Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Matthew Best]

Has anyone seen the film? Is it any good? Should I rent it? Or would I be forced to fast forward the dull bits?

I haven't seen it myself, but it gets a very respectable 8.0 at IMDB, though you will probably be more likely to enjoy it if you are female and under the age of 29.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Micheli:

Micheli:

Quote:
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.

Borsini:
Quote:
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.

Matteini:
Quote:
From the first reading of a written summary prepared by dr. Lalli and deposited at the Public Prosecutor on 8.11.2007 concerning the necropsy findings on the body of Meredith Kercher appears that the injury had not affected the carotid for whom death was preceded by an agony quite slow, a fact which can be traced back in time the criminal acts with the result that they may fall between 21.30 and at 23.30 the day 1 November 2007, hours that can retreat from 20.30 to 22.30, if account is taken of consummation of dinner at a time prior to 21.00.

Massei:
Quote:
This court does not hold such a prospect to be sustainable.

This summarizes the essential problem. Massei has rejected the consensus view, based on forensic medicine, in order to make his scenario fit with witness testimony. Lalli got it wrong, but the bum in the park got it right.

 

[Katody Matrass]

It's interesting. Even before the problem of stomach contents emerged, the theory that Meredith was attacked just after arriving home fitted and explained the evidence very well:
Meredith's phone activity, Rudy's feces, broken window, no sign that she did anything at all after arriving home...
And now the same theory is the best explanation for the stomach contents - no need to change anything.

And I'm still waiting to see an alternative explanation of her digestion state that would make any sense.

 

[Chris C]

Wow, callous or what? I think not responding at all would have been better than that.

Callous? Sorry dude but I guess I should inform you that Meredith has passed away. Meredith is no longer suffering. Personally I believe in God. Which means I believe Meredith is in heaven.

The guilters those are the ones that are Callous. They are callous towards Knox/Sollecito. I would go so far as to say some of you guilters enjoy the fact that Knox/Sollecito are suffering in prison for a crime they didn't commit. Nope the real Callous people are the ones that use Meredith as a shield to make others suffer.

 

[Justinian2]

Thank you Kevin for all your hard work re stomach contents. I was wondering if you could run that by me again, as I was having a bit of trouble with the maths. The way I readit, she was already dead before she got home. Where did I go wrong?

Perhaps the apple crumble did for me!

She went through a warp in the space-time continuum

In a galaxy far, far away, MK’s left handed mirror was murdered at 11PM. However, on planet earth, Guede was about to leave and go to a night club, so things had to be sped up. Only trouble – on earth MK’s stomach contents weren’t fully digested, and AK and RS had not yet arrived. However, the memories of the far, far galaxy were implanted into the mind of the prosecution in order to maintain symmetry between the galaxies and prevent cataclysmic cosmic implosion. I hope that clarifies things a bit…

Occam’s Razor was suspended for this post to maintain symmetry between galaxies.

 

[LondonJohn]

It seems that here and elsewhere, some people are unable to grasp the concept of normal distribution as it applies to stomach emptying. I will now attempt to help by explaining how the known research evidence relates to the known evidence from the Kercher case.

Firstly, this is a normal distribution curve:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PR_and_NCE.gif

The normal curve follows a "bell-shaped" pattern, centred upon the median/mean value (the median and mean are the same in a normal distribution). The height of the curve at any given point reflects the relative frequency of the value under inspection, at the corresponding point on the x-axis. In the case of stomach T(lag), the x-axis represents time in minutes, and the y-axis represents frequency of experimental subjects whose T(lag) equals the corresponding point (dropping a certical line) to the x-axis.

As you can see, the curve drops off either side of the mean/median. The rate of decrease in the curve can either be shown in relation to standard deviations either side of the mean (which might be too statistical), or in terms of percentiles either side of the mean. If using percentiles (which are probably more intuitive to people less familiar with statistical analysis), the mean/median lies at the 50% mark - indicating that 50% of subjects lie below the mean/median (and, of course, 50% lie above the mean/median). The percentile scale is shown on the linked normal curve which I've given above.

Now, how does this relate to T(lag) values. Well, experimental data suggest that the mean/median time for T(lag) is 82 minutes. So the 50% mark is at 82 minutes.

In addition, experimental data show that the 75% mark lies at 102 minutes. In other words, 75% of the experimental subjects had a T(lag) of less than 102 minutes - or, put the other way, 25% of subjects had a T(lag) of more than 102 minutes.

