Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris C]

I do not recall seeing this 2008 post from Perugia-Shock in the recent links.

Yeah, its a real eye opener when you consider Rudy is giving the investigators a ToD gift.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I fully agree the TOD is between 9:30 and 10:00 and maybe even a bit earlier, all I'm saying is don't use TOD based on stomach contents regardless if it is correct in this case or not, it doesn't prove it.

I think you should take up the conversation we were having earlier if you want to argue this. The only evidence you have presented for this point is a misinterpreted abstract from an article you haven't even read.

That and Fulcanelli taking someone's lecture notes out of context are the closest you guys have to evidence. You will need more persuasive evidence than that.

Say, a citation to specific peer-reviewed literature that you have actually been bothered to read that shows that t(lag) for a moderately sized meal, consumed without alcohol by a healthy young woman under relaxed circumstances, can plausibly exceed five hours? That would do it.

Kevin_Lowe:

To which paper are you referring?

I don't have MEDline access. Therefore, please post the relevant portions to support your argument.

I wasn't reading this forum when you apparently made this argument and it's not my job to manually search through 140+ pages for this information.

I think you've got some sort of obligation not to come tromping in with an abstract from an article you haven't even read and declaring victory, when in fact you're the second person to try exactly that move with exactly that abstract just in the last ten pages. But whatever, there are no hard and fast rules about understanding an argument here before you jump in.

However it's pretty cheeky to say "Oh, actually, you got me. I never read the article I was basing my claims on. That would be hard. Can you please read it for me, and then copy and paste the relevant bits?". I've already read it, I've already told you what it says, and I've cited the specific part of the article that I refer to. Paragraphs seven to twelve of the discussion. Read them yourself.

Regardless of what ONE PAPER says, as my source (properly quoted, by the way) says, stomach contents cannot be used for determining TOD, as a single factor. Other factors must be included. End of story.

As others have pointed out, absolutely nobody is doing this and I find it very curious that you think we are.

Witness statements we accept as accurate are doing most of the work here. Going by stomach contents alone Meredith could have died anywhere from 19:10 to 21:30, with even more wiggle room out the side depending on how far down the tails of the distribution you are prepared to go.

Witness statements, assisted by the timing established by the movie they watched, close off everything before 21:05 or so. That leaves a very limited window of plausibility for Meredith's time of death.

In addition, a 21:05 time of death or slightly later is quite consistent with the body temperature evidence if you assume Meredith was a few kilos heavier than dead average (inexplicably, they never properly weighed her body as far as we can make out, they just guessed).

So the talking point that we are relying on stomach evidence alone is simply the product of ignorance. The witness statements, the known timing, the stomach contents and the temperature evidence all taken together support a time of death in the 21:05-21:30 range.

"The fundamental problem here is a lack of scientific literacy."
Which is a nice way of saying that I didn't earn that B.S. in Chemistry that I received... thanks, buddy. Hmm, funny, though. Phi Beta Kappa thought I did. And what were your scientific credentials, then?

Unfortunately there's a certain community associated with this case who like to Google-stalk anti-guilt speakers, have allegedly have harassed them in the past, and who demonstrably aren't too fussy about the law when it gets in the way of their obsession with this case. So I'm going to decline to post any more personally identifying information than I need to. I post under my real name, which is risky to begin with when you are dealing with the dangerously deranged.

"You can't just find an abstract that seems to say what you want it to say and declare victory (although if you lack scientific literacy, it might seem to you that this is what other people are doing). You need to find out what the collected, relevant literature actually says."

That article was a review or survey article. Such things exist. And what he says DOES reflect "what the collected, relevant literature actually says."

Did you miss the bit where I told you that the actual article text, which you haven't read, contains a specific caveat which is directly relevant to this case? So in other words, the collected, relevant literature backs us up. The collected, relevant literature says you are wrong, and you would know that if you had actually read the collected, relevant literature rather than trying to bluff based solely on reading the abstract.

Why does every source I consult say that stomach contents are a bad method for determining TOD, and can't be used alone? Yet that is what the sophistry of this forum insists on doing, over and over.

What sources are you talking about? Someone tried exactly this talking point before. So either you're reinventing the wheel with startling consistency or you're reading from the same book.

Whatever those sources you are consulting, they sure as heck aren't the peer-reviewed scientific articles we've been linking to that give the specific mean times and degree of variation expected in t(lag).

Please cite your sources, as I have done. Otherwise, you're just flapping in the wind. Thank you.

You cited one abstract from an article you have not even read. You were not even the first person to cite that abstract without reading it. You may think that this is a useful contribution, but on that point I differ. You could even characterise posting with this kind of limited "research" to back you up as "flapping in the wind".

However in the interest of limiting this sort of flapping on your part here is the post back on page 144 where some of the relevant links were reposted yet again.

