User Profile

star0
description1
message52

Recent Posts

Curated Posts
starCurated - Recent, high quality posts selected by the LessWrong moderation team.
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Frontpage Posts
Posts meeting our frontpage guidelines: • interesting, insightful, useful • aim to explain, not to persuade • avoid meta discussion • relevant to people whether or not they are involved with the LessWrong community.
(includes curated content and frontpage posts)
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
All Posts
personIncludes personal and meta blogposts (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

Debunking komponisto on Amanda Knox (long)

8y
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
118

Recent Comments

I finally got around to reading through the appeal motivation and the relevant parts of the Conti-Vecchiotti report, and I find nothing to lend credence to the innocence hypothesis. If anything, I would judge the timing of the double-DNA knife testing seems to move the 'laboratory contamination' hyp...(read more)

> As it happens, in the present case, the only material found in the small intestine was at the very end, near the ileocecal valve.

I agree, but I don't know whether other material would have been found if present. Is searching the entire small intestine feasible, and if so was such a search perfor...(read more)

> So to be absolutely clear, then: taking into account all the information you are aware of, and adjusting for systematic uncertainty, what are your current probabilities of guilt conditioned on death having occurred during the following intervals?:

.95 for all the scenarios mentioned, maybe a litt...(read more)

Thanks for another well-researched reply, let's have a couple more posts on this, and then turn to the DNA for a bit.

> On the other hand, if we do take systemic uncertainty into account (as we ultimately must), a shift of 15:1 or even 5:1 would be significant, given your estimate of .95 probabilit...(read more)

> I would sooner hypothesize that Meredith's last meal actually took place closer to 19:00 than 18:00, given the vagueness of the testimony on the matter. This puts her within 2 standard deviations, perhaps even 1.5.

If we model the meal start-time as a normal distribution, then it'll be simple to ...(read more)

> Surely you meant the defense appeal document here?

Yes, typo.

> My interpretation of Ronchi doesn't depend on the defense appeal; it's simply the common-sense default meaning of what he said, as reported in Massei-Cristiani...

I don't agree with your common-sense default meaning in the English ...(read more)

Great, give me a top-level post when the knife translation is finished, or when you think it's in a good enough state to back up your claims in the dna discussion.

Reply to: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/6k7/experiment_knox_case_debate_with_rolf_nelson/4jmb

Didn't realize you updated, looks like we can't go more than 8 or 9 deep before the RSS feed stops notifying about thread changes.

In terms of narrowing down what Umani Ronchi was actually saying, ...(read more)

Let's talk about the dna some more once you guys have finished translating the relevant parts of the independent report, then, if your argument hinges on details of the independent report rather than just the conclusions.

> We're talking here not about the time it takes for the stomach to emtpy com...(read more)