Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[odeed]

Hendricks was a case cited by those defending Knox which showed that time of death could be established by stomach contents, something the defense experts could not do in the Knox trial.

 

[LondonJohn]

"Ha ha" indeed. I am glad discussing the despicable murder of a young girl is so amusing to you. But I will overlook that for now.

What made you think I was laughing at the crime or the victim? And if you're this sensitive, I strongly recommend you don't visit certain other forums dedicated to this case....

As for the abstract you linked to, one point that jumps out at me is:
Yet, your whole argument is predicated on normal distribution. How do you justify that?

I justify that by actually having some knowledge of statistics. Do you know WHY the T(1/2) and T(lag) don't follow the normal curve? It's because in these cases the curve happens not to be exactly symmetrical. The left hand side of the curve is slightly squeezed relative to the right hand side. This means that the arithmetic mean is not the same as the median, and one cannot use standard distributions to ddesribe the curve. This is why the authors quote the median and 25%/75% points on the curve. You'll notice that the 25% point is 16 minutes below the median, and the 75% point is 20.5 minutes above the median. Hence asymmetry.

However, what I know and you don't know is that the shape of the curve either side of the median follows a normal bell pattern - it's just slightly squeezed on the left side of the median relative to the right side. But by knowing the 75% point, one can accurately extrapolate the right side of the curve out, as I have done. Please ask me if you have any further questions on this.

And as others have argued here, this was apparently a carefully controlled experiment (although it's hard to tell from just the abstract), with carefully controlled amounts and conditions of eating.

In real life, people eat more (or less) than in an experiment.

How much was eaten in this experiment? I cannot determine that just from the abstract.

Frankly, I find this subject difficult to research as a layperson with a scientific background, because I do not have easy access to more than medical abstracts. MEDline is too expensive for me to subscribe to.

So, please enlighten us with a real argument based on more than just a bare-bones abstract about one 90-person experiment (only 45 women!), eating under controlled conditions, when Meredith was a real person eating under real conditions (probably greater amount, a different type of food probably, and an extended eating period consisting of three main sub-meals: pizza, ice cream, and apple crumble, spread over 2.5 hours, and even possibly followed by another mini-meal of mushrooms and a small glass of beer or wine).

I don't really understand this. Are you suggesting that all the research is null and void unless it exactly replicates what Meredith ate, and when she ate it? Because if that's what you are saying, then I can't help you....

I supplied an abstract which said that you can't use stomach contents alone to determine time of death. I repeat it here:

Did you ever find a reference that refuted Jaffe? I can't remember.

In this case, it's far easier to pin down a time of death from stomach/duodenum contents. If Meredith had started her pizza meal at 8.30pm, then it would indeed be extremely difficult to narrow her ToD down to anything other than 9.00pm to midnight. But because we know she started the pizza meal by around 6.30pm, and she was definitely still alive at 9.00pm, we can - in this particular instance - fortunately remove most of the imprecision.

As for the duodenum being empty, Dr. Ronchi said the following (pp 178-9 PMF English Translation of the Massei Report):

Thus, we are talking of a possible partial emptying of the stomach before time of death.

Again, as I've said before, a small amount of food matter was found at the very end of Meredith's small intestine. Again, I don't know if you're aware of this, but the average human small intestine is around 5 metres in length, and it's not a rigid tube but a semi-elastic tube (sausage skins are made from pigs' small intestines, as an example of the consistency and elasticity). So Dr Lalli would have had to manipulate food matter along over 4.5m of Meredith's small intestine, if that food matter had actually been present in Meredith's duodenum at the start of the autopsy. This is not feasible or credible.

Regardless, the time of death argument is not critical to the argument for Knox/Sollecito's guilt. They have no alibi from 8:40 pm onward. The computer activity at 9:10 may not have even required human interaction. They certainly have no alibi after about 10 pm if you consider Curatolo their alibi (funny how he's considered reliable by Innocenti when it's convenient for them, and a "bum" that "lies for the police" when that's convenient for them).

Their sole alibi is the girl who wanted to go to the airport. After that, they're each other's alibis. And I don't even remember Sollecito alibi-ing Knox on the stand. Maybe I missed something.

In other words, say they killed Meredith before 10:30 (even though I still don't believe it, because of other evidence). So what. Works for me!

I don't think many of the "innocentisti" find Curatolo credible under any circumstances. They have merely pointed out the irony of him - as a prosecution witness - providing Knox and Sollecito with an alibi if the ToD is before 10pm.

