Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

Hi Planigale,
I've wondered about the cats blood story for years.
Finally saw the crime scene video from the downstairs apartment,
and I found it odd that only Stefano's bed was unmade, and had blood on it.
Like Meredith's bed too.

But none of the other guys and gals had blood on their beds
nor were the bedding removed or tossed into a heap.

I'm uploading a few pix which show Stefano's bed, and what is supposed to be cats blood on it.
The drops are like what we see on the stairway down to the apartment,
but what about the blood stains seen in the 3rd photo?

They sure look different than what I'd think a cat would leave.
Thoughts anyone?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9188[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9190[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9189[/qimg]


The blood on the 2 creases, pictured above, bothers me,
what, did the cat rub up against the crease?

What about the lower stain,
heck it almost looks like part of a knife imprint from the blade...

RW,
Thanks for showing these pictures.

The lower blood stain consisting of a line ending in a curve certainly suggests a knife imprint to me.

A "cat" with a knife.

Wasn't there a blood stain on the lower apartment light switch as well?

 

[kwill]

The discussion on the normal distribution is just sophistry on the part of Machiavelli.

It is obvious that the distribution is not normal. It cannot be normal, otherwise we would have negative values with probability > 0, which is obviously nonsense. It is obvious that there must be a physical limit for the time of gastric emptying, otherwise it would be impossible for humans to eat more than one meal (ever?). It just so happens that this limit is about 1 hour and a half. I mean, most people start to get hungry about 2 to 3 hours after a meal, when the stomach becomes empty or almost empty.

Yes, I know. Mach has been looking at an image of the normal distribution and reading from it that an 11 pm TOD is just as likely as a 9 pm one.

His argument is based completely on the way the normal curve approaches the horizontal axis as it travels to the right -- i.e., the vanishing difference between the probability of a full stomach & empty duodenum at time N as opposed to time N + 2. That's what the 114 year old person/115 year old person example was about.

However, as you say, there is a physical limit for the time of gastric emptying, just as there is a physical limit for the time when gastric emptying begins. Mathematics is wonderful, but it's only a model. Mach's argument -- which I'm guessing came from some eager beaver over at one of his preferred PGP sites -- carries zero weight.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Chen and Hellmig studies of t(lag)

Chen and Coworkers (Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (2003) 18,
41–46) found a mean time of t(lag) of 82 minutes, and a longest time of 118 minutes. Their definition of t(lag) was that it was 10% of the meal. Hellmig and coworkers (doi:10.1111/j.1440-1746.2006.04449.x) found that the distribution of T(lag) was not normal, and they found a median time of about 82 minutes, a longest time was about 200 minutes and a second longest time was 170 minutes. Their definition of T(lag), which is time to reach fastest gastric emptying, will probably produce longer values than the 10% definition, as I discussed about a week or two ago.

LondonJohn provided a good discussion of conditional probabilities two or three years ago in these threads. It might be worth unearthing one or two of his posts on the subject.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA transfer during handshakes

At Forensic Magazine Joe Minor wrote, "On one occasion, I swabbed my own hand after handshakes at a social function to determine the presence of other epithelial cells. The laboratory was able to obtain a mixture of my DNA as well as two other individuals." He also wrote, "It is known that we shed approximately 400,000 cells daily.¹" So much for Nencini and his vigorous rubbing theory of DNA transfer.
EDT
His comments on contamination are also worth perusing, IMO.

 

[MDDVS]

Chen and Coworkers (Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (2003) 18,
41–46) found a mean time of t(lag) of 82 minutes, and a longest time of 118 minutes. Their definition of t(lag) was that it was 10% of the meal. Hellmig and coworkers (doi:10.1111/j.1440-1746.2006.04449.x) found that the distribution of T(lag) was not normal, and they found a median time of about 82 minutes, a longest time was about 200 minutes and a second longest time was 170 minutes. Their definition of T(lag), which is time to reach fastest gastric emptying, will probably produce longer values than the 10% definition, as I discussed about a week or two ago.

LondonJohn provided a good discussion of conditional probabilities two or three years ago in these threads. It might be worth unearthing one or two of his posts on the subject.

It is interesting to note in the Hellmig at al. paper these two results:

- t[lag] for females is on average smaller than for males
- t[lag] is correlated with age, and lower ages also have smaller dispersion.

The absolute maximum for a person of Meredith's age is actually about 120 min. And this is for t[lag] defined as the time of fastest emptying.

All this supports even more the gastric emptying argument.

I suggest everyone have a look at the plot in figure 3 of the paper so you can see just how well constrained t[lag] is for a person with Meredith's age.

 

[tsig]

Many certainly don't seem to. . . .

There's the textbook, clean, and abstract, then there's real life, messy and confusing.

 

[MDDVS]

There's the textbook, clean, and abstract, then there's real life, messy and confusing.

Yes, the famed italian "casino".

 

[kwill]

It is interesting to note in the Hellmig at al. paper these two results:

- t[lag] for females is on average smaller than for males
- t[lag] is correlated with age, and lower ages also have smaller dispersion.

The absolute maximum for a person of Meredith's age is actually about 120 min. And this is for t[lag] defined as the time of fastest emptying.

All this supports even more the gastric emptying argument.

I suggest everyone have a look at the plot in figure 3 of the paper so you can see just how well constrained t[lag] is for a person with Meredith's age.

Do you have access to that plot? I'd like to see it, but the paper is behind the Wiley paywall.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a object lesson in how not to collect evidence

There's the textbook, clean, and abstract, then there's real life, messy and confusing.

tsig,

I have never seen any textbook or article say that (for instance) it was OK not to change gloves when handling successive items of evidence with one's gloved hands. I have quoted in these threads a number of sources that say exactly the opposite. What have you read? IMO your argument is nothing other than special pleading.

 

[MDDVS]

Do you have access to that plot? I'd like to see it, but the paper is behind the Wiley paywall.

I have access but I'm not sure if I can just paste it here without infringing copyright.

 

[acbytesla]

There's the textbook, clean, and abstract, then there's real life, messy and confusing.

It can't be messy and confusing Tsig. It must be precise and reliable. One mistake and you ruin someone's life. That is simply unacceptable.

 

[Desert Fox]

There's the textbook, clean, and abstract, then there's real life, messy and confusing.

tsig,

I have never seen any textbook or article say that (for instance) it was OK not to change gloves when handling successive items of evidence with one's gloved hands. I have quoted in these threads a number of sources that say exactly the opposite. What have you read? IMO your argument is nothing other than special pleading.

I wonder how Tsig would feel if the doctor goes from a patient with something comunicative without changing her gloves. When you complain "Why don't you change your gloves" and she responds "There's the textbook, clean, and abstract, then there's real life, messy and confusing."

 

[acbytesla]

I wonder how Tsig would feel if the doctor goes from a patient with something comunicative without changing her gloves. When you complain "Why don't you change your gloves" and she responds "There's the textbook, clean, and abstract, then there's real life, messy and confusing."

Yeah, sorry about that. But don't worry, the last patient I treated only had genital herpes, it's not like they had the Ebola virus...or did they??

 

[Desert Fox]

Yeah, sorry about that. But don't worry, the last patient I treated only had genital herpes, it's not like they had the Ebola virus...or did they??

Another way to think of it is James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge . . . .
Imagine if it was done without a solid set of protocols, he would have long ago lost his million dollars.

 

[Samson]

Yes, I know. Mach has been looking at an image of the normal distribution and reading from it that an 11 pm TOD is just as likely as a 9 pm one.

His argument is based completely on the way the normal curve approaches the horizontal axis as it travels to the right -- i.e., the vanishing difference between the probability of a full stomach & empty duodenum at time N as opposed to time N + 2. That's what the 114 year old person/115 year old person example was about.

However, as you say, there is a physical limit for the time of gastric emptying, just as there is a physical limit for the time when gastric emptying begins. Mathematics is wonderful, but it's only a model. Mach's argument -- which I'm guessing came from some eager beaver over at one of his preferred PGP sites -- carries zero weight.

Thanks to Mach, it will be useful to assemble the various posts in this discussion, and find neutral parties to comment. In my opinion, Mach has conceded that for a theory of guilt to be true, his arguments must be valid, and if they do not pass muster, it is case closed for a time of death that allows the prosecution case.
At least he has the fortitude to have a go, the rest of them are spineless fools.

 

[kwill]

Thanks to Mach, it will be useful to assemble the various posts in this discussion, and find neutral parties to comment. In my opinion, Mach has conceded that for a theory of guilt to be true, his arguments must be valid, and if they do not pass muster, it is case closed for a time of death that allows the prosecution case.
At least he has the fortitude to have a go, the rest of them are spineless fools.

Yeah. But if you find neutral parties to examine the testimony and the gastric evidence, the very next event will be a series of attacks on the credibility & impartiality of those parties.

The PGP does not care what the evidence says. I just hope that the European Union does.

 

[js202]

In my opinion, Mach has conceded that for a theory of guilt to be true, his arguments must be valid, and if they do not pass muster, it is case closed for a time of death that allows the prosecution case.

Having witnessed this entity's proprietary combination of stubbornness and delusion for 4-plus years, I will say that your assessment is unlikely to come to any kind of satisfying culmination in any scenario, whatsoever.

For example, the astonishing nitwit "Ergon"'s belief is so bulletproof, he has said that he would disbelieve Rudy Guede if he had his Saul on the Road to Damascus moment and admitted full culpability. Based on my experience, Gabriel and the Holy Trinity could materialize out of the ether, chanting for a period of one month that Knox and Sollecito were uninvolved in the murder of Meredith Kercher, and Machiavelli would posthaste produce an online treatise explaining how God, his hosts and angels may be omnipotent in relative terms, but cannot be trusted to be accurate in all circumstances.

 

[acbytesla]

Another way to think of it is James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge . . . .
Imagine if it was done without a solid set of protocols, he would have long ago lost his million dollars.

Science is base upon precision. Thinking that it is OK to be sloppy is just the wrong way to be effective. I have been working on my house a lot lately and nothing is perfect but it looks very good. Sometimes a 16th of an inch is acceptable and sometimes it isn't. With this we are talking about a millionths and billionths of invisible matter. That's why the tests need to be repeatable. Because mistakes do happen. But the protocols are required to keep those mistakes to a minimum.

 

[Diocletus]

Again, my interpretation (not stated by Professor Illuminati):

The changes in Italian law & constitution were obviously motivated by ECHR rulings and the E Convention of HR. The inquisitorial system did not allow significant confrontation (cross-examination) of witness, and relied too much on the judgement of the prosecutor and judge - tending to the presumption of guilt. One ECHR case at the time changes were made is Luca v. Italy, ECHR final judgement 27-02-2001. The following is from the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights:

Publication: 2001-II
Title: Lucà v. Italy
Application No: 33354/96
Respondent: Italy
Referred by:
Date of reference by Commission:
Date of reference by State:
Date of Judgment: 27-02-2001
Articles: 6-1
6-3-d
41 Conclusion: Violation of article 6-1
Violation of article 6-3-d
Compensation awarded
Keywords: FAIR TRIAL / EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES

Summary:
Article 6(1) ECHR: Right to a fair hearing; Article 6(3)(d) ECHR: Right to hear witnesses

Facts:
The Criminal Court sentenced the applicant to eight years and four months' imprisonment for drug-trafficking. His conviction, which was upheld by the court of appeal in November 1994 and by the Court of Cassation in November 1995 was based solely on statements made to the public prosecutor during the investigations by a co-accused in connected proceedings. Despite the fact that neither the applicant nor his representative were ever given an opportunity to examine the maker of the statements, either at the trial (the co-accused exercising his right to remain silent in accordance with Article 210 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure), or at any other stage of the proceedings, the statements were nonetheless admitted in evidence and formed the main basis for the applicant's conviction. Article 513 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as worded at the material time and construed by the Italian Constitutional Court in its judgment no. 254 of 1992 (which contained no references to the guarantees of a fair trial set out in article 6 or to the criteria established by the Court's case-law in that connection) enabled the trial court to use statements made by a co-accused in connected proceedings where the co-accused had exercised his right to remain silent and refused to repeat them at the hearing, even if the person against whom the statements were apt to be used had been given no opportunity of examining the maker at any stage in the proceedings. In that connection, the Court referred to the amendment of article 111 of the Italian Constitution that had been adopted after the events in issue. It noted that by virtue of Law no. 35 of 25 February 2000, which set out the extent to which the amended Article 111 of the Constitution applied to pending proceedings, the former rules continued under certain circumstances to apply to such proceedings.

Complaints:
The applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair and alleged that he had been convicted on the basis of statements made to the public prosecutor, without being given an opportunity to examine the maker of the statements, N., or to have him examined. He relied on article 6(1) and (3)(d).

Legal considerations:
Article 6(1) jo 6(3)(d)
As a general rule, paragraphs 1 and 3(d) of article 6 required that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either when he made his statement or at a later stage. In that regard, the fact that the depositions had been made, as here, by a co-accused rather than by a witness was of no relevance, since the term "witness" had an "autonomous" meaning in the Convention system. Thus, where a deposition could serve to a material degree as the basis for a conviction, then, irrespective of whether it had been made by a witness in the strict sense or by a co-accused, it constituted evidence for the prosecution to which the guarantees provided by article 6(1) and (3)(d) applied (on that point, the Court therefore did not consider pertinent the Court of Cassation's reason, based on a literal construction of article 6, for rejecting the applicant's ground of appeal based on that provision). As the Court had stated on a number of occasions, it could prove necessary in certain circumstances to refer to depositions made during the investigative stage (in particular, where a witness refused to repeat his deposition in public owing to fears for his safety, a not infrequent occurrence in trials concerning Mafia-type organisations). As such, their admission in evidence would not in itself contravene article 6(1) and (3)(d). However, where a conviction was based solely or to a decisive degree on depositions that had been made by a person whom the accused had had no opportunity to examine or to have examined, whether during the investigation or at the trial, the rights of the defence were restricted to an extent that was incompatible with the guarantees provided by article 6. Following its case-law on the subject, the Court said that it was furthermore clear that the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses in the wide sense of that term under the Convention system should necessarily always take place at the trial. Although the evidence, including the evidence for the prosecution, normally had to be examined at the hearing, certain special circumstances such as those referred to above could make it difficult, or even impossible, for depositions made at an earlier date to be repeated at a public hearing. In such cases, article 6 required only that the accused should have been given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge the evidence concerned, even before trial. The Court also implicitly rejected the Government's argument based on the need to protect the right to remain silent of a co-accused called to repeat at a public hearing statements he had made previously. It was not the right to remain silent that was in issue. The co-accused retained his right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself. However, if he exercised that right, as in the case before the Court, his previous depositions could only be used against other persons as material evidence of guilt if the accused had had the opportunity of cross-examining him at some stage in the proceedings. In the case before the Court, the domestic courts had convicted the applicant solely on the basis of statements made by a co-accused before the trial in connected proceedings and neither the applicant nor his lawyer had been given an opportunity at any stage of the proceedings to question him. The Court therefore concluded that the applicant had not been given an adequate and proper opportunity to contest the statements on which he had been found guilty.

Article 41
The Court considered that it could not speculate on what the outcome of the proceedings would have been if they had complied with article 6(1) and (3)(d). It therefore made an award for non-pecuniary damage only. The applicant was also awarded a lump sum for the costs he had incurred before the Court.

Italy has clearly breached its obligations under the ECHR in its haste to convict Knox.

I have no idea why the Italian supreme court was so stupid as to handle this case as it did, because it is going to be venturing into hostile territory of the appeal(s) are accepted.

 

[Desert Fox]

Science is base upon precision. Thinking that it is OK to be sloppy is just the wrong way to be effective. I have been working on my house a lot lately and nothing is perfect but it looks very good. Sometimes a 16th of an inch is acceptable and sometimes it isn't. With this we are talking about a millionths and billionths of invisible matter. That's why the tests need to be repeatable. Because mistakes do happen. But the protocols are required to keep those mistakes to a minimum.

There are what are called "Back of the Envelop" calculations . . . .
Basically, cases where you check things out in a casual way to see if something is even possible. Forensic DNA testing is not that way.

The only equivalent in forensics might be the use of luminol. It is the "maybe there is blood here" which then has to be followed up by other tests. She even seems to have gotten that wrong however.