Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Bill Williams]

My point is that the long held meme here, by me as well, came into question with the Spanish article revealing that Rudi had several computers at his place.

When I then went back and looked at the evidence it became much weaker. If CT's story went against the kids I'd discount it. Not during Rudi in makes little sense and then we find that he was still going to Domus it made the story even less credible.

I've always thought the Koko story was strange.

Was that a True Crime magazine?

 

[Samson]

Here is provisionally a pdf file, ( I am learning to copy these to text)

Downloaded from gut.bmj.com - Published by group.bmj.com

Isotope gastric emptying tests in clinical practice: expectation, outcome, and utility

Unless otherwise requested gastric emptying was assessed using a standard physiological test meal incorporating technetium-99m (99mTc)
labelled bran and semisolid in character. When specifically requested, emptying of liquid was assessed using 15% dextrose labelled with 99mTcdiethylene triamine penta-acetic acid.

Results

The normal range of responses to testing was taken from 47 studies carried out on normal healthy volunteers. Details of these studies have
been reported previously. The semisolid test meal (37 subjects) was found to have a mean half emptying time of 45 minutes with no appreciable
lag phase. For the liquid test meal (10 subjects) the mean emptying at 15 minutes was 10%. For both tests, data from control studies were used to
derive 95% confidence intervals for all points on the emptying curves for normal subjects, which were then used to assign normality or abnormality
to the results of subsequent studies. END

I take from this two points.
1. There is much less variability at this end of the digestive process than subsequent stages, and it is those later stages that are, insert meme, "notoriously unreliable". It is the discussion of later stages that has corrupted the judicial process.
2 Commencement is very quick for these small meals, but as Chris suggested above, Meredith may have consumed just 250 mil of solids, and potentially a first course, gap, second course.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

ordinarily TMB can follow a luminol test

So you finally admit that the prints could have been there for an extended period from a very weak blood mixture left by previous tenets?

Your explanation above gives credence to the PGP that the TMB negative means little to nothing, no?

Based on the fact that Rep. 180 does not look like Amanda's reference print (even though it is in Amanda's room, I have long thought that the prints predated Meredith's and Amanda's being tenants. However, I think it could be soil or rusty water that caused the reaction with luminol. The lack of Meredith's DNA in most of the luminol-positive areas argues against its being her blood.

RoseMontague and I found several citations in the literature which suggest that one should follow up a fluorescent assay such as luminol with a colorimetric assay such as TMB. The PGP don't seem to acknowledge this, and they don't get the notion that if the TMB result is generally meaningless, they are effectively calling Stefanoni stupid (she followed luminol with TMB). I don't believe that a properly performed luminol test will not interfere with a TMB test , but when the luminol is overapplied, that could be a very different situation.

REFERENCE: Gross AM, Harris KA, Kaldun GL. The effect of luminol on presumptive tests and DNA analysis using the poly- merase chain reaction. J Forensic Sci 1999;44(4):837–840.
ABSTRACT: Thisstudywasdesignedtotestthefollowingfactors involved with processing luminol treated bloodstained evidence: 1) The reactivity of other presumptive chemical color tests, phenolph- thalin (PT) and tetramethylbenzidine (TMB), following the applica- tion of the light emitting luminol presumptive test. 2) The effect of different cleanings of various bloody substrates on the luminol test. 3) The effect of different cleanings of various bloody substrates on the ability to obtain DNA suitable for PCR testing. 4) The ability to extract DNA from luminol treated bloodstained substrates using three extraction techniques. 5) The effect of spraying washed and unwashed bloodstains on various substrates with luminol on the ability to correctly type the DNA using PCR. Our findings indicated that luminol did not adversely effect the PCR testing and did not in- terfere with the PT and TMB presumptive tests for blood. It was de- termined that the substrate and the method of cleaning were the ma- jor factors affecting DNA yield and the ability to type the bloodstains using PCR based technologies. (highlighting mine)

 

[acbytesla]

I'm done with this argument with you Grinder. There is evidence that Rudy burgled. Just that you don't accept it. You dismiss CT. You dismiss the little hammer that Rudy has on him at the nursery. You dismiss the coincidences, Ms Diaz, his next door neighbor, the previous burglary at the nursery. The fact that Rudy is in possession of two out of the three items that that were robbed from the law office only days before. You come to the conclusion that if there isn't enough evidence to convict that they didn't happen.