And, for the n-th time, criminal defendants do not NEED to have an alibi in order to defend themselves. It's helpful, of course, but by no means necessary. Rather, it's the job of the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants committed the crimes of which they are accused, and it's therefore incumbent upon the the prosecution to prove that the defendants were at the crime scene at the time when the crime was committed.

And, just incidentally, the girl (Jovana Popovic) didn't want to go to the airport. She wanted to collect a bag from the railway station. And she spoke to Knox - who seemed to be sober and lucid - at 8.40pm. Please tell me what automated software opened the video files on Sollecito's laptop at 9.10pm and 9.26pm. I'd be interested to know.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is one of the most outstandingly poor replies I have ever read. Show us all where any study has found T(lag) times of 5 hours (or even 4.5 hours), for ANY type of meal, then we can talk.

I think we're not gonna talk at all. I already said I will not even take into consideration to start with assuming 5 hours or a 4.5 figure in building any kind of argument. This datum is not needed in a guilt scenario and doesn't exist in the case, on the contrary of what you think. It only exists in your reading of a section of Massei's report. You are betting on a false datum and on a logical premise that has zero functional value in my view.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think we're not gonna talk at all. I already said I will not even take into consideration to start with assuming 5 hours or a 4.5 figure in building any kind of argument. This datum is not needed in a guilt scenario and doesn't exist in the case, on the contrary of what you think. It only exists in your reading of a section of Massei's report. You are betting on a false datum and on a logical premise that has zero functional value in my view.

Huh? So you think Meredith was killed before 10pm then? And that this is not a problem for the Massei reasoning?

 

[Machiavelli]

Huh? So you think Meredith was killed before 10pm then? And that this is not a problem for the Massei reasoning?

To simplify, I'll answer: more or less, yes.
I don't know at what time she was killed by I have a preference for a time around 22:00, and I think it's not a problem for the court of assise's reasoning.

 

[Trigood]

i didn't argue from this forum's authority. What i requested was for you to stop stating 'the court believed it' to back up anything you say. The court's decision is exactly what's in question here, or this thread would not exist.

I did not say I believed it because the court believed it. I said I believed it AND the court believed it. That's an entirely different thing.

Capezzali's testimony is good, credible witness evidence. I don't see anyone discrediting her, let alone "demolishing" her, on this forum. I merely asked you to provide evidence discrediting her. I have seen none.

By the way, the Italian Court of Assize's report may be in contention here, but in most of the reality-based universe, a court of this sort is accorded a certain amount of respect. After all, they took testimony for 9 months or so, weighed it carefully, and came out with a carefully reasoned report. Not that anyone should accept it uncritically, but I think there is a burden on anyone questioning that report, to show how and why they are questioning it.

 

[Withnail1969]

I did not say I believed it because the court believed it. I said I believed it AND the court believed it. That's an entirely different thing.

Capezzali's testimony is good, credible witness evidence. I don't see anyone discrediting her, let alone "demolishing" her, on this forum. I merely asked you to provide evidence discrediting her. I have seen none.

Nara 'Miracle ear lady' Capezzali's testimony is trash, absolute rubbish. We discussed it at some length here a few days ago if you care to look through recent posts. I really can't be bothered to discuss it with you, since you will just repeatedly state that 'the court believed it so it is true'.

 

[Solange305]

I did NOT say they were "lying", but that they were coached - ALL the prosecution witnesses were.

And even then, all they had to offer were anecdotes about the casual bitching that most small peer-groups of young people, particularly women, indulge in with one and other. Mignini then used these and embellished them, to say the least, for his childish "Amanda killed Meredith because she hated her" scenario (motive v.3).



Again, Missy;

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" that you "discern" are even hinted at? Understand?

This is not about "opinions", and spare me the faux "who me? how dare you!" indignation - it is transparent.

I already did. Testimony at trial. And aside from that, wasn't there a Matthew who worked with her at a coffee shop where she oh so kindly reminded him that "her people killed his people"? The pictures of her and Raffaele looking obviously so distraught while picking out underwear, days after her "dear friend's" murder? Police testimony that she did cartwheels in the police station? (I know, I know, everyone in Italy MUST be lying when they say anything negative about her). What do you have showing otherwise? Her mom and dad? Her sister? You consider that to be reliable?

And why aren't you suspended or banned? All of sudden personal attacks are allowed at JREF, even though Fulcanelli and Loverofzion got suspended repeatedly? Is this a joke?

First of all, stop referring to me as Missy. You have already made a joke about MY sex life, and my past drug use, even though it really adds nothing to the discussion. The fact that you need to bully me just because I disagree with you about a murder case is ridiculous. You seem to have some sort of emotional attachment to Amanda and this case, perhaps it is time to step away from the computer and find other ways to enrich your life. At the end of the day, none of us can do much to help or hurt Amanda and Raffaele, their fate is not in our hands.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Do you believe that MacDonald was justly convicted?

