← Back to context

Comment by nomilk

11 hours ago

A few other circumstantial things lightly hint at the twins not being typically American:

1. Obliviousness to local laws and oversight (and the combination of severity of punishment + likelihood of getting caught); most Americans of their intelligence would be aware, and would not engage in the sort of hijinks they did.

2. Working with sibling (anecdotal, but seems slightly more common among immigrant families than locals, which would make sense since, on average, immigrants have fewer local connections than locals so the likelihood of working with siblings increases)

3. Loyalty to family (evidenced through the brazenness in the way they helped each other in criminal acts without a second thought). Americans, on average, are more individualist and hesitate more when asked by family to do something criminal

4. A lot of immigrants eventually adopt anglicised names, which neither of these two did

If a detective looked at these facts, they'd keep an open mind as there's nothing definitive above, but it would be equally ignorant to ignore the circumstantial evidence.

Having said all this, do we care where they're from? (unless it's a potential case of foreign interference or theft from an untouchable overseas company, which doesn't seem to be the case here)

> "most Americans of their intelligence would be aware"

that would still leave up to 49% Americans not being aware. so how did you conclude that they were not Americans? Also, how did you measure their intelligence?

> "slightly more common among immigrant families than locals"

even if true, how did you conclude that these were not Americans?

> "Americans, on average, are more individualist and hesitate more when asked by family to do something criminal"

even if on average Americans are more so, how did you conclude that these were not Americans?

> "A lot of immigrants eventually adopt anglicised names"

from your sentence it seems a lot of them don't. so how did you conclude that these were not Americans?

It would be a disaster for immigrants in your area if you were ever hired into some kind of investigative/law enforcement role.

  • > that would still leave up to 49% .... how did you conclude?

    This fundamentally misunderstands how predictive models work. A parameter is a potentially useful predictor if it's better than excluding it 50.000001% of the time (high frequency trading is good evidence of this).

    > conclude

    Conclusions? Absolutely not. Higher statistical probability? Yes. Based on evidence. To state your point, which is bleeding obvious, of course you cannot know how recently someone or their family came to America based only on their behaviour with regard to the law. But their behaviour with regard to the law absolutely can be a useful predictor.

    (in fact, it's precisely this rationale that justifies in some cases giving foreigners lighter sentences where 'their culture' allowed for xyz but the local jurisdiction doesn't - roadrules in the UK is a pretty good example: local truck drivers get the full penalty; those from continental Europe often do not, since road rules are less likely to be known by them)

    Alternate example: ask a Western drug smuggler busted in Indonesia or Vietnam how long they expected their jail sentence to be if caught (spoiler - it's a trick question: they'll say 3-5 years and instead are met with the death penalty; whereas most locals are well aware of this) - ignorance to local laws and customs does correlate with how long someone (or their family) has lived in the area, if at all.

These are not remotely indicators that someone is an American citizen.

  • I take it you're not in HR at the CIA or FBI, which vet applicants' families for a reason. i.e. how long ago applicants and/or their families came to the US does help predict their loyalties... It might not be a strong nor fair predictor, but it's not zero either.

If their names were Eric and Donald Jr., surely they wouldn't have been doing petty crimes like these two...