I cannot prove that Rudy burgled the law office. I can't prove that Rudy burgled the nursery either time. Or Ms. Diaz. Sure, there is a remote possibility that Rudy got all these stolen items from someone else. But you'll excuse me if I think the possibility is very remote.

 

[Desert Fox]

I cannot prove that Rudy burgled the law office. I can't prove that Rudy burgled the nursery either time. Or Ms. Diaz. Sure, there is a remote possibility that Rudy got all these stolen items from someone else. But you'll excuse me if I think the possibility is very remote.

We always have to work with reasonable doubt. . . .There is always some doubt. Why I do not support the death penalty. I can be wrong and the person gets locked up for life but at least we did not kill them.

Maybe Rudy has an identical twin murder who did all the crimes and Rudy wants to protect his brother. I think it is pretty damn remote to be honest.

Granted, what Grinder seems to be arguing is less remote than what I just argued, it still does not seem to be within the reasonable doubt levels.

 

[Dan O.]

There are no crazy questions. Only crazy.

I have a crazy question. Has anyone ever seen a picture of the bra showing that the clasp was not attached to it when it was collected?

Our first view of the bra is in the crime scene video showing the bra near Meredith's feet with the clasp clearly missing. There are subsequent shots and closeups with the still camera. At the time of collection there is video of fingers pointing to the end where the clasp should be and audio remarks in Italian (have these ever been transcribed and translated?)

I have noted that between the time of that first video shot and the stills the bra had moved as if it were picked up and put down again but not in exactly the same spot.

 

[acbytesla]

We always have to work with reasonable doubt. . . .There is always some doubt. Why I do not support the death penalty. I can be wrong and the person gets locked up for life but at least we did not kill them.

Maybe Rudy has an identical twin murder who did all the crimes and Rudy wants to protect his brother. I think it is pretty damn remote to be honest.

Granted, what Grinder seems to be arguing is less remote than what I just argued, it still does not seem to be within the reasonable doubt levels.

I'm not sure I'd go that far DF. But the one thing that has hardly been touched in this discussion of whether Rudy was a burglar or not is the little hammer that is found in his backpack. There is little need for Rudy to be carrying a hammer on his trip to Milan. I never heard he was a carpenter. This is a burglar's tool. Period. That he didn't need it to break into the nursery is a big "so what".

Grinder keeps us honest and for that I appreciate him. But I do think he is stretching his own credibility with the fence instead of a burglar idea. It is possible...but there is nothing really that points us in that direction. Yet I think there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that Rudy is a burglar.

 

[Grinder]

I'm done with this argument with you Grinder. There is evidence that Rudy burgled. Just that you don't accept it. You dismiss CT. You dismiss the little hammer that Rudy has on him at the nursery. You dismiss the coincidences, Ms Diaz, his next door neighbor, the previous burglary at the nursery. The fact that Rudy is in possession of two out of the three items that that were robbed from the law office only days before. You come to the conclusion that if there isn't enough evidence to convict that they didn't happen.

I cannot prove that Rudy burgled the law office. I can't prove that Rudy burgled the nursery either time. Or Ms. Diaz. Sure, there is a remote possibility that Rudy got all these stolen items from someone else. But you'll excuse me if I think the possibility is very remote.

You refuse to look at your "evidence" objectively. You would never buy CT's story if it worked against the kids. You would never buy the Diaz story if it worked against the kids with only one source, say Barbie. You can't get anything precisely right, he was in possession of 2 of 4 items stolen. It's not just enough to convict, it's not enough to charge.

I've given more than one PI site that says there was no evidence of a break-in at the nursery. You provide nothing except your personal opinion.

It is highly unlikely that he robbed the nursery before as it obviously was an inside job - knowing when the cash was there - and there were no stories of him living large or buying some apple stock (AAPL).

The little hammer is the best evidence that Rudi did steal but that's not a tool for a second story job.

The coincidence of Diaz would fit exactly the same with him being a fence.

 

[griffinmill]

I do not know. But I suspect she had been doing this for some time. I think her ability to come up with results was why she was called in. But I do not know how the Italian Forensic service worked, Rome may have been the nearest regional forensic service.

What I do know is that The Scientific Police make big play of how since 2009 they have met ISO and other international standards and have quality control mechanisms in place.

I think that whilst they cannot admit it, this case made them look at their systems and realise they were inadequate.

Is there any cite of the defense or prosecution questioning her experience with LCN prior to this case? I glanced (admitted glanced) over her testimony and didn't see that.

 

[griffinmill]

I do not mean to be difficult but proving an absence is difficult. My belief is that if the full records had been disclosed these would have been released by now. The current available records show significant gaps (see http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/missing-profiles-draft/ ). In addition to the electropherograms of the negative controls for the knife there are other samples missing. Presumably they showed no DNA from Kercher, Sollecito, Guede or Knox so were of no interest to the prosecution. The results may be of value to the defence, they may have shown DNA of another unidentified individual. Multiple low level DNA samples would demonstrate environmental contamination.

Comments are made about the lack of Knox DNA and fingerprints indicating cleaning, but why no DNA from MK's boyfriend? Is this present on some unreported samples? It should not be upto the police alone to decide what results are relevant.

If "proving an absence is difficult", then I don't see why it should be assumed that the defense did not, in fact, receive all the EDF's.

In looking over Bongiorno's statement at the appeal, she doesn't seem to mention EDF files.

If the missing EDF files are a smoking gun for contamination, then I find it peculiar that they aren't mentioned, or to the extent they are, aren't a focal part of the argument.

Is there a link or cite to Bongiorno expressing dismay at the missing EDF's specifically at the recent appeal?

 

[Grinder]

Wrong idea, I have to read SGJ properly (I was thinking reports of my death have been exaggerated which was probably Mark Twain)

I am in the midst of searching more pdf files on this subject. Provisionally I am convinced the bender from last night would not alter the result, the more I search the more bizarre it seems she had a full stomach, even at 9, but I plan to assemble some citations.

I suspect the test would be very easy to design and conduct in a research hospital with a motivated PIP person.

Gould was no way way being glib for glibness sake.

What in the hell does a motivated PIP mean? (The last P stands for person or people).

I'm glad that science doesn't get in the way of your being convinced that being drunk as a skunk at 4 or 5 am wouldn't impact digestion that evening. It is obvious to me that being hungover impacts the digestive system. It certainly would be a requirement of a test.

So, what percentage of people that haven't started GE after 2 hours wouldn't start for another hour? What percentage of people that hadn't started for 1 1/2 hours wouldn't start for another hour?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

see earlier thread for links

If "proving an absence is difficult", then I don't see why it should be assumed that the defense did not, in fact, receive all the EDF's.

In looking over Bongiorno's statement at the appeal, she doesn't seem to mention EDF files.

If the missing EDF files are a smoking gun for contamination, then I find it peculiar that they aren't mentioned, or to the extent they are, aren't a focal part of the argument.

Is there a link or cite to Bongiorno expressing dismay at the missing EDF's specifically at the recent appeal?

In 2010 Bob Graham wrote, "And, despite repeated applications from the defence for independent forensic tests to be conducted and for a full disclosure of all DNA test results and methods, the Italian court has remained obdurate in its refusal to do so."

As I said earlier today, Bongiorno discussed the lack of disclosure in an address to the court in the summer or fall of 2009. And as previously noted, the links are in a previous continuation thread. Rather than going into JAQ mode, I suggest that you or anyone else who is interested should turn them up, read, and link them again. And as I said earlier, Dalla Vedova also discussed the lack of disclosure in 2011 (link previously given today).

 

[RandyN]

.............. or the 118 Medical staff who attended on Nov 2 to examine Meredith's body. Both Stefanoni and Napoleoni testified at the Massei trial in 2009 that they'd gone into the bedroom without protective clothing or shoes.
Massei only deals with them in terms of possible contamination on the bra-clasp. Massei says that the clasp was probably protected under Meredith's body or under the pillow.

There's not one mention of them leaving the room.... Massei says they probably did not track in DNA, but did they track out blood smudges?? Were their shoes ever confiscated only so as to rule them out as suspects!

No matter....the protective clothing is just a red herring. The booties are designed so as to limit bringing outside contamination into the crime scene... nothing more.

In fact, the only proper protocol is to segregate the scene and never cross those barriers without a change of booties, etc...the booties in fact are like mini dust mops and would collect dust, DNA, blood and whatever...and if one then steps onto a sticky area ...say an old OJ spill, then it is inevitable that anything on the bottom of the mini mops would easily and certainly be transferred.

 

[Bill Williams]

If "proving an absence is difficult", then I don't see why it should be assumed that the defense did not, in fact, receive all the EDF's.