Yep. I think if a tribe of Mansonesque murderers who chanted "Acid is groovy, kill the pigs" had been in the vicinity, they would have gotten on the public radar in other ways. And I think they'd have killed MacDonald along with the rest of his family.

When cops first got the call about Diane Downs and her children at the ER, one veteran detective said, "Let me guess: mom's gonna have a gunshot wound in her arm."

He guessed right.

 

[Machiavelli]

Nara 'Miracle ear lady' Capezzali's testimony is trash, absolute rubbish. We discussed it at some length here a few days ago if you care to look through recent posts.

We've not finished discussing it yet. We only suspendend the thread on some dismissive (arrogant and pointless, in my opinion) statements of yours.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

one of the court's mistakes

By the way, the Italian Court of Assize's report may be in contention here, but in most of the reality-based universe, a court of this sort is accorded a certain amount of respect. After all, they took testimony for 9 months or so, weighed it carefully, and came out with a carefully reasoned report. Not that anyone should accept it uncritically, but I think there is a burden on anyone questioning that report, to show how and why they are questioning it.

Trigood,

Dr. Tagliabracci disputed Dr. Stefanoni’s claim that the DNA on the bra clasp matched Raffaele Sollecito’s profile at six loci. Of the six disputed loci from the bra clasp DNA profile, Massei wrote (p. 297 of the PMF translation), “Consequently, there are apparently a considerable number of loci that are not the subject of dispute, a number which seems to be greater than the number of disputed loci and greater than the number of six loci with reference to which Professor Tagliabracci had previously declared, before the current systems were available‚ it was enough ... we made hypotheses even with six loci‛ (page [319] 103). The circumstance now exposed allows, it was held, the following consideration: if, despite the subjective contribution of the geneticist, the interpretative disagreement regarding the non-compatibility of Raffaele Sollecito’s profile with the loci that had contributed to forming trace 165B involved those loci indicated by Professor Tagliabracci during the course of the hearing and at pages 20 and 21 of the previously mentioned memorandum conclusions, it must be held that, for the greatest number of loci at least, the peaks were so clear and the interpretation so sound that they could not be contested. Consequently, the overall result should be considered fully reliable, even disregarding the repetition of the analysis.”

Suppose that a winning lottery number is 12497635834, and I have a lottery ticket that is 12497235834. And suppose I claim that since my ticket has 10 out of the 11 numbers identical, I am a winner. That argument makes as much sense as Judge Massei’s does. In other words the fact that there is agreement at more than six loci (six loci having once constituted a full profile) is simply not relevant. If even one locus does not match Raffaele Sollecito’s profile, then the DNA is not his.

Sollecito’s appeal correctly labels Judge Massei’s argument as running contrary to the principles of forensic genetics. It is possible for Judge Massei to make an honest mistake, but it is also possible that subconscious bias is at play. To call this document “carefully reasoned” is problematic.

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh dear. You're confusing the prosecution's high burden of proof in its attempt to convict Hendricks, with the defence's need to merely show reasonable doubt in the case of Knox and Sollecito.

An example of LJ's method of breaking and mix up arguments. As I already observed on Kevin Lowe's comment, the truth is that if the defence wants to use an argument in the way Kevin Lowe proposes, which is to use it as a firm point (albeit Kevin Lowes has amazingly stepped back from this position in a recent post) able to undermine the whole case independently from the rest of the evidence, they have to prove it. Not just propose its possibility of existence.

 

[Machiavelli]

Suppose that a winning lottery number is 12497635834, and I have a lottery ticket that is 12497235834. And suppose I claim that since my ticket has 10 out of the 11 numbers identical, I am a winner. That argument makes as much sense as Judge Massei’s does.

No, it doesn't. Because a DNA chart is not a lottery ticket with a number stamped on it. A lottery ticket number is something with only one possible reading, there is only one possible sequence. A single DNA chart is more similar to a lottery system.

 

[LondonJohn]

An example of LJ's method of breaking and mix up arguments. As I already observed on Kevin Lowe's comment, the truth is that if the defence wants to use an argument in the way Kevin Lowe proposes, which is to use it as a firm point (albeit Kevin Lowes has amazingly stepped back from this position in a recent post) able to undermine the whole case independently from the rest of the evidence, they have to prove it. Not just propose its possibility of existence.

