Not quite. The author's point is that, at least according to released information and any unavoidable biases involved, the physical evidence strongly suggests Guede while hardly even slightly suggesting he had help.
More strongly the author is trying to argue that its an easy fallacy to get drawn into psychological motives because we're "great" at modeling other people's thoughts. In light of this implicitly perceived strength we tend to ignore the real likelihood of the evidences.
I don't know if it's something I agree about, however. I haven't personally reviewed the evidence and don't particularly put a lot of trust in any of the sources including the Less Wrong contributors.
More strongly the author is trying to argue that its an easy fallacy to get drawn into psychological motives because we're "great" at modeling other people's thoughts. In light of this implicitly perceived strength we tend to ignore the real likelihood of the evidences.
I don't know if it's something I agree about, however. I haven't personally reviewed the evidence and don't particularly put a lot of trust in any of the sources including the Less Wrong contributors.
See also: the experimental portion of this essay http://lesswrong.com/lw/1j7/the_amanda_knox_test_how_an_hour...