What we can do now is plot the median t value and the 75% t value on the normal curve, to give a properly scaled x-axis. Going back to the link above, we make t=82 at the 50% mark, and t=102 at the 75% mark. We can now extrapolate the x-axis to estimate what value of t corresponds to the 95% mark, the 99% mark, the 99.9% mark, and so on.

If we do this, we find that the 95% mark lies at around t=130. In other words, only 5% of people have a T(lag) of greater than 130 minutes (2 hours and 10 minutes). And we find that the 99.9% mark lies at around 170 minutes (2 hours and 50 minutes). So only 0.1% of people have a T(lag) of over 170 minutes. And, although the link I gave doesn't go beyond the 99.9% mark, at t=240 minutes (4 hours), the corresponding percentile is beyond 99.995% - meaning that fewer than one person per 20,000 has a T(lag) time greater than 4 hours.

Having calibrated the normal curve using experimental data, we can now match it to the Kercher case. The clock starts when Meredith started her final pizza meal. For the sake of argument, let's say that she started that meal at 18.30. Of course, if Meredith had been right on the mean/median mark of the normal curve, her T(lag) would have been 82 minutes. 18.30 + 82 minutes = 19.52. But we know categorically that she was still alive at ten minutes to 8, since she was watching a DVD with her friends. In fact, we categorically know that she was alive until 21.00, which is 150 minutes after the start of her meal.

Now we go back to the values we extrapolated earlier on the normal curve. They show that only 5% of people have a T(lag) of more than 130 minutes, and only 0.1% have a T(lag) of more than 170 minutes.

So, since we know that Meredith definitely passed the 150-minute mark, we must accept that she is already very unusual in her T(lag) physiology. In fact, 150 minutes corresponds to around the 98% mark, implying that only 2% of people have a T(lag) of 150 minutes or more. But only 0.1% of people have a T(lag) of 170 minutes or more, and less than 0.005% have a T(lag) of over 240 minutes.

So, since we know that Meredith's T(lag) has to be greater than 150 minutes, we can estimate the probability that it was between 150 minutes and 170 minutes, or between 170-240 minutes, or over 240 minutes:

Suppose we took 100,000 people and analysed their T(lag). The experimental data suggest that 2% of these people would have T(lag) greater than 150 minutes, equating to 2,000 people. Meredith must be one of these people.

Now, we know that 0.1% of people have a T(lag) of over 170 minutes, which equates to 100 people from our 100,000 group.

So, of the 2,000 people with T(lag) over 150 minutes, 100 of them have a T(lag) greater than 170 minutes. This also of course means that 1,900 of them have a T(lag) of 150-170 minutes.

And we also know that 0.005% have a T(lag) greater than 240 minutes, equating to 5 of our 100,000 sample group. So of the 100 with T(lag) greater than 170 minutes, 5 have T(lag) greater than 240 minutes, and 95 have T(lag) between 170-240 minutes.

Now we can put everything together. Of the 2,000 people with T(lag) over 150 minutes, 1,900 had T(lag) of 150-170 minutes, 95 had T(lag) of 170-240 minutes, and 5 had T(lag) over 240 minutes.

Plugging this back into Meredith's timeline, it means that her probability of dying between 9.00pm and 9.20pm (t=150-170 minutes) was 1900/2000 = 95%. Her probability of dying between 9.20pm and 10.30pm (t=170-240 minutes) was 95/2000 = 4.75%. And her probability of dying after 10.30pm (t>240 minutes) was 5/2000 = 0.25%.

 

[colonelhall]

The other night, Mrs. Hall and myself sat down to watch "Big Deal At Dodge City" staring that esteemed actor Paul Ford. We treated ourselves to one of Tesco's finest pizzas, which we almost finished of in one go, such was our appetite.

As we had seen the film numerous times, we fast-forwarded the bits with Henry Fonda and then had a break, whilst we popped an M&S treacle tart into the oven. This we ate, whilst watching the rest of the film.

As the credits rolled, we were pooped and ready for bed. However, I spied on last slice of pizza on Mrs. Hall's plate, which I popped into my mouth, whilst her back was turned?

Did I do wrong? Do you think that this had anything to do with the tummy rumbles that kept Mrs. Hall awake that night?

 

[Solange305]

Thanks for the kind words!

Currently I'm not posting anything that might serve to identify me to the nutbags, sorry. Solange among others seems very interested in attempts to pin down my identity, and there have been allegations of harassment by guilters directed at anti-guilt speakers in the past. So I can't really talk about geography or my hobbies currently.

Also I'd like to get it on the permanent record that someone has copied at least one of my JREF forum posts verbatim to the Perugia Shock blog's comments section. Whoever is doing that, I would prefer that you didn't, and if you absolutely must then please give credit to me and link back to the original post here. Technically it's copyright infringement, but more importantly it's bad manners.

