Next, how much more likely is it that nothing would be taken in the case of a staged burglary than a legitimate one?
Strictly speaking, this is not evidence we possess. The evidence we possess is that it is reported that nothing was taken. An explanation that involves things being taken but a false report otherwise still fits our observations. Whether this moves the probabilities much, I have too little knowledge of the other facts of the case to say. (Strictly speaking, the facts could even contradict my objection—if, for instance, there was an audit of the apartment conducted by a reliable third party immediately prior to the burglary. I think that unlikely enough to discount, though...)
Strictly speaking, this is not evidence we possess.
I agree. (One could also say that strictly speaking we don’t know that Knox was in Italy at the time of the murder; we don’t even know if there really is a girl named Amanda Knox.)
ETA: One should of course consider the possibility that much of the evidence against Knox is simply fraudulent.
That’s speaking a little more strictly than relevant, I think. My point was that, in the general case, there can be reasons that nothing was reported stolen other than that nothing was reported stolen. “He took my 10 lbs of cocaine” is something someone would be reluctant to tell the police, though I might expect it to nonetheless come out in a murder trial. Alternatively, something might have been taken that the person had forgotten they were in possession of. Adjudge for yourself how likely either of these explanations is, but they should be considered—along with any others that run along similar lines. Asking strictly about the probability of a real vs. staged break-in based on the fact that nothing is taken might be misleading.
That’s speaking a little more strictly than relevant, I think. My point was that, in the general case, there can be reasons that nothing was reported stolen other than that nothing was reported stolen
I agree, and one should of course take Romanelli’s testimony with a grain of salt. She might be forgetful; she might have been coached to give testimony damaging to Knox; and so forth.
However, keep in mind that the question on the table is whether the strongest (piece of?) evidence against Knox is her statement to the police that she was at the apartment at the time of the murder. For these purposes, I think it’s reasonable to accept Romanelli’s testimony at face value.
Strictly speaking, this is not evidence we possess. The evidence we possess is that it is reported that nothing was taken. An explanation that involves things being taken but a false report otherwise still fits our observations. Whether this moves the probabilities much, I have too little knowledge of the other facts of the case to say. (Strictly speaking, the facts could even contradict my objection—if, for instance, there was an audit of the apartment conducted by a reliable third party immediately prior to the burglary. I think that unlikely enough to discount, though...)
I agree. (One could also say that strictly speaking we don’t know that Knox was in Italy at the time of the murder; we don’t even know if there really is a girl named Amanda Knox.)
ETA: One should of course consider the possibility that much of the evidence against Knox is simply fraudulent.
That’s speaking a little more strictly than relevant, I think. My point was that, in the general case, there can be reasons that nothing was reported stolen other than that nothing was reported stolen. “He took my 10 lbs of cocaine” is something someone would be reluctant to tell the police, though I might expect it to nonetheless come out in a murder trial. Alternatively, something might have been taken that the person had forgotten they were in possession of. Adjudge for yourself how likely either of these explanations is, but they should be considered—along with any others that run along similar lines. Asking strictly about the probability of a real vs. staged break-in based on the fact that nothing is taken might be misleading.
I agree, and one should of course take Romanelli’s testimony with a grain of salt. She might be forgetful; she might have been coached to give testimony damaging to Knox; and so forth.
However, keep in mind that the question on the table is whether the strongest (piece of?) evidence against Knox is her statement to the police that she was at the apartment at the time of the murder. For these purposes, I think it’s reasonable to accept Romanelli’s testimony at face value.