If they did, then any claim from those defence-folk should be easily refutable. So far all anyone has done is put the onus on the defence that they didn't get something.

How does one prove they DIDN'T receive something?

For me this is the whole problem with the way the various prosecutions, the two convicting courts and guilters alike approach things. Add to this, but then when defence lawyers stray into possible accusations of misconduct, people like Judge Nencini shut them down with reminders that even defence counsel are not immune from being charged with defamation.

I was just reading about the presentation of the DNA evidence (managed by Comodi) at the 2009, Massei trial. All the experts seemed to say was that the DNA presumably of Meredith on the blade and presumably of Raffaele on the clasp, "was not incompatible" with a finding of guilt.

When Bongiorno asked for Massei to dismiss the charges against Raffaele and Amanda on this basis, that all the prosecution experts had were things, "not incompatible" with guilt, Massei and the judges retired, then came back and refused to dismiss the case.

Doesn't ANYONE on the side of guilt have ANYTHING which can be said with a double-positive, rather than a double negative?

 

[RandyN]

So you finally admit that the prints could have been there for an extended period from a very weak blood mixture left by previous tenets?

Your explanation above gives credence to the PGP that the TMB negative means little to nothing, no?

Your point being that it is possible that the luminol gave a positive result but that then there was the perfect dilution so as to test negative for blood with TMB.

This is a statistical invalid.... some would even say stupid argument. About as honest and believable as that Captain who said he tripped and fell into the life boat. This logic is not scientific...it is speculation...at its worst!

 

[acbytesla]

You refuse to look at your "evidence" objectively. You would never buy CT's story if it worked against the kids. You would never buy the Diaz story if it worked against the kids with only one source, say Barbie. You can't get anything precisely right, he was in possession of 2 of 4 items stolen. It's not just enough to convict, it's not enough to charge.

I've given more than one PI site that says there was no evidence of a break-in at the nursery. You provide nothing except your personal opinion.

It is highly unlikely that he robbed the nursery before as it obviously was an inside job - knowing when the cash was there - and there were no stories of him living large or buying some apple stock (AAPL).

The little hammer is the best evidence that Rudi did steal but that's not a tool for a second story job.

The coincidence of Diaz would fit exactly the same with him being a fence.

With all due respect Grinder, I think I'm looking at this very objectively. There is nothing that points to Rudy being a fence as opposed to a burglar. Not a single thing. But that doesn't mean he isn't a fence. But him having three laptops doesn't make him a fence. The fact that he has two of three items from a burglary that took place only days before means that a burglar he bought the laptop form sold it to him within days of the burglary. More likely is that he is the burglar. Then you have the ladies gold watch. Now we will never know for sure who that watch belong to. but you can deny the coincidence that Rudy's very next door neighbor was burglarized a couple of days earlier and is missing her mother's gold watch.

You have dismissed CT out of hand. I'm not sure if he is telling the truth or not.

That said, add all of us to the fact that Rudy was carrying the hammer and he was caught inside the nursery is is more than a pretty good indication that Rudy is a burglar.

I am more than willing to consider some evidence that Rudy is a fence instead of a burglar, but you have not provided any. I also think that the fact that Rudy is 20 years old counts against him being a fence.

 

[anglolawyer]

You refuse to look at your "evidence" objectively. You would never buy CT's story if it worked against the kids. You would never buy the Diaz story if it worked against the kids with only one source, say Barbie. You can't get anything precisely right, he was in possession of 2 of 4 items stolen. It's not just enough to convict, it's not enough to charge.
I've given more than one PI site that says there was no evidence of a break-in at the nursery. You provide nothing except your personal opinion.

It is highly unlikely that he robbed the nursery before as it obviously was an inside job - knowing when the cash was there - and there were no stories of him living large or buying some apple stock (AAPL).

The little hammer is the best evidence that Rudi did steal but that's not a tool for a second story job.

The coincidence of Diaz would fit exactly the same with him being a fence.

but we recently learned he was charged and convicted, seemingly in secret, and that his first appeal failed (but he is confident of winning in the ISC so your hopes for vindication must rest on that )

Isn't this a most extraordinary recent twist in the saga? That it should turn out that Rudy was charged with handling the law office items but that the information was somehow suppressed. I must re-read Massei to see how he treats Rudi's criminal career. Micheli was like you Grinder, demanding proof to a high level but now, according to Nencini, he is such a pro we can be sure he would never go in through a window (does that even follow?).