Kevin, I do not want to pin down your identity, I would never do that. I thought the post at Shock was funny, simply because the post it was in response to (you know, the one where you stated that only those who agree with you are critical thinkers) was so outrageous. Having said that, I do not condone any personal information of anyone being leaked, nor do I condone harassment. I still have no idea who you are, and I don't care who anyone's identity is in real life.

 

[Solange305]

you missed it

Thank you Rose, I wasnt trying to be a smartass, I really did miss it. I skimmed it a good two times and didnt see their names anywhere. I guess I shouldnt be posting so early in the morning next time...

 

[Solange305]

it seems pretty silly that guilters and innocenti can't just all talk on the same forum. the reason they can't is the power-crazed mods on PMF are forever banning people or otherwise driving posters away, often using foul language in the process.

I agree it does seem kind of silly how we all talk about the same thing in two different places, yet refer to the other lol. I have to point out though, there are plenty of "innocenti" over here who keep getting suspended too.

 

[Solange305]

It seems that the question has come up that this article is not referring to doubts by Italians but rather doubts by Americans about the case. I don't see it as even remotely possible that this is what the article refers to. Solange and colonel hall....Do you think this is referring to doubts that Americans have?

I honestly couldnt tell. I didnt understand the google translation very well, I gave up reading it

 

[Solange305]

I like the rabbits. I guess it is a matter of personal preference. It shows the humanity of the posters there. They are people as well, and anybody that has a love for animals can't be all bad in my book.

That's a nice thing to say Rose, it says alot about someone who can compliment even those she argues with.

 

[Solange305]

Noted - the clumsy segue from "I don't know either" to "but [I know] it was enough to bother Meredith".

You don't KNOW any such thing because there is NO first-hand, contemporaneous record of her saying or writing anything of the sort.

There is only the court testimony, two years after she died, of two of her British frends who were summoned as prosecution witnesses. Both were still naive, impressionable young women who were undoubtedly coached for the purpose:-

".... Robyn, Sophie; in hindsight, can you remember anything Meredith said that might have implied ill-will was growing between them? Little things that might not have seemed important at the time .....".



like any attractive, intelligent and gregarious young woman, if she wasn't actually beating them off with a stick, it's safe to assume that Amanda was never short of propositions by men wanting to bed her on sight (particularly at university), but we DO actually know that despite this, her grand total of lovers by the time she was thrown in jail at the age of 20 was seven (and we only know this, of course, thanks to the despicable behaviour of her captors).

Of course, that isn't to say that your modest virtue, in the face of undoubtedly the same temptation as Amanda, isn't admirable.




So, you have been able to judge Amanda's "character as a whole"? That's nice. Can you do that with everyone you read about?

However Missy, as I've asked of your fellow water-carriers; instead of simply blessing us with your extraordinary insight, why don't you show us a verifiable source for a statement or testimony from someone who actually knows or is acquainted with her in which the "many negatives in Amanda's character" are even hinted at?

Of course, you can't, because there are absolutely NONE. In fact they unanimously (yeh, I can see loverofzion's pithy riposte coming) say precisely the opposite. Are you sriously expecting anyone to believe that you are able to perceive traits in a person you've never met which they've concealed completely from their own family, friends and peers for their entire life? This, presumably, from reading the press? Can you perhaps see how ridiculous that is?

There is NO basis in reality for the absurd (and frankly rather nasty) surmises about AK's character that you and others make, they are real only in your minds, which might be revealing of someone's character, but it surely isn't Amanda's.

So what is YOUR basis for reality? Did you know her? No. Do you know for a fact that the people who testified were lying? No. You assume you do because they were prosecution witnesses? So does that mean that any defense witnesses that say anything positive about Amanda are lying as well? So what more can any of us go by than what those around her say?

Unless you can prove that you knew her as well as these people, you have NO right to judge what my characterization of her is. Im sick of your absolutely indignant responses just because i have an opinion of someone indicted for murder, someone who none of us knows personally. No one is insulting your daughter or mother, stop acting like it. If you disagree with how she is being portrayed, at least try to discuss it calmly and rationally like others here have.

 

[Solange305]

Admit it, you're obsessed with me. Just admit it Supernaut lol

 

[piktor]

The other night, Mrs. Hall and myself sat down to watch "Big Deal At Dodge City" staring that esteemed actor Paul Ford. We treated ourselves to one of Tesco's finest pizzas, which we almost finished of in one go, such was our appetite.

