I disagree strongly. The fact that she lives with the victim doesn't shield off the effect of her demographic profile on the likelihood she committed the crime.

Let's analyze the problem using Bayes Net terminology. Let A={suspect=Knox's demographic profile}, B={suspect lives with victim} and C={suspect guilty}. Then your claim is that the net is structured as A->B->C, or that the demographic evidence is conditionally independent of guilt given co-habitation. My claim is that the net is structured as A->C<-B; both A and B affect the likelihood ... (read more)

Let's analyze the problem using Bayes Net terminology. Let A={suspect=Knox's demographic profile}, B={suspect lives with victim} and C={suspect guilty}. Then your claim is that the net is structured as A->B->C, or that the demographic evidence is conditionally independent of guilt given co-habitation.

No.

My claim is that the net is structured as A->C<-B; both A and B affect the likelihood of guilt, and in particular A substantially reduces the likelihood of guilt as James_Miller points out (Note that I'm not saying B is irrelevant, obviously this is wrong).

I agree.

[LINK] Amanda Knox exonerated

by fortyeridania 1 min read28th Mar 201558 comments

9


Here are the New York Times, CNN, and NBC. Here is Wikipedia for background.

The case has made several appearances on LessWrong; examples include: