Yeah i'm not quite sure what formula the coroner used. Standard formula puts the ToD at 18 hours from when the coroner took the Body Temp Reading. The only way to explain that is the room temperature reached the body temperature while they where investigating the scene. Then the coroner came later that night and checked the body temp after the room cooled back off.
Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case
- Thread starter Kevin_Lowe
- Start date
- Status
Yeah i'm not quite sure what formula the coroner used. Standard formula puts the ToD at 18 hours from when the coroner took the Body Temp Reading. The only way to explain that is the room temperature reached the body temperature while they where investigating the scene. Then the coroner came later that night and checked the body temp after the room cooled back off.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
I see the statistical theory you are applying here, and it has a certain amount of underlying validity. However, in this case I think that the length of elapsed time before the first body temperature measurements were made, coupled with a seeming lack of understanding of the ambient temperature in Meredith's room during the night of the murder and the following morning, mean that the time range quoted by the pathologist can't even be subjected to a meaningful bell-curve type analysis. There is SO much margin for error, and so many unquantified variables, that body temperature as a measure of ToD is virtually useless in this instance.
The stomach/intestine contents, on the other hand, tell a different and much more precise story...
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
I totally agree, and I too am very grateful for the effort made by the translators - for exactly the same reasons as you are. It's just that I seem to remember some of those involved in the translation being nigh-on certain that it would get picked up by many major media outlets. They seemed to believe strongly that the translation would not only be widely internationally reported upon in its own right, but that it would also result in a Damascene conversion of most of the media commentators who question Knox/Sollecito's convictions. This hasn't happened, as far as I can tell. But then maybe the World's major media operators are still digesting the report, with a view to publishing major pieces about it some time this week. Who knows....?
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,177
When do people call the police?
How do ordinary, innocent people behave when they stumble onto a crime scene? Following is an example from a murder that took place in Washington State.
Jerry Heimann was a 64-year-old man in Everett, Washington. He lived with his mother, who had Alzheimer's disease, as well as his mother's caregiver and her children, who lived in the basement. On April 13, 2001, the caregiver persuaded some friends of her teenage daughter to kill Jerry so they could loot his bank account. They stabbed and bludgeoned him to death, threw his body in the woods, loaded his furniture into a rented truck, and vacated the house after cleaning up the kitchen where they had attacked him. They left the old lady to fend for herself.
Jerry had prior reason to doubt the goodwill of his mother's caregiver. Just a week or two earlier, she had stolen $1,800 from him by forging a check. Jerry called his son Greg and told him about this, and Greg advised him to fire the caregiver, but Jerry did not do so. Nor did he call the police.
A few days after the murder, Greg and his wife flew in for a visit they had been planning for months. Jerry had said he would meet them at the airport, and they were expecting him. They waited for three hours before taking a cab to Jerry's house.
When they got there, the place was dark and no one seemed to be home. They looked around and managed to get in through a window. The first thing they noticed was that most of the furniture was gone. Then they found Jerry's mother, who was sitting in her wheelchair chewing on a piece of paper. She was hungry and dehydrated, and she had soiled her diapers. They got her cleaned up, fed, and put to bed. Then they got some groceries and prepared a meal for themselves in the kitchen.
After dinner, they decided to call around to Jerry's friends and acquaintances, as well as the Highway Patrol and local hospitals, to find out if anyone knew where he was. That was when they noticed that all the phones in the house had been unplugged and the answering machine had been disconnected.
Numerous phone calls produced no report of anyone having seen Jerry in the past week. By then it was well into the evening and the couple was tired after a long day, so they went to bed. Greg awoke at 3 a.m. and couldn't get back to sleep, so he went downstairs to the kitchen. While he was sipping a cup of coffee, he suddenly noticed that there was blood on the back of the chair next to him. In fact, there was quite a bit of blood spattered on it. Casting his eyes around the room, he noticed for the first time that there was blood on the walls, too. And there was blood running down the side of a trash can in the kitchen.
That was when Greg decided he should call the police... but, he didn't actually do so. Instead he sat around until about 7:00 am, when he received a phone call from his mother, who lived in the area. She asked him to wait for her to get there before calling the police. So he did.
Shortly after 8:00 am, someone knocked on the door. It was a man from a government agency, Adult Protective Services. He had come to investigate an anonymous tip that the caregiver intended to harm Jerry Heimann. Greg described the situation to this individual, who immediately used his cell phone to call the police.
Why didn't Greg call the cops the minute he arrived at his father's house and found the furniture gone and the old lady in a state of neglect? Isn't that what any normal person would have done?
How could Greg and his wife prepare and eat dinner in a kitchen where there was blood spatter on the walls and furniture without even noticing it?
Anyone who sets out to analyze whether certain types of behavior are indicative of guilt should start by reading some crime stories to get a sense of what is "normal." The fact is that "normal" behavior is all over the map and very often seems ridiculously naive or clueless when viewed with the benefit of hindsight.
My source for the above is Mom said kill, a book by Burl Barer about the Heimann murder.
How do ordinary, innocent people behave when they stumble onto a crime scene? Following is an example from a murder that took place in Washington State.
Jerry Heimann was a 64-year-old man in Everett, Washington. He lived with his mother, who had Alzheimer's disease, as well as his mother's caregiver and her children, who lived in the basement. On April 13, 2001, the caregiver persuaded some friends of her teenage daughter to kill Jerry so they could loot his bank account. They stabbed and bludgeoned him to death, threw his body in the woods, loaded his furniture into a rented truck, and vacated the house after cleaning up the kitchen where they had attacked him. They left the old lady to fend for herself.
Jerry had prior reason to doubt the goodwill of his mother's caregiver. Just a week or two earlier, she had stolen $1,800 from him by forging a check. Jerry called his son Greg and told him about this, and Greg advised him to fire the caregiver, but Jerry did not do so. Nor did he call the police.
A few days after the murder, Greg and his wife flew in for a visit they had been planning for months. Jerry had said he would meet them at the airport, and they were expecting him. They waited for three hours before taking a cab to Jerry's house.
When they got there, the place was dark and no one seemed to be home. They looked around and managed to get in through a window. The first thing they noticed was that most of the furniture was gone. Then they found Jerry's mother, who was sitting in her wheelchair chewing on a piece of paper. She was hungry and dehydrated, and she had soiled her diapers. They got her cleaned up, fed, and put to bed. Then they got some groceries and prepared a meal for themselves in the kitchen.
After dinner, they decided to call around to Jerry's friends and acquaintances, as well as the Highway Patrol and local hospitals, to find out if anyone knew where he was. That was when they noticed that all the phones in the house had been unplugged and the answering machine had been disconnected.
Numerous phone calls produced no report of anyone having seen Jerry in the past week. By then it was well into the evening and the couple was tired after a long day, so they went to bed. Greg awoke at 3 a.m. and couldn't get back to sleep, so he went downstairs to the kitchen. While he was sipping a cup of coffee, he suddenly noticed that there was blood on the back of the chair next to him. In fact, there was quite a bit of blood spattered on it. Casting his eyes around the room, he noticed for the first time that there was blood on the walls, too. And there was blood running down the side of a trash can in the kitchen.
That was when Greg decided he should call the police... but, he didn't actually do so. Instead he sat around until about 7:00 am, when he received a phone call from his mother, who lived in the area. She asked him to wait for her to get there before calling the police. So he did.
Shortly after 8:00 am, someone knocked on the door. It was a man from a government agency, Adult Protective Services. He had come to investigate an anonymous tip that the caregiver intended to harm Jerry Heimann. Greg described the situation to this individual, who immediately used his cell phone to call the police.
Why didn't Greg call the cops the minute he arrived at his father's house and found the furniture gone and the old lady in a state of neglect? Isn't that what any normal person would have done?
How could Greg and his wife prepare and eat dinner in a kitchen where there was blood spatter on the walls and furniture without even noticing it?
Anyone who sets out to analyze whether certain types of behavior are indicative of guilt should start by reading some crime stories to get a sense of what is "normal." The fact is that "normal" behavior is all over the map and very often seems ridiculously naive or clueless when viewed with the benefit of hindsight.
My source for the above is Mom said kill, a book by Burl Barer about the Heimann murder.
Malkmus
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2010
- Messages
- 823
This is true. Big oversight on my part!
Justinian2
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,804
Is this the quote that you refer to? [from translation page 327]
Yes, the cell phone was in the garden at 10:13. It's also safe to assume that the cell phone had been placed their by the murderer [Guede - but that's a non sequitur from only this datum] and that Meredith had been dead for a few minutes.
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
Should we assume that you are trying to cover up for some heinous crime every time you get a fact wrong? You have made sufficient mistakes in your last series of posts here to assure your incarceration for a very long time.
What is the basis for your assumption that Raffaele would have perfect knowledge of Amanda's Knowledge? Amanda could have made the call from outside Raffaele's apartment door where there is a better signal and which is technically "at" the apartment and not "in" the apartment. Raffaele would have no knowledge of this call unless Amanda told him and even if she did tell him that she made the call, he could logically (though incorrectly) assume that she made the call when she was at the cottage.
That you are blind to such simple alternative explanations only shows how biased towards guilt you are. In the motivations report, the judge shows similar blindness. Do you yourself want to be tried in a court where such trivia is twisted into a guilty verdict?
Antony
Graduate Poster
It's very clear that Amanda's naming of Patrick Lumumba was the result of his alleged part in the crime being fed to her by police. Not only that, but she did not testify against him in court, unlike Quintavalle against her.
The responsibility for Lumumba's treatment rests entirely with the Perugia police.
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
Assure my incarceration for a very long time? What the heck are you talking about? Am I facing an upcoming murder trial that I don't know about?
When he told her at the cottage she should call her roommates she didn't tell him she already had. And even if she did call at his apartment where was he at the time? That's right, you don't know.
Someone is lying, either him or her. It's your choice to try and spin a lie into "triva".
christianahannah
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2010
- Messages
- 1,426
Ah Rose. It is quite a step to say that Quintavalle is lying without more information. I realize this is your gut speaking, however, it is not fair to call someone a liar without evidence to back it up.
Blogs, journalists, posters, etc. do not always convey reliable information. The courtroom is the best place to determine the reliability and truthfulness of a witness.
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
If the phones weren't already in the garden at 10:13 they were very near it. As for the time of death I think it's impossible to know with certainity. The time of the attack most likely took place sometime between 9:05 and 9:30.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
I would completely agree with everything you have written here. And if this timing is correct, then it's practically impossible for Knox and Sollecito to have been involved. Therein lies the conundrum.
Sherlock Holmes
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 931
Alt - you must of misunderstood what I'm saying..
I agree with you 100% that Amanda should have called the cell phones when she was going hysterical outside Meredith's door. My reply was to those who stated why didn't any of the others do the same, the reason is simple, the others knew Meredith's phones were at the police station..
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one does not honestly believe to be true with the intention that a person will take it for the truth.
What purpose is gained whether that the call was made at Raffaele's apartment, at Amanda's and Meredith's cottage or any place in between? It is a trivial, insignificant detail. The fact is that Amanda did call Meredith's phones, Amanda did call Filomena and these calls were absolutely made before the postal police even knew about the lost phones.
Of course, if Amanda's and Raffaele's stories were perfectly aligned, I'm sure the claim would then be that they rehearsed the story to get it right and that proves they are guilty.
Judge Massei wrote that Amanda and Raffaele thought they threw the phones off a cliff so they would not be found. If that were true then the phones would have both been smashed into inoperable debris and calling the phones would not have given any indication as to whether the phones were found or not (or so they would believe). So why does Massei say that Amanda's call to Meredith's phones was to determine if they had been found? The answer is that Massei is grasping for straws to justify the conviction. None of it holds together.
Justinian2
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,804
What evidence suggests that the attack wasn't between 9:30 and 10?
Death would have taken 15 minutes at the longest, so it seems an attack as late as 10 could have happened.
I've got to look up the details, but it seem that there were witnesses that saw Amanda and her boyfriend at the boyfriends apartment between 9 and ten. Seems like there was computer activity and phone calls also at the boyfriend's apartment at that time as well.
How long was the walk between the apartments?
Seems impossible that Amanda and her boyfriend could have helped Guede.
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
I thought we had already whacked this mole? Amanda and Raffaele "lied" about events around the day of the murder. Filomena "lied" too. The police "lied" too. Yet when Amanda and Raffaele "lie" (get something wrong) the guilters turn backflips trying to find evidence of guilt in it. When anyone else gets something wrong, as far as the guilters are concerned they just got something wrong.
If you cross-examined me long enough about exactly what I did and when last weekend and I made a good faith attempt to answer every question to the best of my ability, then you cross-examined everyone I knew and assumed that they all had perfect recall because they had no reason to lie, I bet you could catch me in all sorts of "lies" and "contradictions".
Yet when we examine Amanda and Raffaele's "lies" they always seem completely inconsequential. The guilter backflips are frankly often silly: "They lied about the phones so they could delay the discovery of the body by fifteen minutes!", "They lied to make the police chase a false lead and waste their time, which can make all the difference in a major murder investigation!", or the all-purpose "Lying about anything in a murder inquiry is in and of itself evidence of guilt - except if you are Filomena, the police or anyone else!".
A significant number of "lies" only get up in the first place because of prosecution witnesses of dubious reliability who appeared late in the day to miraculously support the prosecution's late time of death, or are based on the potentially flawed recollection of other witnesses.
However in the end the fundamental problem still remains: The stomach contents say Meredith died at a time when the computer records say Amanda and Raffaele were at Raffaele's house. Amanda and Raffaele could have danced on Meredith's grave singing the Hallelujah Chorus and told the police they saw the Easter Bunny running from the scene with a bloody chainsaw, but if they weren't there, they still couldn't have done it.
We've whacked this mole too: If we believed that the court that tried the case, or the judge that wrote the report on it, were reliable sources of fact then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Appealing to the authority of the court is empty if what we are doing is assessing whether that court's verdict holds up to examination.
However it's a simple fact that people's memories get worse over time, not better. I'm happy to call anyone a liar if they simply cannot recall something at all immediately after it supposedly happened, but miraculously come out with a detailed recollection of it long afterwards to make a media splash and support a floundering prosecution theory. Yes, even if a learned judge opines at length that he finds this fairy story plausible.
You mean evidence other than the fact that Orestes Volturno testimony is in contradiction with Quintavalle. Evidence that his story is different from what he told the police and it didn't change until he gave an interview with the media a year later. An interview which he tried to get an employee to verify his story and she didn't.
Courtroom determines reliability and truthfulness of a witness?
Those that believe amanda guilty try and say look she changed her story or she contradicts herself.
Yet, Quintavalle's testimony is contradicted by the statement he gave police days after the murder.
Curatolo's testimony contradicts the prosecutions theory about the case. Kokamani described the wrong person in great detail when on the witness stand.
Capezzali's testimony is contradicted by the people in the car outside the apartment. Plus the distance is extreme for hearing a blood curdling cry thats loud enough to wake you.
Stomach contents contradict the prosecutions ToD.
Footprints where claimed to not have been tested further. Then admitted later in court that they had been.
Knife is claimed to have meredith's dna on it, eventhough the machine registered "too low" numerous times. Then the prosecution refuses to release the data tapes.
Prosecution tried to show the bloody shoeprints where Sollecito's but the evidence showed them to be Guede's.
The prosecution claims the dna on the bra clasp shows that Sollecito was involved in the murder and it was uncontaminated. Yet, Sollecito's DNA was in the LCN range and there was 3 unidentified peoples dna on the clasp also. I guess that means 4 people pulled that bra off by the clasp or its contaminated.
Prosecution charges 3 people with assault and doesn't test the DNA of a fresh semen stain.
Prosecution claims that Knox and Sollecito cleaned the scene with bleach. No evidence was presented to prove the theory of how they could have cleaned the scene without leaving behind traces of a cleaning.
The prosecution changed the motive numerous times during the trial.
The so called confession makes Patrick the murderer and knox a witness. So how does the confession make Knox the murderer? Expecially when its given under duress and she is asked to imagine.
Definition of imagine: http://mw1.meriam-webster.com/dictionary/imagine
I could write pages alone on the mixed dna issue.
Also, all the press leaks given by the prosecution that turned out to be lies.
So if its not fair to call someone a liar then answer these questions.
Now what has Amanda knowingly lied about?
What has the prosecution knowingly lied about?
22.13.29 hours on 1 November 07, where the cell providing the coverage was ..30064 on Strada Vicinale Ponte Rio Monte la Guardia, whose signal, as the on-the-spot measurements carried out by Chief Inspector Latella prove, can be received both at the level of Meredith’s bedroom window and in the courtyard of the cottage on Via della Pergola 7.-Massei, p.327
The "10:13" registered time does not exist. It is 22:13, Nov.1, 2007 and the signal originated from Pergola 7.
Justinian2
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,804
The mops are clearly different, (and not only in color which I suppose could be due to the photograph's exposure). The one outside is square as you pointed out while the one in the cottage has no square edges whatsoever. There is a wrap around blue and white label on the one in the cottage as well as some beige tape or something at the top of the handle which the other doesn't have. The cottage had two mops I guess, one perhaps owned by Laura and one owned by Filomena. The red set looks exactly like a Vileda mop and bucket I have at home, must be sold worldwide.
You seem to be the only one convinced of the precision of basing TOD on stomach contents.
So does Raffaele have to go outside his apartment to wait for his Dad's calls? or to make any calls at all?
- Status