As we had seen the film numerous times, we fast-forwarded the bits with Henry Fonda and then had a break, whilst we popped an M&S treacle tart into the oven. This we ate, whilst watching the rest of the film.

As the credits rolled, we were pooped and ready for bed. However, I spied on last slice of pizza on Mrs. Hall's plate, which I popped into my mouth, whilst her back was turned?

Did I do wrong? Do you think that this had anything to do with the tummy rumbles that kept Mrs. Hall awake that night?

But, yes!

Your account is so precise and detail-laden.

Pizza, dessert and whatever. The mathematical translation will be served at no one's request momentarily- to the last nanogram/t-lag value. Exactly!

 

[LondonJohn]

But, yes!

Your account is so precise and detail-laden.

Pizza, dessert and whatever. The mathematical translation will be served at no one's request momentarily- to the last nanogram/t-lag value. Exactly!

The science and statistics explain everything pretty well. I hope that you can understand them.

 

[Trigood]

It seems that here and elsewhere, some people are unable to grasp the concept of normal distribution as it applies to stomach emptying. I will now attempt to help by explaining how the known research evidence relates to the known evidence from the Kercher case.

Firstly, this is a normal distribution curve:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PR_and_NCE.gif

The normal curve follows a "bell-shaped" pattern, centred upon the median/mean value (the median and mean are the same in a normal distribution). The height of the curve at any given point reflects the relative frequency of the value under inspection, at the corresponding point on the x-axis. In the case of stomach T(lag), the x-axis represents time in minutes, and the y-axis represents frequency of experimental subjects whose T(lag) equals the corresponding point (dropping a certical line) to the x-axis.

As you can see, the curve drops off either side of the mean/median. The rate of decrease in the curve can either be shown in relation to standard deviations either side of the mean (which might be too statistical), or in terms of percentiles either side of the mean. If using percentiles (which are probably more intuitive to people less familiar with statistical analysis), the mean/median lies at the 50% mark - indicating that 50% of subjects lie below the mean/median (and, of course, 50% lie above the mean/median). The percentile scale is shown on the linked normal curve which I've given above.

Now, how does this relate to T(lag) values. Well, experimental data suggest that the mean/median time for T(lag) is 82 minutes. So the 50% mark is at 82 minutes.

In addition, experimental data show that the 75% mark lies at 102 minutes. In other words, 75% of the experimental subjects had a T(lag) of less than 102 minutes - or, put the other way, 25% of subjects had a T(lag) of more than 102 minutes.

What we can do now is plot the median t value and the 75% t value on the normal curve, to give a properly scaled x-axis. Going back to the link above, we make t=82 at the 50% mark, and t=102 at the 75% mark. We can now extrapolate the x-axis to estimate what value of t corresponds to the 95% mark, the 99% mark, the 99.9% mark, and so on.

If we do this, we find that the 95% mark lies at around t=130. In other words, only 5% of people have a T(lag) of greater than 130 minutes (2 hours and 10 minutes). And we find that the 99.9% mark lies at around 170 minutes (2 hours and 50 minutes). So only 0.1% of people have a T(lag) of over 170 minutes. And, although the link I gave doesn't go beyond the 99.9% mark, at t=240 minutes (4 hours), the corresponding percentile is beyond 99.995% - meaning that fewer than one person per 20,000 has a T(lag) time greater than 4 hours.

Having calibrated the normal curve using experimental data, we can now match it to the Kercher case. The clock starts when Meredith started her final pizza meal. For the sake of argument, let's say that she started that meal at 18.30. Of course, if Meredith had been right on the mean/median mark of the normal curve, her T(lag) would have been 82 minutes. 18.30 + 82 minutes = 19.52. But we know categorically that she was still alive at ten minutes to 8, since she was watching a DVD with her friends. In fact, we categorically know that she was alive until 21.00, which is 150 minutes after the start of her meal.

Now we go back to the values we extrapolated earlier on the normal curve. They show that only 5% of people have a T(lag) of more than 130 minutes, and only 0.1% have a T(lag) of more than 170 minutes.

So, since we know that Meredith definitely passed the 150-minute mark, we must accept that she is already very unusual in her T(lag) physiology. In fact, 150 minutes corresponds to around the 98% mark, implying that only 2% of people have a T(lag) of 150 minutes or more. But only 0.1% of people have a T(lag) of 170 minutes or more, and less than 0.005% have a T(lag) of over 240 minutes.

So, since we know that Meredith's T(lag) has to be greater than 150 minutes, we can estimate the probability that it was between 150 minutes and 170 minutes, or between 170-240 minutes, or over 240 minutes:

Suppose we took 100,000 people and analysed their T(lag). The experimental data suggest that 2% of these people would have T(lag) greater than 150 minutes, equating to 2,000 people. Meredith must be one of these people.

