes, and she caught a glimpse of it from underneath them? I think "intravedere" suggests the computer wasn't fully visible (i.e. she could make it out, but it wasn't in full view - she caught a glimpse of it rather than saw it), so that might make sense. It would have helped if Massei had quoted a bit more!

Yeah, I think SomeAlibi was wrong about the whole open/closed thing. Difficult for it to be open if it was in its case...
 
Christ. Dropped down to Student.
I think I'll grab a couple of girls and lead a murderous sex attack on a moderator.
 
Antony said:
Useful to who? See your own example, of the Sally Clark case.



Yes, I've heard of this case, and "putting a figure to reasonable doubt" was decidedly useful to the prosecution. What they did was take the probability of 1 SIDS case in a family (1 in 8500), and claim the probability of 2 cases was 1 in 73 million (8500 x 8500) - based on the fallacy that the 2 deaths could be regarded as independent. (Of course nobody used the same logic to put a figure of extreme unlikelihood of a mother killing 2 of her own children.)

So I think your example is a strong argument for not trying to define "reasonable doubt" by a figure representing probability.
Click to expand...

My example is a strong argument for not trying to define "reasonable doubt" by a figure representing probability if the jury is not up to the job. An educated and informed jury would not make the same mistake.
 
Last edited:
I think that people who believe they have been burgled have a really good look around.

I am sure that Raff and Amanda knew for certain they had discovered a murder on the morning after. Possibly even the night before or very late on the night before like 5am.

Looking at the photos of Meredith's tiny room it might be possible to see just enough through the keyhole to have some kind of educated guess about what has happened (and we know Meredith had a door with a keyhole.)
Hence the stuttering erratic behaviour from Amanda when the door was being opened.

I would say that Rudy locked Meredith's door while he was washing up and then, because he had, probably had a fiddle around in both flats afterwards (he did have the keys).
 
theRealBob said:
I think that people who believe they have been burgled have a really good look around.

I am sure that Raff and Amanda knew for certain they had discovered a murder on the morning after. Possibly even the night before or very late on the night before like 5am.

Looking at the photos of Meredith's tiny room it might be possible to see just enough through the keyhole to have some kind of educated guess about what has happened (and we know Meredith had a door with a keyhole.)
Hence the stuttering erratic behaviour from Amanda when the door was being opened.

I would say that Rudy locked Meredith's door while he was washing up and then, because he had, probably had a fiddle around in both flats afterwards (he did have the keys).
Click to expand...

How much of the room do you honestly believe you could see through a keyhole in a dark room. No lights and dark outside.
 
Mignini only agreed to be interviewed by cnn because he is desperate,things could start to move very fast now,maybe he might even be arrested himself soon
 
Antony said:
Not necessarily. This seems more or less equivalent to saying, "if I didn't have the evidence to absolutely sure, then I would have asked for an acquittal".

(I'm not saying that Mignini had any evidence, because it's becoming more and more clear that he didn't - just that he's not necessarily saying that he didn't.)
Click to expand...

But he didn't say, he did or did not have evidence.

He said he was absolutely sure they were responsible. Which basicly means he feels they are responsible with the evidence presented. Yet he then admits that if he wasn't absolutely sure, he would have asked for acquittal because of lack of evidence.

Which begs the question. How could a prosecutor be absolutely sure they were responsible if he even admits there is a lack of evidence and the only reason he prosecuted them because he felt they were responsible regardless of the evidence.
 
Last edited:
Stefanoni was not forthcoming

Candace Dempsey's latest entry is about the lack of release of some of the forensic DNA information. I am relieved, rather than surprised, that we are finally beginning to see confirmation of what I have long argued. I feel like chanting FSA, FSA.
 
LJ! Yes ok, looking again it does look small, like a mini laptop bag because if it isn't it's one ugly purse, all those zippers on top and that thick strap!


RoseMontague said:
New Post at the Shock.


Very understated but significant?
Click to expand...

What did it say Rose, the site is now down altogether?
 
halides1 said:
Candace Dempsey's latest entry is about the lack of release of some of the forensic DNA information. I am relieved, rather than surprised, that we are finally beginning to see confirmation of what I have long argued. I feel like chanting FSA, FSA.
Click to expand...

What are they waiting for? Amanda in her brief months in Italy probably has been more moral in total than the average Italian. Yet she's been in jail for what, over 1000 days?

I’m flying every 4th day, and working 10 hour days, so my comments have been frugal.

What are the psychotic amoebas at PMF chanting about these days?
 
halides1 said:
Candace Dempsey's latest entry is about the lack of release of some of the forensic DNA information. I am relieved, rather than surprised, that we are finally beginning to see confirmation of what I have long argued. I feel like chanting FSA, FSA.
Click to expand...

Did Hellmann's and Stefanoni's communications occur in English? :)

The experts were first tasked with testing the items and if that was not possible to then inspect the methods used, from collection to testing. After testing of the bra clasp and knife failed due to limited DNA or corruption of the sample to test, wouldn't the next step of the experts be to request what documentation they would need to further evaluate the testing? Which appears to have been done. I think Stefanoni will send what is needed.

I can see no exasperation on Hellmann's part. Of course, the English translation may soften that exasperation somewhat.
 
christianahannah said:
Did Hellmann's and Stefanoni's communications occur in English? :)

The experts were first tasked with testing the items and if that was not possible to then inspect the methods used, from collection to testing. After testing of the bra clasp and knife failed due to limited DNA or corruption of the sample to test, wouldn't the next step of the experts be to request what documentation they would need to further evaluate the testing? Which appears to have been done. I think Stefanoni will send what is needed.

I can see no exasperation on Hellmann's part. Of course, the English translation may soften that exasperation somewhat.
Click to expand...

Reads to me like Hellmann politely telling Stefanoni to go **** herself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom