Utopian States: Striving for Perfection

Question: Wasn’t Amanda’s blood comingled in the basin with the victim’s blood?

No, Meredith’s blood was only comingled with Amanda’s DNA (her hair, skin cells, etc), not her blood. Since Amanda lived there, this is totally irrelevant pseudo evidence. The DNA evidence and fingerprints actually prove that Amanda is innocent. Yes, her DNA should be found everywhere. However, Meredith’s room was free of any of Amanda’s fingerprints and DNA. (1/4) Rudy Guede’s fingerprints and DNA were everywhere in the victim’s room, on her clothes, in the crapper, and by some reports, semen in the victim.  There are also his bare footed footprints in the bathroom. (1/4)

The cell phones and computers show NO communication between Guede and Amanda or Sollecito. (1/2) Amanda’s testimony also proved she was innocent. In 50 plus hours of interrogation under extreme duress, she only said that if she had to imagine being there, she would have imagined a scream. (1/4) Maybe something was lost in translation.

 No witness or cellmate, or boyfriend implicated her in the crime and she’s been in prison for two years. Don’t you think her cell is bugged?. They probably enjoy watching her.  (1/4)

The cartwheels, the confusion about who killed her roommate, the kissing and face book don’t prove anything at all. Perhaps there is even a slight indication she is naïve/innocent. There are spoken indications that she is innocent based on the fact she said some of the things I said when I once had hugely trumped charges made against myself. (1/2)

 I put some odds in my the previous paragraph. I’m not implying they are evidence.  I just want to make a point that the probability of her guilt could be calculated statistically.  One would need statistics that showed how frequently the situations I’ve indicated correlated to a confident guilty verdict. If you multiply each event together to get a probability it is 1/4 * 1/4 * 1/2 * 1/4 * 1/2 = 1/256.  In other words, there is statistically only a 1/256 chance that Amanda is guilty.  The numbers are only examples.  To calculate a real probability mathematicians, forensic scientists, and lawyers have to work together to create accurate probabilities.  My guess: Amanda has only a 1/256 chance of statistically being guilty.

 The number is meaningless; the method is not. Go MIT!!! Ya up to the challenge?

Some of the data came from FriendsofAmanda.com.  Some came from 48 hours and some came from the seven hour presentation on CNN the night of the verdict.  The data may not be totally accurate.  The method of making a statistical guilt/innocent calculation is what I am proposing and trying to sell (for the sake of a more utopian justice system).   Please leave comments below.  I will make the necessary corrections to make accurate.

This entry was posted on Sunday, December 6th, 2009 at 5:24 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.