Good luck to Diocletus on the clasp but, if I recall, it was already photographed on the 2nd or 3rd.

And good to hear that all is well in Guilterdom and they are still busy banning each other!

 

[Samson]

Gould was no way way being glib for glibness sake.

What in the hell does a motivated PIP mean? (The last P stands for person or people).

I'm glad that science doesn't get in the way of your being convinced that being drunk as a skunk at 4 or 5 am wouldn't impact digestion that evening. It is obvious to me that being hungover impacts the digestive system. It certainly would be a requirement of a test.

So, what percentage of people that haven't started GE after 2 hours wouldn't start for another hour? What percentage of people that hadn't started for 1 1/2 hours wouldn't start for another hour?

I withdrew the Gould reference due to not reading it carefully.
A motivated PIP person to me is someone who sees innocence screaming at them. Yes the word person is redundant. I never made up labels, I don't like them but they are convenient.

Here is an abstract

Research Article


Effect of ethanol upon gastric emptying.

S E Kaufman,
M D Kaye


Abstract

The effect of ethanol upon gastric emptying in healthy human subjects was studied by measuring the gastric emptying rates of three 750 ml meals, the osmolalities, energy densities, and pH of which were similar. Meal A, which contained 80 ml alcohol, emptied more rapidly than meal B, which contained 40 ml ethanol and 63.3 g dextrose; and meal B emptied more rapidly than meal C, which contained 126.6 g dextrose but no ethanol. The slower rate of emptying of the dextrose meal (C) was not due to an increased gastric secretory rate, as serial measurements of gastric pH were substantially and significantly higher with this than with the other two meals; nor was it due to a greater degree of duodenogastric reflux, as serial measurements of gastric bile acid concentrations were similar for the three meals. We conclude that the duodenal osmoreceptor mechanism is relatively insensitive to ethanol; that the relationship between energy density and gastric emptying rate does not hold in the case of ethanol; and that the gastro-oesophageal reflux which occurs in response to ethanol is not due to impairment of gastric emptying.

I know this abstract does not demonstrate the effect of a hangover, but hardly supports your intuition that delay is a consequence.

There are 7 thousand studies to work through of combos and permutations of gastric emptying in this one link.

http://gut.bmj.com/search?fulltext=gastric+emptying&submit=yes&x=15&y=4

We are coming from opposite directions. I am trying to understand how she could still have a full stomach at 9pm, and think death can be proved about then, and Raf's alibi is absolutely superb, while you appear to see infinite gastric delay possible from a start point of full stomach, though I note you discount 11 30pm death from digestive evidence. I am sure this gap can be closed in Raf's favour, and thus also for his accomplice.

 

[Samson]

but we recently learned he was charged and convicted, seemingly in secret, and that his first appeal failed (but he is confident of winning in the ISC so your hopes for vindication must rest on that )

Isn't this a most extraordinary recent twist in the saga? That it should turn out that Rudy was charged with handling the law office items but that the information was somehow suppressed. I must re-read Massei to see how he treats Rudi's criminal career. Micheli was like you Grinder, demanding proof to a high level but now, according to Nencini, he is such a pro we can be sure he would never go in through a window (does that even follow?).

Good luck to Diocletus on the clasp but, if I recall, it was already photographed on the 2nd or 3rd.

And good to hear that all is well in Guilterdom and they are still busy banning each other!

A pity really, they were just warming up. Still enough for another song in the upcoming musical.

 

[acbytesla]

but we recently learned he was charged and convicted, seemingly in secret, and that his first appeal failed (but he is confident of winning in the ISC so your hopes for vindication must rest on that )

Isn't this a most extraordinary recent twist in the saga? That it should turn out that Rudy was charged with handling the law office items but that the information was somehow suppressed. I must re-read Massei to see how he treats Rudi's criminal career. Micheli was like you Grinder, demanding proof to a high level but now, according to Nencini, he is such a pro we can be sure he would never go in through a window (does that even follow?).

Good luck to Diocletus on the clasp but, if I recall, it was already photographed on the 2nd or 3rd.

And good to hear that all is well in Guilterdom and they are still busy banning each other!

In all fairness to Grinder's argument, I believe Rudy was only convicted of "possessing stolen goods" not burglary.