 

[Dan O.]

I do not recall seeing this 2008 post from Perugia-Shock in the recent links.

It's been a while. Mary_H posted that link in the original thread.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Just incase your looking for a link to Rudy's confession, which is the real elephant that no one really discusses.

Rudy's original confession. Rudy's confession could be one of the reasons the Defense is trying to move the ToD closer to 2200. So it lines up with his confession. The prosecution never tried to line up Rudy's confession with the ToD in the Knox/Sollecito trial. The prosecution avoided that confession like the plague.

That's an excellent point. Rudy's confession, which apparently has him leaving around 22:00, fits in just fine with a narrative where he murders Meredith some time shortly after 21:05, mucks around in the house, tries to turn her phones off around 22:00, then leaves with them by 22:13 in time for the anomalous ping.

I'd be curious to hear the guilters try to explain why Rudy, in their version of events, would be motivated to put the time of death back before 22:00 in his initial statements to police if he was actually involved in murdering Meredith at 23:30. If he is lying, why lie about that?

 

[Chris C]

That's an excellent point. Rudy's confession, which apparently has him leaving around 22:00, fits in just fine with a narrative where he murders Meredith some time shortly after 21:05, mucks around in the house, tries to turn her phones off around 22:00, then leaves with them by 22:13 in time for the anomalous ping.

I'd be curious to hear the guilters try to explain why Rudy, in their version of events, would be motivated to put the time of death back before 22:00 in his initial statements to police if he was actually involved in murdering Meredith at 23:30. If he is lying, why lie about that?

Actually he claims to leave at 2230hrs. However, Meredith is dead at that point. So that means the attack would have happened before 2200hrs.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think you should take up the conversation we were having earlier if you want to argue this. The only evidence you have presented for this point is a misinterpreted abstract from an article you haven't even read.

That and Fulcanelli taking someone's lecture notes out of context are the closest you guys have to evidence. You will need more persuasive evidence than that.

Kevin, we can read just fine, not only that, but anyone, and I mean anyone who has sourced this at all, knows what we say is the truth, you and a few others just skip over all the ones that don't say what you want to hear, well, hear this, DON'T use Stomach Contents to determine TOD, this subject is not worth debating with you any more, you will not listen.....

 

[Solange305]

I think Americans are confident of the belief that AK and RS are innocent not because of our perfect justice system, but because we know that even our system of justice with arguably more protections for the accused, has failed and failed miserably at times. We aren't saying that the Italian system of justice is worse than the American system of justice, although it does seem worse, we are saying the we know the Italian system can fail because the American system has failed so completely at times.

That's a good point, and more of the public figures defending Amanda should make it, I think it would help alot. Well said.

I do have to point out though, I hope you aren't implying that all or most Americans believe she is innocent? There are many, like myself, who don't at this point (although Im considering what Ive read and I promise I am not ignoring the effort many have made to point things out to me). I noticed even Bob on the radio show, who interviewed Steve Moore, didn't sound too convinced after the end of the interview. Although I am only guessing by his tone, I could be wrong...

 

[Chris_Halkides]

additional reference on luminol

"The forensic luminol test for blood: unwanted interference and the effect on subsequent analysis," A. Nilsson.

This article is readable and it gives a brief discussion of what happens when bloodstains dry out.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin, we can read just fine, not only that, but anyone, and I mean anyone who has sourced this at all, knows what we say is the truth, you and a few others just skip over all the ones that don't say what you want to hear, well, hear this, DON'T use Stomach Contents to determine TOD, this subject is not worth debating with you any more, you will not listen.....

As I said to Danceme before you, and as I'm saying to you and to Fulcanelli, what the heck are you people reading that you think is so authoritative?

We know it's not the peer-reviewed scientific literature, the gold standard for factual accuracy amongst the reality-based community. We're the ones citing that, and you're the ones flailing around for some excuse to deny what it says.

We know it's not even the Massei report, because even Ronchi knows that unless you explain away the lack of matter in Meredith's duodenum the prosecution time of death is sunk.

So what the heck is it you people are reading, that you are convinced is more authoritative than the peer-reviewed scientific literature we have cited? So far it looks like it's a cherry-picked snippet from someone's lecture notes (which ignores that same source's clear statement that we should have reasonable medical certainty that Meredith died before 21:30, or maybe 22:30 at the very latest), one abstract from an article that you haven't read and whose body contains caveats specifically covering the use of stomach data that we are making, and absolutely nothing else.

Yet you are carrying on as if you have "sourced" something more authoritative... what is this source you have sourced, Sherlock?

 

[Dan O.]

Kevin, we can read just fine, not only that, but anyone, and I mean anyone who has sourced this at all, knows what we say is the truth, you and a few others just skip over all the ones that don't say what you want to hear, well, hear this, DON'T use Stomach Contents to determine TOD, this subject is not worth debating with you any more, you will not listen.....

