Thomas Quick: The serial killer who wasn't • Hacker News Board

Re: Thomas Quick: The serial killer who wasn't

#11

Post by StavrosK » Sun, Nov 08, 2015, 7:27 PM UTC

mbrock wrote: post #6

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 "extraordinari…

> arrives at a probability of 183%.

I don't see anything wrong with the math. It simply means that Quick is certainly guilty, with an 83% chance of being double-guilty, which is an obscure legal term I don't expect the technocrat audience of HN to be familiar with.

Re: Thomas Quick: The serial killer who wasn't

#12

Post by alsetmusic » Sun, Nov 08, 2015, 7:39 PM UTC

corin_ wrote: post #10

martinald wrote: post #2

"Benzodiazepine" isn't a drug, it's a class of drugs. Really sloppy editing.

You beat me to it, I just paused reading to come moan about that before continuing. But not only that, having read a lot about benzos and have previously been prescribed a few different ones for insomnia, their effects are to quote Wikipedia "sedative, hypnotic (sleep-inducing), anxiolytic (anti-anxiety), anticonvulsant, and muscle relaxant" Unless mixed with another drug - but I'm guessing he wasn't drinking in ther…

I have taken similar drugs for insomnia and I don't think they would outright cause delusional confessions. I do think that they could relax a person enough to continue with a plan that they might not have been as likely to execute otherwise.

Anecdotal: I was having reservations about a relationship and wasn't sure if I was willing to stay involved. In a relaxed state from pain medications related to a standard medical procedure, I finally said that I wanted out. I wouldn't have said it (at that moment) if I hadn't been sedated to the point of an above average sense of wellbeing. After the effects diminished, I realized that I was not as ready to live with the outcome and wished I had taken more time to think it over.

If Quick was already on the edge of making a false confession for the purpose of gaining attention or fame, this scenario would make sense. Whether that was the situation, I have no idea.

Re: Thomas Quick: The serial killer who wasn't

#13

Post by jacquesm » Sun, Nov 08, 2015, 7:39 PM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #11

mbrock wrote: post #6

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 "extraordinari…

> arrives at a probability of 183%. I don't see anything wrong with the math. It simply means that Quick is certainly guilty, with an 83% chance of being double-guilty, which is an obscure legal term I don't expect the technocrat audience of HN to be familiar with.

If you use the word 'probability' the expected range of values is 0-1 or 0 through 100%, you can't really be 'double-guilty' of anything. See also: Bayes theorem, which was formulated expressly with the idea of evaluating evidence. If I see the words 'probability' and '183%' in one sentence than as part of that audience I suspect a buggy algorithm, not a new interpretation of the word probability.

If you can be double guilty of something then does that mean you get to serve two sentences for the same crime too?

Re: Thomas Quick: The serial killer who wasn't

#14

Post by lolo_ » Sun, Nov 08, 2015, 7:47 PM UTC

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #7

NumberSix wrote: post #4

Reminds me of the notorious case of Henry Lee Lucas in the United States who at one point confessed to hundreds of murders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Lee_Lucas

Richard Kuklinski is another alleged contract killer, most of whose stories are suspected to be false.

I find him to be very interesting - because the law enforcement officials involved, who must be at least somewhat aware of the propensity of a. sociopaths to be excellent liars and b. for people to confess to crimes they didn't commit (it's shockingly common.)

I think he's guilty of _some_ of what he's accused off, but lies about others.

Re: Thomas Quick: The serial killer who wasn't

#15

Post by Turbo_hedgehog » Sun, Nov 08, 2015, 7:51 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #13

StavrosK wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> arrives at a probability of 183%. I don't see anything wrong with the math. It simply means that Quick is certainly guilty, with an 83% chance of being double-guilty, which is an obscure legal term I don't expect the technocrat audience of HN to be familiar with.

If you use the word 'probability' the expected range of values is 0-1 or 0 through 100%, you can't really be 'double-guilty' of anything. See also: Bayes theorem, which was formulated expressly with the idea of evaluating evidence. If I see the words 'probability' and '183%' in one sentence than as part of that audience I suspect a buggy algorithm, not a new interpretation of the word probability. If you can be doubl…

Think you missed the tongue-in-cheekiness of the post you replied to.

Re: Thomas Quick: The serial killer who wasn't

#16

Post by StavrosK » Sun, Nov 08, 2015, 7:52 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #13

StavrosK wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> arrives at a probability of 183%. I don't see anything wrong with the math. It simply means that Quick is certainly guilty, with an 83% chance of being double-guilty, which is an obscure legal term I don't expect the technocrat audience of HN to be familiar with.

If you use the word 'probability' the expected range of values is 0-1 or 0 through 100%, you can't really be 'double-guilty' of anything. See also: Bayes theorem, which was formulated expressly with the idea of evaluating evidence. If I see the words 'probability' and '183%' in one sentence than as part of that audience I suspect a buggy algorithm, not a new interpretation of the word probability. If you can be doubl…

Aw, I didn't think I'd need the detestable "/s", Jacques :(

Re: Thomas Quick: The serial killer who wasn't

#17

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Nov 08, 2015, 7:52 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #13

StavrosK wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> arrives at a probability of 183%. I don't see anything wrong with the math. It simply means that Quick is certainly guilty, with an 83% chance of being double-guilty, which is an obscure legal term I don't expect the technocrat audience of HN to be familiar with.

If you use the word 'probability' the expected range of values is 0-1 or 0 through 100%, you can't really be 'double-guilty' of anything. See also: Bayes theorem, which was formulated expressly with the idea of evaluating evidence. If I see the words 'probability' and '183%' in one sentence than as part of that audience I suspect a buggy algorithm, not a new interpretation of the word probability. If you can be doubl…

[deleted]

Re: Thomas Quick: The serial killer who wasn't

#18

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Nov 08, 2015, 7:54 PM UTC

corin_ wrote: post #10

martinald wrote: post #2

"Benzodiazepine" isn't a drug, it's a class of drugs. Really sloppy editing.

You beat me to it, I just paused reading to come moan about that before continuing. But not only that, having read a lot about benzos and have previously been prescribed a few different ones for insomnia, their effects are to quote Wikipedia "sedative, hypnotic (sleep-inducing), anxiolytic (anti-anxiety), anticonvulsant, and muscle relaxant" Unless mixed with another drug - but I'm guessing he wasn't drinking in ther…

[deleted]

Re: Thomas Quick: The serial killer who wasn't

#19

Post by Cederfjard » Sun, Nov 08, 2015, 8:08 PM UTC

kozukumi wrote: post #3

martinald wrote: post #2

"Benzodiazepine" isn't a drug, it's a class of drugs. Really sloppy editing.

Indeed, and the range is rather large as well for what they cover. Most people have taken a Valium (diazepam) at some point in their life for example.

I don't know about the UK, which would have been relevant since that's where the author of the piece is from (maybe you do?), but in Sweden it's certainly not true that most people have ever had a Valium (or rather one of the brands that are marketed here). Many may not even know what they are, and if they do, they think of them as something a very ill person or a junkie might take.

Swedish physicians are quite restrictive with prescribing benzodiazepines in general - unless you have some serious issues you're not going to get them. This is in contrast to my (very possibly flawed) image of benzodiazepine use in the United States. Going by pop culture and brief discussions with a few Americans, that country pops heavy duty benzos such as Xanax like candy, with their doctors' blessings. I don't have any insight into which approach is more guided by rationality and the well-being of patients, so I'm not making any judgements.

My point is that the Swedish journalist might have made a much bigger deal of their role in this mess than an American or possibly a Brit would.

Re: Thomas Quick: The serial killer who wasn't

#20

Post by lomnakkus » Sun, Nov 08, 2015, 8:14 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #13

StavrosK wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> arrives at a probability of 183%. I don't see anything wrong with the math. It simply means that Quick is certainly guilty, with an 83% chance of being double-guilty, which is an obscure legal term I don't expect the technocrat audience of HN to be familiar with.

If you use the word 'probability' the expected range of values is 0-1 or 0 through 100%, you can't really be 'double-guilty' of anything. See also: Bayes theorem, which was formulated expressly with the idea of evaluating evidence. If I see the words 'probability' and '183%' in one sentence than as part of that audience I suspect a buggy algorithm, not a new interpretation of the word probability. If you can be doubl…

I think you missed parent poster's sarcasm :).