Which side do you think has the burden of proof in a criminal case? If the defence does produce expert testimony along the lines that Kevin and I have been suggesting, then they don't need to prove that the murder was committed before 10pm. Instead, they would need to show that it's very, very highly likely that the murder was committed before 10pm, and that it's extraordinarily unlikely that the murder was committed after 11pm. If they manage to substantiate these claims, they will by definition introduce elements of reasonable doubt into the prosecution's case (and the court's reasoning) as it stood in the first trial.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, it doesn't. Because a DNA chart is not a lottery ticket with a number stamped on it. A lottery ticket number is something with only one possible reading, there is only one possible sequence. A single DNA chart is more similar to a lottery system.

No, you're wrong.

Let's express DNA profiles in simplified terms, for the purposes of explanation. Suppose there is a ruler running from 0 to 100, and my DNA is known to exhibit loci at positions 4, 16, 29, 48 and 72 on that ruler. If someone finds some DNA at a crime scene, and it exhibits loci at 4, 16, 48 and 72, but not at 29, then the DNA is not mine.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

According to GoogleEarth its about .3 miles. Covering that distance in 5 mins is a about a 16 minute-mile which is a very quick pace. Also that is door step to door step. It does not take into account time taken to leave the RS house (jackets, foors steps, etc), traffic enroute (cars and people), hills (if any), etc. Assuming they were not in a big hurry, I would say it would be 15 minutes from the time he got off the phone to arriving at the cottage.

Amanda herself said it takes 5 minutes, I know, I know, she lies and lies and lies, but on this it is believable because it is all downhill and at a fair slope. I could see it taking longer going the other way, uphill, perhaps 10 minutes.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

character witnesses

I already did. Testimony at trial. And aside from that, wasn't there a Matthew who worked with her at a coffee shop where she oh so kindly reminded him that "her people killed his people"? The pictures of her and Raffaele looking obviously so distraught while picking out underwear, days after her "dear friend's" murder? Police testimony that she did cartwheels in the police station? (I know, I know, everyone in Italy MUST be lying when they say anything negative about her). What do you have showing otherwise? Her mom and dad? Her sister? You consider that to be reliable?

Solange305,

The story about an anonymous person called “Matthew” is from an article with some factual errors. I have never seen direct confirmation from “Matthew” himself that he said it. Maybe it is true; maybe not. As for buying underwear, Amanda did not have any, having no access to her personal belongings.

Two of Amanda’s friends, Andrew Seliber (p. 295, Murder in Italy) and Madison Paxton (the video I linked yesterday), traveled to Perugia at their own expense to testify. These two know Amanda on a day-in, day-out basis. Those actions speak volumes about Amanda’s character to me. Having once or twice in my life made an insensitive remark, I am willing to cut Amanda some slack if that is what she did regarding “Matthew.”

 

[Justinian2]

Funnily enough I never brought up the David Hendricks case, but I assume it was mentioned as it had similarities with the pizza theory being pushed here.

What would the time of death be if T(lag) was 147 minutes as in this study http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/12/1243.pdf instead of the 82 minutes LondonJohn pulled.

Just add 17 minutes. However, move the meal up by 17 minutes and you are right back in the time which fits the most facts the best. I think a 95 percent confidence level is extremely high for this case. I don't think any of the evidence the prosecution used for conviction even has a confidence level.

 

[Machiavelli]

If someone finds some DNA at a crime scene, and it exhibits loci at 4, 16, 48 and 72, but not at 29, then the DNA is not mine.

But this is a particular case, not ours. In our case, we have a chart in which all loci were found. So it's like having a chart with 6 or 7 numbers instad of 5, like: 4, 16, 23, 39, 48, 72, 84.
In this sequence, all your numbers are found. The fact now could be that your lawyer disputes some of them saying that, albeir they are visible in the sequence - aka, readable on the ticket - they do not belong to you. But this only happens after all of them have been found in the sequence. It's a bit like having a ticket which is made with a backgrund of number, and claiming that on the ticket there are some printed numbers in the sequence that do't belong to the serial number but to the background, and/or that there are some numbers on the backround that instead should be interpreted as part of the serial number.
It is quite obvious that this changes the terms of Halides' example.

 

[Justinian2]

I was just reading the front page of http://truejustice.org/. What a piece of ◊◊◊◊! They were wanting people to submit the names of people hostile to Italy as a result of the AK and RS verdict. So Americans that exercise freedom of speech are to be sued? The implication was that H. Clinton wanted the information!

I tried to get on their forum about a year ago. They wouldn't let me on! They didn't know me from Adam, yet they denied my membership. It's a closed site. They don't want freedom of speech unless it is their own.