I was not aware that you found a study of T_lag for gastric emptying that contradicted the results of the other studies that had already been presented on this thread. What was the mean and s.d. for T_lag from the study you found? And could you please repost the link to the results of that study.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

That's a good point, and more of the public figures defending Amanda should make it, I think it would help alot. Well said.

I would take it a step further and assert that the US system is in no way, shape or form better than Italy's, and may well be worse. American courts have put many, many innocent people behind bars. I could rattle of any number of cases where US police and prosecutors have collaborated to suppress exonerating evidence, coach witnesses to perjure themselves, squeeze bogus confessions out of terrified suspects, and lie about forensic evidence.

The ordeal Amanda and Raffaele are suffering in Italy is no worse or more unjust than what happened to Kelly Michaels in New Jersey, to cite just one example.

What sets the present case apart from most others is the level of publicity it has received. Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, and getting them out from under this nightmare is a worthy goal in and of itself. My hope is that the discussion and debate around this case will also lead to systemic improvements in criminal justice - not in Italy, but throughout the world.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

problems in all systems of justice

I would take it a step further and assert that the US system is in no way, shape or form better than Italy's, and may well be worse. American courts have put many, many innocent people behind bars. I could rattle of any number of cases where US police and prosecutors have collaborated to suppress exonerating evidence, coach witnesses to perjure themselves, squeeze bogus confessions out of terrified suspects, and lie about forensic evidence.

The ordeal Amanda and Raffaele are suffering in Italy is no worse or more unjust than what happened to Kelly Michaels in New Jersey, to cite just one example.

What sets the present case apart from most others is the level of publicity it has received. Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, and getting them out from under this nightmare is a worthy goal in and of itself. My hope is that the discussion and debate around this case will also lead to systemic improvements in criminal justice - not in Italy, but throughout the world.

Charlie,

You have captured my thinking, but you did so more eloquently than I could have done. Thank you.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I would take it a step further and assert that the US system is in no way, shape or form better than Italy's, and may well be worse.

I've gotten into an acrimonious argument or two on here with our resident lawyers about the relative merits of the Continental and adversarial judicial systems. Personally I think that the adversarial model we use is profoundly idiotic and that the inquisitorial system is much more sensible.

Neither system is perfect, and both can go wrong as long as there are imperfect people in the world, but the adversarial system is deeply flawed in a way that the inquisitorial system is not.

 

[Chris C]

Kevin, we can read just fine, not only that, but anyone, and I mean anyone who has sourced this at all, knows what we say is the truth, you and a few others just skip over all the ones that don't say what you want to hear, well, hear this, DON'T use Stomach Contents to determine TOD, this subject is not worth debating with you any more, you will not listen.....

Personally I believe your view is incorrect and so does the Prosecution in the Knox case. If they didn't believe the stomach contents in this case could prove a different ToD, then why did they accuse the Coroner of not tieing the Stomach properly. The prosecutions claim is the Duodenem wasn't tied properly and that the food in the duodenem leaked down to the other end of the small intestines. According to the prosecution there was food in the duodenem and the coroner was incorrect in his ToD based on Stomach Contents. The prosecution never openly disputed that if there was no food in the duodenem then the time of death was 2 to 3 hours. Instead they attacked the coroner about performing the autopsy wrong. However, the prosecution didn't enter anything into evidence that shows or proves the coroner did the autopsy incorrectly.

 

[Slayhamlet]

I don't know Italian, but I'd confidently guess that "piu tardi" means something like "when it gets late" - and it wouldn't occur to an Italian speaker that it was intended just to mean "next time we meet".

I am open to correction on this one, and I'm certainly not sticking up for the Perugia police. It might just have been the trigger that put into someone's mind that she was hiding something about the events of the night.

I'd advise against "confidently" guessing; più tardi just means "later", i.e. later on, with no implication about the time day. The phrase ci vediamo, which literally means "we'll see each other", is a common form of leave-taking in Italian (a più tardi "until later" is another one). It's just that adding più tardi to ci vediamo is not idiomatic, as such, and the extra bit of information conveyed by più tardi makes it sound like there's a specific time that the speaker has in mind. It's the same difference as between English "see you later" [bye for now] and "we'll see each other later" [perhaps at dinner].

 

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by Antony View Post
I don't know Italian, but I'd confidently guess that "piu tardi" means something like "when it gets late" - and it wouldn't occur to an Italian speaker that it was intended just to mean "next time we meet".

I am open to correction on this one, and I'm certainly not sticking up for the Perugia police. It might just have been the trigger that put into someone's mind that she was hiding something about the events of the night.

I'd advise against "confidently" guessing; più tardi just means "later", i.e. later on, with no implication about the time day. The phrase ci vediamo, which literally means "we'll see each other", is a common form of leave-taking in Italian (a più tardi "until later" is another one). It's just that adding più tardi to ci vediamo is not idiomatic, as such, and the extra bit of information conveyed by più tardi makes it sound like there's a specific time that the speaker has in mind. It's the same difference as between English "see you later" [bye for now] and "we'll see each other later" [perhaps at dinner].

It looks like you both are in agreement with my agreement. I am not entirely confident, however.

 

[RoseMontague]

Personally I believe your view is incorrect and so does the Prosecution in the Knox case. If they didn't believe the stomach contents in this case could prove a different ToD, then why did they accuse the Coroner of not tieing the Stomach properly. The prosecutions claim is the Duodenem wasn't tied properly and that the food in the duodenem leaked down to the other end of the small intestines. According to the prosecution there was food in the duodenem and the coroner was incorrect in his ToD based on Stomach Contents. The prosecution never openly disputed that if there was no food in the duodenem then the time of death was 2 to 3 hours. Instead they attacked the coroner about performing the autopsy wrong. However, the prosecution didn't enter anything into evidence that shows or proves the coroner did the autopsy incorrectly.

What I find really interesting about this is the way the time of death based on stomach contents is treated in the judgment motivations against Rudy in his trial and subsequent appeal.

The Micheli report has this:

Starting the investigations, the Public Prosecutor and the Judicial Police proceeded to reconstruct the movements of the girl in the last hours of life, including moving from the assumptions made by CT in medico-legal point of time of death, to be placed at a distance of not more than 2 or 3 hours after last meal, and likely to be understood happened around 23:00 on November 1, 2007.

And Rudy's appeal motivation (issued 22 December 2009) has this:

The time of death was placed with minimum waste and maximum of one hour, at 23.00 (ie, between the hours. 22.00 and 24.00 hours) of November 1, 2007; this, on the assumption that dinner between it and English friends found to be consumed at; 21.00 earlier, but, according to the GIP, this time could be anticipated timing arc between the hours of 21.00 to 23.00 is, given statements of Sophie Purton, that at 21.00 the dinner was finished, and at that time she Meredith-stood on the way home.

Both of these judgments seem to be using the time dinner was finished as the 2-3 hour starting point AND and they are using that time as roughly 20:00-21:00. Both of these assumptions are not correct. The Micheli report even quotes Sophie as saying dinner was at 6PM or even earlier and it is the start of the main meal that should be the starting point of the 2-3 hour time frame.

Because the defense teams of Amanda and Raffaele made such an issue of the stomach contents and time of death, I believe all this prosecution nonsense outlined in your post was simply an attempt to backtrack on the obvious holes in Rudy's motivation. Of course Rudy still doesn't have an alibi at 9PM (and admits being there at that time) so his defense didn't push this issue the way it was contested in Amanda's and Raffaele's trial.

In any case both of the above motivations are using the stomach contents to pin down a time of death.

 

[loverofzion]

Rudy's confession

More Rudy Confession Information. You will also notice that Rudy also confesses that he can recognize the man that killed Meredith. Its an Italian man with BLACK hair maybe raped and stole her money. He also Mentions the RAPE of Meredith roughly 15 days after the murder. More reason to test the semen stain. Rudy is pointing the finger at a man that has black hair. If I had to guess, i'd say Sollecito's hair is Brown. There is also evidence of black hairs in Meredith's fingernails that have never been tested. So we have untested black hairs, an untested semen sample and Rudy claiming a man with black hair raped and murdered Meredith. There is also mention of money being taken. Everything Rudy has given the police in the last 2 posts I made about his confessions have pointed to someone other than Sollecito.

There was NO evidence of black haris in Meredith's fingernails; that has been disproven as pure rumor.
Rudy said the man he saw was Italian..
He also quoted part of a conversation betwen Meredith and AK as saying, "We have to talk"'preumably eithe Meredith noted her money was missing or was objecting to Amanda bringing home strange men and doing durgs ("drugged up tart")..
You can pick and choose which of Rudy's varying confessions to run with.
but I don't think it will take you too far.
He's guilty as are Amanda and Raffaelo.

 

[Dan O.]

How did Rudy know that the money was stolen?

 

[Chris C]

There was NO evidence of black haris in Meredith's fingernails; that has been disproven as pure rumor.
Rudy said the man he saw was Italian..
He also quoted part of a conversation betwen Meredith and AK as saying, "We have to talk"'preumably eithe Meredith noted her money was missing or was objecting to Amanda bringing home strange men and doing durgs ("drugged up tart")..
You can pick and choose which of Rudy's varying confessions to run with.
but I don't think it will take you too far.
He's guilty as are Amanda and Raffaelo.

Italian man with BLACK hair.