Now, we know that 0.1% of people have a T(lag) of over 170 minutes, which equates to 100 people from our 100,000 group.

So, of the 2,000 people with T(lag) over 150 minutes, 100 of them have a T(lag) greater than 170 minutes. This also of course means that 1,900 of them have a T(lag) of 150-170 minutes.

And we also know that 0.005% have a T(lag) greater than 240 minutes, equating to 5 of our 100,000 sample group. So of the 100 with T(lag) greater than 170 minutes, 5 have T(lag) greater than 240 minutes, and 95 have T(lag) between 170-240 minutes.

Now we can put everything together. Of the 2,000 people with T(lag) over 150 minutes, 1,900 had T(lag) of 150-170 minutes, 95 had T(lag) of 170-240 minutes, and 5 had T(lag) over 240 minutes.

Plugging this back into Meredith's timeline, it means that her probability of dying between 9.00pm and 9.20pm (t=150-170 minutes) was 1900/2000 = 95%. Her probability of dying between 9.20pm and 10.30pm (t=170-240 minutes) was 95/2000 = 4.75%. And her probability of dying after 10.30pm (t>240 minutes) was 5/2000 = 0.25%.

Still using stomach contents to determine TOD, I see, Lo-J.

Well, I guess it's a free country.

But I guess the fact that real pathologists would never do so doesn't seem to trouble you at all? Hmm?

Fake statistics aside, who's to say (even if your calcs are correct, which is highly unlikely; for example you have cited no evidence to support your t(lag) value or anything else) that Meredith was not one of the 5 in 2000 you posit?

And no, the "probability" of her being in that group is not 5 in 2000, or 5 in 2 million.

She was who she was. She had the digestive tract she had. You cannot know anything about it from your fake statistical analyses.

Anyway, she died when she died. Which was after 2300, according to the very credible testimony of Nara Capezzali, which was accepted by 2 professional and 6 lay judges in the very competent Perugia Court of Assizes.

 

[LondonJohn]

Still using stomach contents to determine TOD, I see, Lo-J.

Well, I guess it's a free country.

But I guess the fact that real pathologists would never do so doesn't seem to trouble you at all? Hmm?

Fake statistics aside, who's to say (even if your calcs are correct, which is highly unlikely; for example you have cited no evidence to support your t(lag) value or anything else) that Meredith was not one of the 5 in 2000 you posit?

And no, the "probability" of her being in that group is not 5 in 2000, or 5 in 2 million.

She was who she was. She had the digestive tract she had. You cannot know anything about it from your fake statistical analyses.

Anyway, she died when she died. Which was after 2300, according to the very credible testimony of Nara Capezzali, which was accepted by 2 professional and 6 lay judges in the very competent Perugia Court of Assizes.

Haha OK. You continue to believe what you choose to believe, and I will believe what I (and medical science) choose to believe. Fair enough.

The studies behind T(lag) variation have been posted on here many times before. But if you can't be bothered to look for them yourself, here's one to whet your appetite:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1440-1746.2006.04449.x/abstract

Let me know if you'd like me to point out the relevant parts to you.

 

[Withnail1969]

Anyway, she died when she died. Which was after 2300, according to the very credible testimony of Nara Capezzali, which was accepted by 2 professional and 6 lay judges in the very competent Perugia Court of Assizes.

Capezzali's testimony has been pretty conclusively demolished here on this forum in recent days. Please do not attempt to argue from authority using the court's decision on this forum.

 

[Fine]

That may be. I simply don't know. I am not willing to go through the tedious task of google translating Micheli again (didn't save it the first time) but perhaps someone else has the applicable section already. It was discussed several times on PMF and if I remember correctly the lividity showed she had lain somewhat face down or sideways for a period of time. Either way I don't have a cite.

That's a lot of presumption of utter incompetance there Kevin. Do you honestly think the defense are simply guessing, unlike you for instance?



Wow, callous or what? I think not responding at all would have been better than that.

_________________

One piece of the forensic evidence for Meredith being moved after her death is this: In a pool of blood on the floor there was found an impression of Meredith's shoulder and bra strap. It was concluded that the blood must have been somewhat coagulated for said impression to form, and so, at that time, Meredith had died. Meredith---and her bra---were moved some time after the impression was formed, therefore after her death.

It isn't clear to me that Massei's reconstruction of the dynamics of the assault is inconsistent with Meredith's body being moved after death. Perhaps Massei regarded the impression to be ambiguous. Maybe not.

///