One fascinating part of this story is Göran Lambertz, who was chancellor of justice during the trials and is now a supreme court judge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6ran_Lambertz
He fervently maintains that Quick is indeed guilty, and that there was nothing at all wrong with the proceedings of the justice system. In fact he claims, to this day as far as I know, that the evidence against Quick is "extraordinarily convincing."
While a supreme court judge, this spring he released a 502-page book "Quickologi" which he presents as a thorough debunking of the notions of Quick's innocence and any suggestion of a scandal.
That's all a bunch of politics, but around here what should be more interesting is Lambertz's interpretation of probability.
In chapter 15 of his book, he performs a calculation of the evidence that Quick is guilty—and arrives at a probability of 183%. He concludes this from a chain of reasoning that involves adding contingent probabilities in a wildly spurious way.
After a professor of mathematics described exactly how ludicrous this is in a blog post...
http://haggstrom.blogspot.se/2015/05/quickologisk-sannolikhe...
...Lambertz replied on his own blog saying that he was eagerly awaiting such a rebuttal, since his aim was to "provoke a discussion."
In other words, the chancellor of justice responsible at the time of this case, this current supreme court judge, is a blog troll who uses fraudulent statistics to intentionally misrepresent the relevant evidence.
So, yeah. I hope I don't ever have to go to court. It's like a mashup of Franz Kafka, Lewis Carroll, and Stephen Colbert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6ran_Lambertz
He fervently maintains that Quick is indeed guilty, and that there was nothing at all wrong with the proceedings of the justice system. In fact he claims, to this day as far as I know, that the evidence against Quick is "extraordinarily convincing."
While a supreme court judge, this spring he released a 502-page book "Quickologi" which he presents as a thorough debunking of the notions of Quick's innocence and any suggestion of a scandal.
That's all a bunch of politics, but around here what should be more interesting is Lambertz's interpretation of probability.
In chapter 15 of his book, he performs a calculation of the evidence that Quick is guilty—and arrives at a probability of 183%. He concludes this from a chain of reasoning that involves adding contingent probabilities in a wildly spurious way.
After a professor of mathematics described exactly how ludicrous this is in a blog post...
http://haggstrom.blogspot.se/2015/05/quickologisk-sannolikhe...
...Lambertz replied on his own blog saying that he was eagerly awaiting such a rebuttal, since his aim was to "provoke a discussion."
In other words, the chancellor of justice responsible at the time of this case, this current supreme court judge, is a blog troll who uses fraudulent statistics to intentionally misrepresent the relevant evidence.
So, yeah. I hope I don't ever have to go to court. It's like a mashup of Franz Kafka, Lewis Carroll, and Stephen Colbert.